Doncaster Local Plan 2018 Draft Policies & Proposed Sites Consultation Summary

www.doncaster.gov.uk

Draft Policies & Proposed Sites Consultation – September 2018 Summary of Comments Received & DMBC Responses

Scope of Consultation

The draft Local Plan policies (73 in total) were published as part of a Policy document for comments to be provided, although the scope only included the policies themselves as opposed to any supporting/explanatory text. The vast majority of the supporting evidence base for the Local Plan was also published at the same time, such as the Phase 3 Green Belt Review, Economic Forecasting and Housing Needs Assessment, Viability Testing and so forth. The Interim Sustainability Appraisal (SA) was also published for comments. A consultation booklet asking a number of specific questions in respect to both the policies and evidence base/SA was made available alongside a response form, although comments were accepted in whatever format they were returned.

One of the main aspects of the consultation was in respect to site allocations for housing, employment and minerals sites in order to meet the development needs of the borough over the plan period.

The consultation identified sufficient housing sites to deliver the housing target of 920 net new homes per year over the plan period to 2032 (15,640 new homes) and a plan period employment land requirement of 407 hectares to ensure sufficient land is identified to grow the economy by 1% per annum in line with the Sheffield City Region Strategic Economic Plan;

Housing sites were proposed in line with the Settlement Hierarchy and distribution around the borough approved previously for consultation by Full Council in spring 2016, and in accordance with national planning policy in respect to Green Belt and flood risk. The housing that could be expected to be built on the sites shown in the consultation totalled 17,481 new homes (+1,841 houses compared to the 15,640 target, or an annual average of 1,028 compared to the 920). Of this total:

 11% (1,960 new homes) of the sites being proposed to be allocated were within the Green Belt;  18% (3,090 new homes) of the sites being proposed to be allocated were currently designated as Countryside Policy Area;

The Local Plan will also allocate some very large sites (e.g. Unity) which may not all be complete before 2032, but the entire site is being allocated and could be built if the market supports higher than average sales/completions. These sites provided an additional housing potential of 3,047 new homes. Sufficient land was therefore being proposed to be allocated in the Local Plan for 20,528 new homes, or 1,208 new homes per year. This figure is not a minimum for new housing either because a Local Plan site allocation is not the only way that housing will come forward. For example, additional housing will be provided from windfall development (sites not allocated in the local plan) or permissions from the smaller villages which are excluded from the above figures.

Of the 209 sites proposed to be allocated for housing in the Local Plan, 80% (168 sites) were on smaller/medium sized sites (less than 100 houses) which would be of interest to the smaller and

1 medium sized builders. Additional housing (up to 1,200 new homes) at the Airport was also subject to the consultation which would all be additional supply to the numbers set out above and the majority of this is conditional on the basis of significant job creation being delivered in and around the Airport first and foremost;

Large employment site allocations were proposed at the Airport, Carcroft Common and at Bradholme, Thorne. Other employment sites subject to existing permission will also contribute towards the employment land requirement such as at Askern (former Saw Mills); Armthorpe (Westmoor Park and Hatfield Lane); Hatfield-Stainforth (Unity); and, Rossington (Iport). 2 minerals sites were also proposed via the consultation.

All of the consultation material is still available to view via: www.doncaster.gov.uk/localplan

Summary of Consultation Approach/Techniques

Informal consultation ran for a period of just over 6 weeks (Thursday 13th September to Friday 26th October 2018). Everybody on the Local Plan database (circa 2,500 contacts) received notification via e-mail. The Council’s Communications Team put out press releases and ran articles on social media (e.g. Facebook/Twitter) which were re-tweeted/posted by the Council’s Planning Team. Members of the Local Plans Team met all DMBC Ward Members and attended circa 15 Town/Parish Councils Meetings during the consultation period. A number of internal meetings were held with DMBC stakeholders as well as some external bodies (e.g. Education, CPRE). Officers attended Business Doncaster Property Forum to present. Proposed sites (excluding those that already had planning permission) had site notices posted around the site to publicise the consultation.

Overall Response

A total of around 1,200 separate responses were received following the close of the consultation, broadly broken down as follows:

 927 x Individual letters/e-mails/completed response forms;  265 x Standard letters objecting to proposed sites;  4 x Petitions objecting to proposed sites.

This is a significantly larger response compared to previous comparable consultations. Around 700 (or 58%) of responses received were from ‘new customers’ (including agents/developers and individuals) who have not engaged with the local plan so far. Broadly, the responses can be broken down as follows:

 Individuals/Members of the Public/Communities = 980;  Landowners/Developers/Agents = 142;  Infrastructure Providers = 10;  Statutory Consultees = 3;  Neighbouring/SCR Local Planning Authorities = 6;  DMBC Ward Members = 11;  Town/Parish Councils = 21;  Internal DMBC Stakeholders = 8;  External Stakeholders = 15 (e.g. Sheffield City Region Combined Authority/Campaign to Protect Rural England).

At the end of the consultation, the DMBC Facebook post/article had reached 20,812 people which resulted in 155 comments being posted (additional to the above figures) and was shared by 103 people. The post resulted in 2,197 ‘clicks’ through to the local plan consultation part of DMBC’s website. A number of individuals felt that they should have been contacted by letter and that the publicity was not sufficient given the importance of the consultation and some suggest DMBC have deliberately tried to progress the plan without undertaking proper consultation.

Summary of Responses

Broadly, the responses received relate to the following areas:

 Vision & Objectives – 91 separate consultees have commented on the draft Vision & Objectives for the local plan – most are broadly supportive of these although a number identify allocations as being in conflict with certain individual objectives in relation to protection of countryside/Green Belt etc;  Draft Policies - 142 separate consultees have commented on the 73 draft local plan policies making 753 separate comments. The policies that have attracted the highest number of comments being (Policy 2: Spatial Strategy and Settlement Hierarchy x 66 comments; Policy 3: Level and Distribution of Growth x 58 comments; Policy 6: Housing Allocations x 39 comments; and, Policy 29: Open Space Provision in New Developments x 32 comments). Every policy received at least one comment.  Proposed/Rejected Sites – This was the part of the consultation that by far attracted the highest level of response. 592 people made comments in respect to housing sites, and 188 people commented in respect to employment sites: o Housing - The vast majority of the responses to the consultation were from our residents and communities and focussed on proposed housing sites and are generally raising objections for various reasons which have been summarised as part of this report. The summary focuses on the sites which received the highest numbers of responses, although as per Planning Applications it is not the number of responses received but the material Planning considerations raised by them that can have the largest influence on whether changes to the plan should be made. It should be noted that some of the objections do not relate to material planning matters but have still been summarised and set out as they are nevertheless important issues and concerns for people locally. In general, objections have been received to virtually all the proposed housing sites on land currently designated as Green Belt or Countryside, although other urban sites have also attracted objections including sites already allocated for housing in the Unitary Development Plan and Brownfield sites; o Employment Sites - There were very few comments in relation to the proposed employment sites with the exception of both the proposed (Ref: 160 Bradholme) and rejected (Ref:001 Thorne North J6) sites at Thorne; a summary of employment sites feedback is set out in this report.  Housing Growth at Thorne & Moorends - 43 x individual responses (including the Thorne & Moorends Neighbourhood Plan Group) to the consultation objecting to the emerging Local Plan and its policy approach to future housing development at Thorne-Moorends. In summary, the comments were that avoidance of flood risk is not a reason to curtail future

growth and much needed regeneration in the area as flood risk is something that can be mitigated rather than avoided;  Sustainability Appraisal – 18 people commented on the supporting Sustainability Appraisal Report, including all of the Statutory Consultees.  Other evidence base documents also attracted a number of people commenting, including the Green Belt Review (61 people), Economic Forecasting & Housing Needs Report (44 people) and Settlement Background Paper (42 people).

New Sites or revised site boundaries

 Following the close of the consultation, a total of 64 new or revised site boundaries were put to the Council for consideration. Of these, 55 were considered as being reasonable options (i.e. sites that have potential to be allocated in line with the preferred strategy) and therefore required to be assessed and considered through the Publication version of the Local Plan.

Local Plan Vision and Objectives Q1 – Do you agree with the Vision and the Objectives? If not, how should they be amended?

Representation Representation Summary of Response DMBC Response Reference Name 03067 Mr Joseph No vision or objective for Thorne/Moorends are worthy of comment. Comment Noted: The vision and objectives reflect the Blackham Neighbourhood Plan has been totally disregarded. Concept of local strategy for the borough as a whole. No changes homes for local people totally disregarded. Flood Zone 3 is not a proposed compelling argument to exclude Thorne/Moorends when its happening throughout the country. 04513 Mr Samuel Seem relatively clear, however the proposals do little to align with Comment Noted: The vision and objectives reflect the Foster them. Requirement to consider the aesthetics of local areas, improving strategy for the borough as a whole. No changes the quality of the region and focusing on Brownfield sites are not then proposed. Site representations have been individually seen through he proposed sites. assessed and the most sustainable options proposed. See sites information for further detail 04516 Dan Gillon Well thought out and considered, sensible in considering local needs. Comment Noted: No changes proposed. Q7 - look forward for Auckley plan being amended accordingly in relation to site 1013. 03646 Cllr Susan Does not meet the views of local communities in Thorne and Comment Noted: The vision and objectives reflect the Durant Moorends. Done intensive consultation and developed Thorne and strategy for the borough as a whole. No changes Moorends Neighbourhood Plan. Disappointing that Local Plan does not proposed reflect local interest and demonstrates lack of understanding of local needs and views. 04579 Carol Wileman The vision and objectives are admirable but has anyone taken a good Comment Noted: The vision and objectives reflect the hard look at the Doncaster we live in. Any business of quality in town is strategy for the borough as a whole. No changes vacating or downsizing and its not a nice place to go unless you have proposed. Policies to encourage regeneration are to. You should concentrate your efforts on making what you have included in the plan. No changes proposed pleasurable. 04581 Alison Briggs Agree with Q1 and Q2. Comment Noted (1) & (2) 0515 Paul Agree Comment Noted Whitehurst 01402 Cllr Austin Askern should be one of the town and villages being proposed for Comment Noted: The vision and objectives reflect the White housing growth. Askern must be a sustainable town and any strategy for the borough as a whole. No changes development will make use of and sustain existing services and proposed. Comment relates to allocations in relation to infrastructure. Needs a higher allocation that will provide local houses settlement hierarchy and required housing numbers. for local people. Railway station in Askern is included and supports this objective. 03182 Sarah & Peter Endorse the ethos of the Local Plan. Comment Noted Jones 03525 Simon Slatford Support growth in MUA, Main Towns, service towns and larger villages. Comment Noted: The vision and objectives reflect the (on behalf of D However Plan should actively encourage growth at sustainable rural strategy for the borough as a whole. No changes J Silk) settlements. Housing allocations should be made at all of the main proposed. Representation does not agree with area service centres. Justification for the approach of no allocations at specific allocations in the context of service towns and Tickhill is not robust. villages in the settlement hierarchy. Since the The approach by the Council in relation to Tickhill is considered to be consultation was undertaken a site allocation has been unnecessary, unsustainable and contrary to the Vision and Objectives identified at Tickhill which goes some way to meeting the in the draft Plan. town’s housing requirement. 04297 ELG Planning Support Rossington as a Main Town. Comment Noted (On behalf of Rossington Hall Investments) 0569 Theatres Trust Support in particular the objective to enhance the vitality of Comment Noted Doncaster's town centres to make Doncaster a more attractive place to live, visit and work. This is consistent with our focus to bring the Grand back to use and ensure the district's other cultural facilities are supported and enhanced. This is emphasised in point 4 under paragraph 3.5 and point 6.

01263 Barnby Dun Does not agree with the Vision and Objectives of the Local Plan. Comment noted. Comments relate to housing need and with Kirk Housing targets set by simple mathematical approach i.e. by applying a settlement strategy not the vision and objectives. Sandall Parish percentage increase based on the number of existing homes. Does not Council take into account existing infrastructure - highways, public services.

0003 Rotherham Supports - will contribute towards wider City Region. Comment Noted MBC

0586 Brodsworth Supportive of the aspirational growth target. Comment Noted Parish Council 0734 Auckley Parish Concerned about protection of locality in face of development. Want Comment noted. Comments relate to sustainable housing Council to maintain a sustainable community. Need to understand the need, associated infrastructure, settlement strategy, and implications of mineral development and impact on road structure minerals development not specifically the vision and assuming quarry remains the same. Seek assurances re sustainable objectives. transport, walking rights of way, protection of trees and woodland, hedgerows, valuing biodiversity, open space provision. Response lists 15 sites that the PC wishes to protect. 0756 Warmsworth Supportive. Aspirational growth target is worth setting. Welcomes Comment noted. Parish Council development of affordable and sheltered housing and adequate provision of housing for first time buyers and job seekers. 01076 South Yorkshire Objective 6: propose an amendment: “conserve and, where Objective 6: Comment noted. The Objective wording has Archaeology appropriate, enhance those elements that contribute to the been amended to say… ‘Conserve and, enhance those Service significance of Doncaster’s designated and non-designated heritage heritage assets that make up Doncaster’s historic assets and help to secure a sustainable future for those buildings and environment in a manner appropriate to their structure at risk” significance.’ The heritage policy in the local plan has also been amended to account for heritage assets and structure at risk.to secure a sustainable future for buildings

0129 Home Builders Generally supportive re distribution of growth. Objective 4 - Generally Comment noted. Minor amendment proposed to Federation supportive although could be interpreted as prioritisation of BF sites. wording of objective 11 to make it more clear; deleting Objective 11 - Seek clarity - not clear how growth in homes and jobs words ‘provide and ‘necessary’ to say… link the growth in links to infrastructure. homes and jobs to new and improved infrastructure to create healthier and more vibrant well connected neighbourhoods and communities; 05043 John Seale In your Local Plan Vision & Objectives document it states a more Comment Noted. Comment relates to sustainable attractive, healthier, safer place to live will be the vision and that new housing need, associated infrastructure, settlement developments (will be) taking account of their local surroundings and strategy. The vision and objectives reflect the strategy for character. Building 250 homes in Warning Tongue Lane will not meet the borough as a whole. No changes proposed. the criteria specified in your document. 03651 Cllr Mark Does not reflect the vision that has been provided in the Thorne and Comment Noted: The vision and objectives reflect the Houlbrook Moorends Neighbourhood Plan. strategy for the borough as a whole. No changes proposed 0031 Anglian Water Supportive. Comment noted. Services Ltd 01546 Yorkshire Appreciate the consideration of the addition of an aim to ‘halt Comments noted: not proposed to add in an additional Wildlife Trust biodiversity loss’ within the next 15 years and to ‘strengthen and objective to halt biodiversity loss. This will be enhance ecological networks.’ We are encouraged by the inclusion of reconsidered at the 5 year review of the plan. The vision point 7 and 15 within the vision and objectives to ‘protect and enhance and objectives have been agreed with Team Doncaster our green and blue infrastructure’ and ‘diversify and support the rural (Doncaster’s Local Strategic Partnership) and identify economy whilst protecting and enhancing the character and what we need to achieve and associated policies provide appearance of the countryside and natural environment, including the detail on how we are to achieve this. The policies in areas of landscape and biodiversity value’. However, feel these could the local plan include details relating to ‘strengthening be strengthened to ensure clarity with NPPF by including ‘by providing and enhancing ecological networks’, delivering a net gain net gain in biodiversity’. Furthermore, point 18. ‘ensure that Doncaster in biodiversity and the use of ecosystem services such as adapts to the effects of climate change through careful planning and SuDS and natural flood management design of developments’ we feel could incorporate the encouragement of use of ecosystem services including SUDs and natural flood management.

04544 David Nicklin Ambitious and encouraging, but flawed. All key deliverables reliant on Comment Noted: The vision and objectives reflect the SCR/DMBC funding to provide infrastructure and amenities and strategy for the borough as a whole. No changes sensible approach to delivery. Skellow, Carcroft and Askern have proposed always had little investment and schools are left to ruin/become academies, road sides and communal areas are in a state of disrepair. Infrastructure should be sorted first and vision and objectives ignore this. 0016 Historic Vision - As a Vision, it is a little vague and does not really capture the Objective 4: Comment noted; added minor amendment England other aspects of what Doncaster will be like in fifteen years’ time; proposed adding the words… ‘and underused floor- needs to include some reference to the quality of life; also unclear space’. Local Plan policy has been amended to include what is actually meant by the term ‘care’. Objective 4 - support, should reference to supporting investment in historic buildings include reference to underused buildings and how this could benefit Objective 6: Comment noted. The Objective wording has the historic environment - suggested wording provided. Objective 5 - been amended to say… ‘Conserve and, enhance those support. Objective 6 - support but suggest a number of amendments heritage assets that make up Doncaster’s historic and draft text provided. environment in a manner appropriate to their significance.’ The heritage policy in the local plan has also been amended to account for heritage assets and structure at risk.to secure a sustainable future for buildings 03133 Sibelco UK Ltd Objective 19. Supports. However - "steady and Constant" is not NPPF Objective 19 Comment noted amendment made. terminology. Should be 'steady and adequate'. Objective 4. None Objective 4 comment noted, no amendment proposed. inclusion of Warmsworth Quarry goes against Objective 4 which seeks to promote and encourage the re-use of sites. 04557 Stephen Polices and proposals contradict Vision and objectives. Housing policy Comment Noted. Comment relates to sustainable Tomlinson concentrates on GF sites and ignores BF sites. Housing numbers housing need, associated infrastructure, settlement distributed to communities whether there is a local need or not. strategy, Green Belt, Flood Risk. The vision and objectives Housing development should be concentrated on BF sites. reflect the strategy for the borough as a whole. No Development of GB land is detrimental to environment sustainability. changes proposed. Flood risk - use local knowledge. Some areas rejected as flood risk are not a risk. Some rejected sites are only partially flood risk. Smaller developments causing less intrusion would be better. Construction on GF sites should be a last resort.

04548 Sabir Ali Support - it is objective and beneficial Comment Noted.

03219 Paige Barton Local Plan is no less than dangerous for the local community of Thorne Comments Noted. Comments relate to area specific and Moorends. Plan is coming from a background of large developers issues and the local plan settlement strategy and site and solely around the requirements of large developer companies and selection methodology and not specifically to vision and totally ignores local communities. Thorne and Moorends has flood objectives. protected zones to help lower the risk of flooding therefore why is there a blanket ban on developing here. 02311 Lichfields (on Welcomes the ambitious strategy. But only 43% of homes will be in Comments Noted. No changes proposed to vision and behalf of MUA - falls short of Policy 2 requirement. Figure should be at least objectives Hallam land 64%. Management) 01837 John Waggitt Does nothing to meet the needs and aspirations of the local Comment Noted. No changes proposed to vision and community in Stainforth. If DMBC has control then link road Junction 5 objectives. Policies within the plan support would greatly improve the inward investment around the area. improvements and delivery of key infrastructure such as the Hatfield link road which is now under construction. 03818 Rodney and Better ways the Local Plan can influence the lives of residents in Comments Noted. Policies within the plan support Margaret Hickleton. Should take account of Safety on roads, health and social improvements to infrastructure, environment and health Goddard life of residents, environment and work and business. and wellbeing. No changes proposed to vision and objectives 01970 & 02999 Cllr Kevin Broad Axe (234) would be contrary to aim to "protect and enhance our Site specific comment noted. No changes proposed to Rodgers & Cllr natural and historic environment" and "Protect, maintain & enhance vision and objectives. Pat Haith the character & appearance of conservation areas, historic paths, gardens & scheduled monuments" 01937 Lichfields (on Welcome ambitious strategy tied to SCR growth plan for Doncaster to Comments Noted. No changes proposed to vision and behalf of become an "important economic hub" and it's location close to objectives Theakston transport routes being recognised. Infrastructure investment key to Estates Ltd) Northern Powerhouse. Outlook for Doncaster is positive.

05133 Jessica Slade Issues with new housing developments in Doncaster in general. This is Comments Noted. No changes proposed to vision and down to the impact on infrastructure, transport, school places, health objectives. Site specific issues relating to housing facilities and electricity constraints. New homes would not be addressed separately accessible to young people. Council should focus on restoring and converting empty buildings. 04895 Nichola Bray Proposed development is on prime agricultural land which goes against Comments Noted. No changes proposed to vision and prioritising brownfield sites. objectives. Site specific issues relating to housing addressed separately 04647 Richard Agree Barnby Dun requires sites for housing. Comments Noted. No changes proposed to vision and Thompson objectives. 04371 Mineral Vision and Objectives – comments on aims as follows. Aim 4 – suggests Comments noted. Minor amendment made to objective Products rewording to ensure businesses are not disadvantaged. ‘Encourage the 4 in relation to comments made by Historic England (ref. Association re-use of sites and buildings, especially well located and underused 0016). Agent of Change principle (with regard to not brownfield land (e.g. redundant/unused land and empty properties) prejudicing operations from new development) is part of while ensuring any existing business /operations are not prejudiced the revised NPPF and will be considered, where because of any such new development, to help revitalise areas of low appropriate as part of the planning process. Comment demand and stimulate growth. Aim 19 – aim does not reflect NPPF noted; amendment made to replace the word 'constant' para 207 suggested amendment ‘encourages more efficient use of with 'adequate'. Objective 19 now reads… ‘encourages natural resources including water and secure and maintain plan for a more efficient use of natural resources including water steady and adequate supply a steady and constant supply of mineral and secure and maintain a steady and adequate supply of resources to facilitate development mineral resources to facilitate development 05098 Anton Fix Its about beds and sheds. Does not take into account whether Comments Noted. Policies within the plan support sufficient infrastructure and public services, like schools and medical improvements to infrastructure, environment and health centres, are available within existing growth areas. and wellbeing. No changes proposed to vision and objectives 04673 Anne Nicklin Vision and objectives has serious flaws. Existing infrastructure needs Comments Noted. Policies within the plan support addressing before any further housing is allocated in the area. The new improvements to infrastructure, environment and health vision seems to ignore this fact. Vision does not seem to concentrate and wellbeing. No changes proposed to vision and housing developments where it would best serve the interests of the objectives local economy or preserve the nature off the town.

04827 June Gwynn The vision for the future regarding planning and development is Comments Noted. The settlement hierarchy provides for remarkable and fabulous, however this has come at a great cost to the sustainable growth for the borough as a whole. No some outlying town and villages, which seem to have been left changes proposed to vision and objectives behind/forgotten about.

04041 Kath Johnson Applaud the vision, but the starting point should be to improve the Comments Noted. Policies within the plan support town centre and housing developments should go ahead once improvements to infrastructure, environment and health Doncaster is attracting more business. The parking in town does not and wellbeing. No changes proposed to vision and attract shoppers. No more fast food outlets should be allowed. objectives Doncaster needs high paid jobs. 04042 George Applaud the vision, but the starting point should be to improve the Comments Noted. Policies within the plan support Johnson town centre and housing developments should go ahead once improvements to infrastructure, environment and health Doncaster is attracting more business. The parking in town does not and wellbeing. No changes proposed to vision and attract shoppers. No more fast food outlets should be allowed. objectives Doncaster needs high paid jobs. 0759 High Melton Endorse the aspirations set out in the Vision and Objectives. However Comments Noted. Policies within the plan support Parish Council clarification is needed on how the success will be evaluated and improvements to infrastructure, environment, health & whether the authority is being realistic. The evaluation process should wellbeing and monitoring to ensure delivery. No changes be clearly stated. The document reads well but the town centre should proposed to vision and objectives be improved immediately. There is a need for better paid jobs to attract highly skilled people. 04921 M Cross Realise need for more housing for people of Doncaster in coming Comment Noted. years. 04489 Doncaster and Note the Health and Wellbeing themes in the Local Plan. Will section Comments noted. No proposed changes to vision and Bassetlaw 106 be applied to new Housing Developments order to support objectives. Hospitals (1) additional healthcare infrastructure requirements? Is there more detail of how these H&WB themes will be achieved?

05143 Rachel Yates Don’t agree. Flood risk should be at the centre of the Authority’s vision Comments noted. No proposed changes to vision and objectives. The Local Plan as a whole has to consider and address lots of planning topics and associated issues.

05129 IGas Energy Supportive of the development of the LP. Comments noted. No proposed changes to vision and PLC objectives. 05131 Axis PED Ltd Broadly agree with concepts. Support vision. Comments noted. No proposed changes to vision and (on behalf of objectives. Attero Recycling Ltd) 02989 Gladman Supportive of the vision. Broadly supportive of the objectives. Comments noted. No proposed changes to vision and Developments Objective 4 should be re-worded. Should not be interpreted as objectives. Plan period has been extended to 2035 since meaning development of PDL is prioritised over other sustainable the consultation to reflect revised NPPF. development opportunities. Plan period - Suggests extending plan period to conform with NPPF 2018 guidance – i.e. “minimum 15 year period from adoption” 04653 Richard Nicklin Plan is centred around the airport and the corridor to Doncaster Town Comments noted. No proposed changes to vision and centre. What about deprived areas? Immediate needs require objectives. Policies within the plan support addressing - need to mend what we’ve got first. Ex-mining towns and improvements to infrastructure, environment and health villages all in need of investment to replace existing aging housing and wellbeing. stock, schools, public facilities and infrastructure. Don’t destroy green belt areas to meet a housing quota. Making Doncaster a “University City” is very laudable, but this needs to start from the bottom up – schools are on their last legs and this is where children start their education. Main transport route (A1M) very heavily used and frequently congested and dangerous. Why are there no plans to widen or improve it? This should be a priority. No business investment in Skellow or Carcroft in 50 years. Local employment opportunities don’t meet the local needs. No station, no cycle path, reliant on buses and (mostly) cars 04915 Louise Cottam Barnby Dun is one of a few true villages in Doncaster – is it the Comments noted. No proposed changes to vision and council’s intention to ruin this and make it a township like Armthorpe? objectives. 04918 John Cottam Barnby Dun is one of a few true villages in Doncaster – is it the Comments noted. No proposed changes to vision and council’s intention to ruin this and make it a township like Armthorpe? objectives.

05177 RPS Group (on Supportive of the draft plan’s economic and transport objectives Comments noted. No proposed changes to vision and behalf of Troy objectives. Verdion) 03160 Paul Whiting University city - waterside undeveloped meaning no higher education Comments noted. No proposed changes to vision and provision. Attractive town centre to visit/work - Dereliction of 438, 439 objectives. Comments relate to specific site to vision and and 257 mean Doncaster not an attractive place to visit or work. objectives. Sites comments are addressed separately Protect natural and historic environment/ protect character and appearance of conservation areas etc. / protect green space - 234 contradicts this (Green belt and roman ridge). Regeneration and community pride / reuse of sites - undeveloped sites means this is side-stepped. Ensure housing meets needs and aspirations - original waterside development for high density housing for students / elderly - now seems to be dead 04013 The Joint Rural Endorse aspiration to attract new employers and businesses. Applaud Comments noted. No proposed changes to vision and Parishes DMBC on these, but sceptical about employment delivery. objectives. 05178 Rhonwyn Needs an overarching document which brought all relevant material Comments noted. No proposed changes to vision and Dobbing together. objectives. 04430 Pegasus Group High level vision is welcomed. Comments noted. No proposed changes to vision and (on behalf of objectives. The Gascoine Group) 04888 Graham Agree Comments noted. No proposed changes to vision and Dobson objectives. 04889 Vanessa Agree Comments noted. No proposed changes to vision and Dobson objectives. 04950 Town- Broadly reasonable, but policies 2, 9 and 26 undermine this in relation Comments noted. No proposed changes to vision and Planning.co.uk to rural areas. objectives. Comments on policies addressed separately. (on behalf of BBS (Doncaster) Ltd)

05201 & 05202 Turley (on Peel support the overall strategic Vision and Objectives of the Local Comments noted. No proposed changes to vision and behalf of the Plan, and specifically welcome the reference to Doncaster becoming a objectives to be more specific with regard to specific Peel Group) 'leading centre in logistics and aviation'. The vision should be specific development proposals. that by 2030 the airport will have grown significantly, and DSA and the AeroCentre Yorkshire area be included within the growth corridor.

05071 WYG (on behalf The Grange Farm site is consistent with the proposed vision and Comments Noted. No changes proposed to vision and of Miller objectives of the Local Plan and as such should be considered as a objectives. Site specific issues relating to housing Homes) housing allocation. proposals addressed separately

05200 George F White Vision and Objectives are generally positive, policies should reflect Comments noted. Vision and objective checked against (on behalf of R positive approach, and provide for built-in flexibility. Vision and revised NPPF. No proposed changes. and G Parker) Objectives will also need to take on board the requirements of the revised NPPF, which emphasises smaller development sites. 05198 & 05199 ID Planning (on Mixed use residential and employment can help meet with Vision and Comments noted. No proposed changes to vision and behalf of Tanks Objectives objectives. and Vessels) 05184 ID Planning (on Support the vision and objectives, which seek to ensure sustainability Comments noted. No proposed changes to vision and behalf of of villages. objectives. Harron Homes Ltd) 05207 Tangent Amend bullet points 3.4 5th bullet point – Should also include Comments noted. No proposed changes to vision and Properties (on reference to harnessing the potential of HS2 & Northern Powerhouse objectives. Northern Powerhouse referenced in behalf of ION Rail (NPR) and the Pan Northern Link. 3.5 Part 1 – Should also be paragraph 3.4 and throughout the Local Plan document. Property amended to include reference to HS2, NPR and the Pan Northern Link. Pan Northern Route also identified in Major Road Developments Network Enhancement Priorities within the Local Plan Ltd and The Frickley Estate)

0006 Barnsley Welcomes the vision and objectives associated with continuing and Comment noted. Amendment made to paragraph 3.4 to Council strengthening Doncaster’s role in global, Pan Northern and strategic say ‘set out the potential for a growing northern transport accessibility. It is fully appreciated the benefits these will economy with improving strategic transport bring to the wider area beyond Doncaster including Barnsley and the infrastructure that will benefit Doncaster’s accessibility Dearne Valley. Barnsley MBC looks forward to supporting Doncaster and build on our already excellent rail connectivity’ MBC in promotion of the vision and objectives to relevant stakeholders and interests. In order to help with ensuring an inclusive approach consider a modest addition to para 3.5 along the lines of ‘…strengthen its strategic, global and pan northern transport connections including between Sheffield City Region and the Humber ports …’ 05190 Carter Jonas Very much support the Vision and Objectives, in particular the Comments noted. No proposed changes to vision and (on behalf of aspirations for strong local economies to support “progressive, objectives. Harworth healthy, safe and vibrant communities”, “full potential in Group) employment…” and “prosperity and pride in Doncaster”. Note that aims and objectives are tied to the Inclusive Growth Plan and the SCR Strategic Economic Plan. Harworth is ideally placed to deliver Gateway 180 as well as bringing high quality jobs and inward investment to Throne and Moorends. 05195 & 05196 Banks Property The vision is ambitious and is welcomed. Important that the Comments noted. No proposed changes to vision and Ltd aspirations and ambition are not just met but exceeded. objectives. 04444/ 04960/ Johnson Welcome references about Doncaster being an economic hub and goal Comment noted. No changes proposed to objectives 9 or 05203/ 05204 & Mowat (on of delivering a stronger more balanced economy, having shaped 10. Objective 4 - Minor amendments in relation to other 05205 behalf of economic success in line with the Inclusive Growth Plan. Vision should consultation comments. Strategic Land be amended to align housing growth with economic aspirations. Partly Group, Mr & covered in objectives 9 to 10, but should be in the vision. Objective 4 Mrs S Hall, encourages re-use of sites and buildings. It should be recognised this Harworth does not constitute a prioritisation of brownfield land. Could be Group PLC) equally if not better located greenfield land - should be made clear. 05000/ 05001 & Sirius Planning Support following statements: "in line with Doncaster’s Inclusive Comments noted. No proposed changes to vision and 05002 (on behalf of Growth Plan, have shaped economic success by investing in our future; objectives. FCC encouraged existing businesses to expand, attracting new businesses to the area…", and "in line with the Sheffield City Region Strategic

Environment) Economic Plan become an important economic hub with a stronger (113) more balanced economy" and "ensure the sustainability of villages and rural economy through appropriate development". Support Objective 4; Support Objective 9 - but Policy 2 prevents this being met. Support Objective 15 - but policy 2 and 3 prevent this being met. 05172 Pegasus Group Vision identifies that the borough is ambitious. High level vision is Comments noted. No proposed changes to vision and - (on behalf of welcome. Economic aspirations for the borough are clear. Important objectives. Wilson and these are matched by ambition to meet and exceed, rather than just McKay meet the areas housing needs (Objective 9). Families) 05173 & 05174 Pegasus Group High level vision is welcomed. Objectives should be aspirational but Comments noted. No proposed changes to vision and (on behalf of deliverable. Economic aspirations are clear. Important they are objectives. Metacre Ltd) matched by the ambition to exceed, rather than just meet, the areas housing needs (Objective 9). 1017 Peter The Countryside Policy Area should be protected. It is neglected and Comments noted. Countryside Policy Area is no longer Pennington should be emphasised in the Vision and Objectives and Strategic compliant with planning policy (NPPF). No proposed Environmental Assessment policy documents. changes to vision and objectives. 01716 Waystone Ltd Agree with and support the Vision and Objectives. Particularly support Comments noted. No proposed changes to vision and the vision for Doncaster to be a leading centre in logistics, aviation, rail objectives. and civil engineering, focussing on main transport corridors. Support the objectives which focus jobs/growth along the strategic transport network, prioritise the stimulation of regeneration and seeks to deliver high quality, distinctive and vibrant places. Strongly support the objectives on homes and communities which aim to meet current and future needs in mixed and balanced communities. Consider objective 11 to be highly important for Doncaster to link growth in homes and jobs to help provide new and improved necessary infrastructure and create healthier and more vibrant well connected neighbourhoods and communities. 05014 United Supportive - Objective 19 could be enhanced by adding ‘encourages Comments noted. Objective 19 amended to say Kingdom more efficient use of natural resources including water and secure a '...maintain a steady and adequate supply of mineral Onshore Oil maintain a steady and constant supply of mineral resources to resources...' and Gas

facilitate development and contribute to the local and wider economy’

03430 Persimmon Generally supportive of the bullet point which states Doncaster will Comment noted. Minor amendment proposed to Homes Ltd 'meet our communities housing needs…'. Objective 4 is generally wording of objective 11 to make it more clear; deleting supported but should not be a prioritisation as such - should be words ‘provide and ‘necessary’ to say… 'link the growth in clarified. Should be a balanced portfolio of sites. Brownfield alongside homes and jobs to new and improved infrastructure to greenfield. Objective 11 - seek clarification - not clear how the growth create healthier and more vibrant well connected in homes and jobs will link to the provision of new and improved neighbourhoods and communities'; infrastructure, and how this will lead to the creation of healthier and more vibrant communities. 05226 Hargreaves The Vision & Objectives are progressive and positive and set an Comment noted: minor amendment to paragraph 3.4 Land Ltd appropriate level of ambition. One omission perhaps being a lack of adding the words ‘and build on our already excellent rail particular focus on excellent rail links to London/South-East through connectivity’ at the end of the second sentence. position on East Coast Main Line. Particular support for acknowledgement of logistics/aviation/rail/civil engineering and meeting housing needs and through stimulating regeneration to tackle deprivation and reuse BF land. 0014 Environment Vision - We support the ambition being expressed here that Doncaster Comment noted. No change proposed. The statement ‘A Agency will be an “environmentally sustainable” borough. We also thriving and place to learn, work, live and care’ is taken recommend that a reference to being “sustainable” is included in the from the corporate Borough Strategy vision (Doncaster overall vision too, eg: “A thriving and sustainable place to learn, work, Growing Together) live and care”. Objectives - support a number of specific objectives and pleased to see that protection and enhancement of the natural environment is included, along with reference being made to promoting a network of well-connected green infrastructure.

Policies and Proposals Q2 - Do you agree with the policies? If not how should they be amended? (Please quote policy number(s) when commenting).

Q3 - Are any there any missing policies?

Q4 - Can you suggest issues that must be explained by explanatory text to aid interpretation and implementation of the policies? (Please quote policy number(s) when commenting

Representation Name/Reference No Representation Summary DMBC Response Policy 1: Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Savills on behalf of Sheffield Diocesan Policy is sound and supported. It is in line with the NPPF Support welcomed 01097, Sandbeck 03568/ 03569/ 03570/ and reflects model wording. 03571/ 04705, & Warde-Aldam 04706/ 04707/ 04708 04709 Gladman (02989) Supportive of inclusion of Policy. Wording should reflect Support noted. It is not considered necessary to further “ethos of achieving the delivery of sustainable amend the Policy. It refers to the NPPF which should be development is key to assessing planning proposals” read in conjunction with all policies of the Local Plan. Barton Wilmore on behalf of Barratt & Welcomes provision of policy, but repeated sections need Disagree that parts b and c be deleted. It is appropriate David Wilson Homes 04955/ 04956 deleting. (parts ‘a and b’) do not align with NPPF which has that to recognise that material considerations can be taken no reference to the presumption being subject to material into account even where proposals accord with policies in considerations. Therefore, ‘b and c’ should be deleted. the plan. Policy 2: Spatial Strategy & Settlement Hierarchy Historic England [16] Taking account of impact on wider environment / Opening sentence refers to sustainable growth which capacity to accept growth covers environmental issues such as those listed. If this  Amend first para to read : “... sustainable growth, suggested wording were included there would be pressure appropriate to the size of the individual to refer to other aspects of sustainable development. settlements and their capacity to accommodate Brevity in policy wording is preferred. that growth without harm to their character or landscape setting, that meets the needs …” CPRE [77] Strategy should Focus on rail accessible nodes Accessibility to public transport has been considered in preparation of the settlement strategy and is a key factor in

 Conisbrough, Bentley and Adwick – sites may justify GB the actual selection of sites in the Settlement Appraisal release methodology. This was documented in the Settlements  Kirk Sandall, Hatfield and Thorne – devt here OK if new Background Paper issued for the 2018 Informal GB designated Consultation and the resulting Site Selection Methodology  Airport growth – only if rail access approach Reports. Policy 2 directs development to making best use of key transport corridors and existing infrastructure. (Policy 13 (Strategic Transport Network) supports improvement to rail transport in the Borough). Policy 7 (Doncaster Sheffield Airport and Business Park) supports improvements to accessing the Airport by railway. Turley (Peel) [5201] Airport and the Settlement Strategy Policy 7 (Doncaster Sheffield Airport and Business Park)  draft Policies 2 and 3 (including the growth distribution covers policy for the Airport. Development at the Airport is table presented in the policy) need to refer to the full considered separately outside of the settlement hierarchy wider Aero Centre Yorkshire proposition at Doncaster and in that sense is not a strategic issue on which growth in Sheffield Airport (in the Airport's own MasterPlan) to the Borough depends. Policy 7 seeks to encourage the reflect and be consistent with draft Policy 7 in that the sustainable growth of the Airport and provides appropriate mixed use growth area proposed and supported at criteria to guide economic development proposals. DSA/ACY sits outside the settlement hierarchy but it is, nevertheless, an integral element of the Plan – in terms of development needs, economic growth and spatial distribution of growth. Yates [5143] Strategy does not take account of constraints - flooding The Settlement Background paper issued alongside the 2018 Informal Consultation explains how flood risk constraints have influenced preparation of the settlement strategy and hierarchy. Preparation has been informed by a Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment and Policy 2 refers to provision of development subject to application of the flood risk sequential approach to identification of individual sites. Ranges for growth across the settlements have been included to introduce flexibility taking account of constraints in the Borough including flood risk. In growth settlements affected by flood risk, the Local plan will only propose sites as allocations which have the benefit of

planning permission (or approved subject to Section 106 Agreement being signed). Only these can be justified as allocations in the Local Plan because these permissions are deliverable and viable and have site specific flood risk assessments and mitigation agreed as part of the Development Management stage in consultation with the EA and the Council as Lead Local Flood Authority. Gladman [2989] Development Limits The Council’s methodology for the identification of J10 [308]  Should not be drawn too tightly – reduces flexibility for development limits is given in evidence base document Barton Willmore (Barratt / DW Homes) new sustainable development sites. (Identification of Development Limits). An approach is [4955/4956]  Hampole/ Brodsworth/ Pickburn need to be defined as adopted to steer development towards areas suitable for ‘Green Belt Infill’ settlements. development rather than countryside as consistent with the  Revised NPPF has clear presumption in favour of NPPF – it is not considered the policy is phrased negatively. development within development limits (negative wording restricts development). For the purposes of planning policy, and in the context of  in the event that the Council is unable to demonstrate Doncaster Borough, there needs to be an unambiguous a 5-year housing land supply, or should evidence be area which is defined as ‘Countryside’ (as opposed to both available to suggest that any of the allocated sites are Green Belt and land within development limits). The Plan, struggling to deliver and the rate and within the and National Policy in NPPF 2019, contain policy which, anticipated timeframe, then it would be wholly although steering the majority of development to areas appropriate for sustainable development opportunities within development limits, also allows for development on the edge of settlements, within the area defined as beyond development limits and the Green Belt (i.e. ‘Countryside’ to come forward without delay. We Countryside) in the situations listed in Part 5 of the policy. therefore consider that it is necessary that a further This is considered a sufficiently flexible approach meeting degree of flexibility is established in the policy NPPF requirements. Other policy allows for development in (comment made in response to draft Policy 26. the Countryside, namely Policy 26 (Development in the Countryside) sites and NPPF para 71 (entry level exception sites). Peacock & Smith (Barnsdale) [5128] Defined Villages Policy 2 has been revised to that proposed at 2018 Informal Whitehurst [515]  Explanation – clarify level of development expected. Consultation to be more consistent with NPPF 2019. Given Allocations should be identified. that these settlements have limited services, allocations are not identified and development is limited to that considered acceptable according to other policies in the

 Should introduce new settlement category – “Defined Plan. Non-residential development is supported if justified villages which are part of and connected to a renewal to support a prosperous rural economy. In Part 5 of the or regeneration area” revised Policy criteria are provided to guide possible development in appropriate locations adjacent to Defined Villages subject to the safeguards and limitations of the policy approach set out. Together, these clarify what level of development is considered appropriate for the Defined Villages. Joint Rural Parishes [4013] Defined Villages – infill approach Policy 2 has been revised to that proposed at 2018 Informal Savills (Warde-Aldam Estate [4706-9] /  JRP: Support approach but request clarification on how Consultation to be more consistent with NPPF 2019. Given Sandbeck Estate [3568 et al) ‘washing over’ will work that these settlements have limited services, allocations are TownPlanning.co.uk [4950]  Definition of Infill is too restrictive not identified and development is limited to that PB Planning : Bellway Homes [5175]  TownPlanning.co.uk: Ignores case law regarding what considered acceptable according to other policies in the defines a settlement and considers washed over Plan. Non-residential development is supported if justified proposals is inappropriate as such settlements are not to support a prosperous rural economy. In Part 5 of the considered isolated (as defined by case law – Braintree revised Policy criteria are provided to guide possible high court decisions) development in appropriate locations adjacent to Defined  Defined Villages will only deliver small scale windfall Villages subject to the safeguards and limitations of the policy approach set out. Together, these clarify what level of development is considered appropriate for the Defined Villages.

The strategy for deciding where to identify allocated growth is set by Policy 2. Working to the approach described in the Housing and Settlement Strategic Topic Paper, the Settlement Audit and past consultations considering options for distributing growth in the Borough, it is considered that a reasonable approach has been proposed to identify where development is most sustainable. It is considered a cut-off in terms of a “settlement” size and services should be used to direct development where it would best enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. Other policy allows for development in the

Countryside, namely Policy 26 (Development in the Countryside) sites and NPPF para 71 (entry level exception sites).

In the revised policy “infill development” is not defined. It is considered more appropriate to refer to the criteria for the definition of appropriate locations set in the Policy. The policy seeks to avoid pressure for the development of unacceptably large gaps in relevant villages. Proposals for development of individual sites will be considered on their own merits. However, if large gap sites exist, these would be better proposed as allocations and any opportunities have been considered as part of Plan preparation. Peacock & Smith (Barnsdale) [5128] Green Belt – release It is considered unnecessary to refer to the suggested text  No explanation re whether exceptional circumstances regarding Green Belt including whether there are exist to allow release exceptional circumstances justifying Green Belt removal. Such information is relevant as explanation to preparation of Local Plan policy but need not be included in the policy wording itself. The policy should be read in conjunction with the Green Belt Topic Paper as informed by the Doncaster Green Belt Review. HBF [129] Safeguarded Land Policy 2 has been revised and does now not propose to Spawforths (Burstwistle) [3506/7]  Safeguarded Land is needed - Requirement should include Safeguarded Land as part of this Plan for the Joint Rural Parishes [4013] match 17 year plan period reasons set out in the Green Belt Topic Paper. Spawforths (Avant Homes) [5208-10]  Include triggers for release of SL – link to HDT  Plan should not include Safeguarded Land

Spawforths (Burstwistle [3506/7] / Reserve Development Sites Reserve development sites are former UDP housing Avant Homes [5208-10])  Should be identified across Settlement Strategy allocations that are not considered developable but which are considered important to include in the Plan as an additional source of supply were identified constraints overcome. They are identified according to the Site

Selection Methodology – this explains their location and consequential distribution across the Borough. TownPlanning.co.uk [4950] Approach restricts rural development New Part 2 amended to include.  Small scale housing should be allowed in and adjacent to all rural settlements including within large groupings of buildings in countryside. Only isolated dwellings should be restricted.

Lichfields (Hallam Land) [2311] Development outside development limits / settlements in Policy 2 has been revised to that proposed at 2018 Informal ID Planning (Harron Homes) [5184] levels 1-3 Consultation to be more consistent with NPPF 2019. Given Savills (Warde Aldam [4706-9] Estate /  Inconsistent with NPPF – does not require sequential that the Borough’s Defined Villages (lowest tier of the Sandbeck Estate [4706 et al]) approach settlement hierarchy) have limited services, allocations are  Savills – support flexibility of Policy approach but not identified and development is limited to that should be applied to all levels of hierarchy considered acceptable according to other policies in the Plan. Non-residential development is supported if justified to support a prosperous rural economy. In Part 5 of the revised Policy criteria are provided to guide possible development in appropriate locations adjacent to Defined Villages subject to the safeguards and limitations of the policy approach set out. Together, these clarify what level of development is considered appropriate for the Defined Villages.

communities. Other policy allows for development in the Countryside, namely Policy 26 (Development in the Countryside) sites and NPPF para 71 (entry level exception sites). Barton Willmore (Barratt / DW Homes) Definition of Appropriate Location Policy 2 has been revised to that proposed at 2018 Informal [4956]  Criteria are all matters that should be covered by Consultation to be more consistent with NPPF 2019. separate policies i.e. historic environment policies. In the context of the revised approach it is appropriate to retain criteria to allow the identification of “appropriate locations” where development proposals may possibly be suitable subject to the safeguards and limits of the policy approach set out. It is important to include them in the wording of Policy 2 as there are considered strategic matters best understood if included in the Spatial Strategy policy. Policy 3: Level & Distribution of Growth CPRE [77] Housing requirement The Housing and Settlement Strategy Topic Paper (to be HBF [129]  CPRE: Requirement is too high. As above standard issued at Submission) will demonstrate a sound housing Lichfields (Hallam Land) [2311] methodology risks soundness – should be a range. 920 requirement has been identified, as proposed in Policy 3, to Spawforths (Burstwistle [3506/7] / as maximum. help delivery Policy 2. The 920 dpa housing requirement Avant Homes [5208-10])  Requirement is too low. has been explained in both the independent Economic DLP (Keepmoat) [3111]  920 target is lower than PBA target of 1073 and Forecasts and Housing Need Assessment Report (PBA, Gladman [2989] evidence to Edenthorpe Inquiry (1370) 2018) and the Settlement Background Paper issued Barton Willmore (Barratt / DW Homes)  Concern re assumptions: alongside the 2018 Informal Consultation. The proposed [4955/6] o Relying on re-using empty homes 920 dpa is reflective of the aspirational growth target. The Turley (Peel) [5201-2] o Effects of recession on headship rates 1,073 figure would be the target under the 2012 NPPF. WYG (Miller Homes) [5071] o Overly ambitious EAR However, under NPPF 2019, which the plan will be assessed JVH Planning (various) [3453] o Lack of uplift market signals despite rising against, the requirement is 920dpa. Sufficient land is Pegasus (Gascoine Group) [4430] affordability issues identified to meet this target. Johnson Mowat (Strategic Land Group o Poor rates of delivery [4444] / Harworth Group [5204-5])) o Lack of direct relation to tested scenarios The 2018 Informal Consultation only included draft policy Persimmon Homes [3430] text and not the full Local Plan document. The Publication Savills (Sandbeck Estate) [3568 et al] Draft includes the Housing Trajectory and an up-to-date

o Jobs growth evidence is too low compared to 5YHLS Statement will be prepared as part of the supporting previous and emerging SCR target and historic documents to the Plan, and headlines included in the growth supporting text, for Plan submission. o Low allowance of 7dpa for under delivery against former RSS target o Over-reliance on commitments o Lack of non-delivery allowance / lapse rate o Housing completions data show excess of 1000 dpa can be delivered o Increases needed to meet demand for younger people o Elderly demographic needs not adequately considered

 A separate provision for new homes associated with It is not considered appropriate to refer to the airport the planned growth for the airport should be provided within the Settlement Strategy. A specific policy (Policy 7) for in plan. has deliberately been proposed that provides for the possibility of additional housing and employment development and other supporting uses under the terms of that Policy. The Local Plan’s Strategy is not dependant on the possible additional growth that may be supported under the terms of Policy 7.

 Unmet needs from neighbouring local authorities Discussions held with neighbouring authorities have agreed should be included. that Doncaster does not need to include allowance for unmet needs from neighbouring authorities. This will be set out in the authorities’ Statement of Common Ground.

 Target should be expressed as a minimum. Targets The housing requirement is expressed neither as a across settlements don’t add up – unclear how minimum or maximum. As set out in the PBA Report, the requirements will be applied choice has been made to adopt a figure higher than the national housing standard methodology would suggest to take account of economic growth aspirations. The Council

21 will adopt a requirement presented as a range with the minimum figure being the requirement set in the Government’s Standard Housing Need Methodology.

The use of ranges will be explained in the Housing and Settlement Strategy Topic Paper (as update to the Settlements Background Paper published alongside the 2018 Informal Consultation). It is a tool for plan preparation. Further explanation is given in the Policy’s supporting text (not issued in the earlier 2018 consultation) and in Policy 6 (Housing Allocations). The use of ranges for the settlements provide flexibility to select the most sustainable and deliverable sites across the settlements, rather than imposing a stringent requirement on each settlement, and provides for a degree of interrelatedness between settlements (i.e. if land cannot be found in a specific settlement it may be accommodated in a nearby one).

This is considered particularly appropriate for Doncaster given its significant constraints to identification of sites for development – most notably flood risk (as a policy constraint reflecting a physical constraint) and green belt (as a policy constraint). The approach is appropriate to ensure that all settlements meet the baseline (local) dwelling requirement derived from the Government's standard housing methodology and where possible that all settlements in the top three levels of the hierarchy meet economic growth (based on the approach set out in the PBA 'Economic Forecasts and Housing Need Assessments Report').

Due to the use of ranges the figures do not directly equate to the overall housing requirement figures. This flexible approach allows for the most sustainable and deliverable/ developable sites to be delivered across the borough

Further delivery above these ranges could be secured from sources not specifically included in the Plan. Housing delivery could be secured from larger allocated and permitted sites in the Borough where development is not expected to be fully completed within the Plan period. If demand and delivery is greater than expected, then such sites could deliver more within the plan period. Windfall sites could also deliver more housing.

 Should provide sites for 17 year plan period, not just Sufficient sites have been provided to meet 15 years from 15 years. Plan Adoption as required by NPPF 2019. The Plan includes flexibility that should allow sufficient additional sites to be delivered for the additional 2 years of the plan. For example, this could include the delivery of large sites beyond 15 years (where only a proportion is currently expected to deliver within 15 years) and on windfall sites.

 Projection should be based on whole plan period – not PPG guidance issued following NPPF 2019 states that "the just 10 years given in standard methodology – where method provides authorities with an annual number, based there is need for an uplift on a 10 year base line, which can be applied to the whole plan period." This helps derive the Standard Housing Need figure. As explained in the PBA Housing Needs and Economic Forecasts Study a higher requirement is to be provided to meet economic growth aspirations. Lichfields (Hallam Land [2311] / Distribution Theakston [1934])  Allocation for MUA is too low compared to Core The Local Plan is not seeking to replicate the Core Strategy Spawforths (Burstwistle) [3506-7] Strategy. More sites needed in MUA. Would relieve and to be found sound at examination is introducing an J10 [308] pressure on less sustainable sites. appropriate new strategy. A Housing and Settlement

Peacock & Smith (Gleeson) [4164]  Too much focus on MUA and Main Towns and too Strategy Topic Paper will be issued at Plan Submission as Barton Willmore (Barratt / DW Homes) similar to Core Strategy. update to the Settlement Background Paper issued as part [4955-6]  MUA should be re-defined to include Arksey or of the 2018 Informal Consultation to further explain the Pegasus (Gascoine Group [4430] / included as a Service Town / Village with Bentley derivation of the Spatial Strategy, including the relative Wilson & McKay [5172]) distribution of growth around the Borough. It is considered Johnson Mowat (Strategic Land Group an appropriate strategy based on available evidence, its [4444] / Harworth Group [5204-5])) unique issues and constraints, such as flood risk and Green PB Planning (Bellway Homes) [5175] Belt, and previous consultations support a different Cllr White [1402] approach to the Core Strategy. The Topic Paper will explain ELG Planning (Rossington Hall) [4297] the distribution of growth across the Borough.

 Rossington should receive additional land allocations The Settlement Audit and Settlement Background Paper together explain the categorisation of the various settlements within the Settlement Hierarchy and how the housing requirement is identified. See also Housing and Spatial Strategy Topic Paper when issued at Plan Submission. No exceptional justification is provided as to why the settlement should be treated any differently to the other settlements in the same settlement tier of the hierarchy  Thorne and Moorends should be an area of growth. In respect of the flooding constraint, and how this affects Should allocate sites to meet upper end of range. distribution and delivery of sites in settlements such as Thorne, it is important to note that the Council does not have a Level 2 SFRA due to modelling and data limitations. The consultation identified therefore a supply of sites sufficient to meet the settlement's growth target range and its share of Local Housing Need using sites not at risk of flooding as well as commitments that are deliverable and viable and have site specific flood risk assessments with mitigation measures agreed with the EA. The Strategy seeks to avoid housing where possible at risk of flooding in line with NPPF and the settlement growth ranges are another way of achieving this important policy objective.

 Carcroft & Skellow should be a ‘Main Town’ The Settlement Audit and Settlement Background Paper together explain the categorisation of the various settlements within the Settlement Hierarchy and how the housing requirement is identified. See also Housing and Spatial Strategy Topic Paper when issued at Plan Submission. No exceptional justification is provided as to why the settlement should be treated any differently to the other settlements in the same settlement tier of the hierarchy  Adwick should have an increased target The Settlement Audit and Settlement Background Paper together explain the categorisation of the various settlements within the Settlement Hierarchy and how the housing requirement is identified. See also Housing and Spatial Strategy Topic Paper when issued at Plan Submission. No exceptional justification is provided as to why the settlement should be treated any differently to the other settlements in the same settlement tier of the Hierarchy  Distribution should be more evenly spread across The Settlement Audit and Settlement Background Paper Borough with more growth in Service Towns and together explain the categorisation of the various Villages settlements with the Settlement Hierarchy and how the housing requirement is identified. See also Housing and Spatial Strategy Topic Paper when issued at Plan Submission. No exceptional justification is provided as to why the settlement should be treated any differently to the other settlements in the same settlement tier of the hierarchy.  Askern should receive more housing growth. Askern is identified as a ‘Service Town and Village’ and has a housing requirement for 165 homes over the new Plan period. The level of existing unimplemented (but still deliverable) planning permissions for housing mean that no new housing allocations are proposed for Askern. The Settlement Audit and Settlement Background Paper

together explain the categorisation of the various settlements with the Settlement Hierarchy and how the housing requirement is identified. See also Housing and Spatial Strategy Topic Paper when issued at Plan Submission. No exceptional justification is provided as to why the settlement should be treated any differently to the other settlements in the same settlement tier of the hierarchy.

 Bawtry should receive more development; should The Settlement Audit and Settlement Background Paper reduce reliance on commitments. together explain the categorisation of the various settlements within the Settlement Hierarchy and how the housing requirement is identified. See also Housing and Spatial Strategy Topic Paper when issued at Plan Submission. No exceptional justification is provided as to why the settlement should be treated any differently to the other settlements in the same settlement tier of the Hierarchy. The Local Plan identifies housing sites for Bawtry which are existing commitments and new allocations to meet its needs over the Plan period.  Economic uplift element should be applied to places The Settlement Background Paper (see also Housing and such as Sprotbrough near the MUA Spatial Strategy Topic Paper when issued at Plan Submission) explain the categorisation of the various settlements within the Settlement Hierarchy and how the housing requirement is identified. It is considered a more appropriate strategy to target economic growth to the Doncaster Main Urban Area and the Main Towns and Villages whilst Services Towns and Larger Villages (such as Sprotbrough village) meet their own local needs.  Wadworth should be a ‘Service Town & Larger Village’ The Settlement Audit and Settlement Background Paper together explain the categorisation of the various settlements with the Settlement Hierarchy and how the housing requirement is identified. See also Housing and

Spatial Strategy Topic Paper when issued at Plan Submission. No exceptional justification is provided as to why the settlement should be treated any differently to the other settlements in the same settlement tier of the hierarchy.  Branton will not deliver affordable housing under this Policy 2 has been revised to that proposed at 2018 Informal Strategy Consultation to be more consistent with NPPF 2019. Given that the Borough’s Defined Villages (lowest tier of the settlement hierarchy) have limited services, allocations are not identified and development is limited to that considered acceptable according to other policies in the Plan. In Part 5 of the revised Policy criteria are provided to guide possible development in appropriate locations adjacent to Defined Villages subject to the safeguards and limitations of the policy approach set out. Together, these clarify what level of development is considered appropriate for the Defined Villages which can include affordable housing.

 (CPRE : See comment on Policy 2 – should focus on Accessibility to public transport has been considered in settlements with rail accessible nodes) preparation of the settlement strategy and is a key factor in the actual selection of sites in the Settlement Appraisal methodology. This was documented in the Settlements Background Paper issued for the 2018 Informal Consultation and the resulting Site Selection Methodology Reports. Policy 2 directs development to making best use of key transport corridors and existing infrastructure. (Policy 13 (Strategic Transport Network) supports improvement to rail transport in the Borough). Policy 7 (Doncaster Sheffield Airport and Business Park) supports improvements to accessing the Airport by railway.  Distribution has been decided (a) without considering It is considered unnecessary to refer to the suggested text alternatives that could eliminate need for GB release; regarding Green Belt including whether there are and (b) to justify exceptional circumstances – See exceptional circumstances justifying Green Belt removal. Cheshire East examination re Green Belt balancing Such information is relevant as explanation to preparation exercise. of Local Plan policy but need not be included in the policy wording itself. The policy should be read in conjunction with the Green Belt Topic Paper (issued at Publication stage) and with the supporting explanatory text.  Use of ranges for MUA & Main Towns is ambiguous – See response for Housing Requirement - Ranges response conflicts with NPPF2019 para 18 – need for polices to (Policy 2) be clearly written HBF [129] Delivery Lichfields (Theakston) [1937]  Need sufficient range of sales outlets across sites The Council cannot control or directly influence the number  Avoid promoting sites with little prospect of delivery of sales outlets across the Borough but can and will provide  Not enough sites in MUA to meet Policy 2 target. Too a range of sites of varying sizes across the Borough which many commitments in MUA are in FRZ2/3. will maximise opportunities for maximising the number of sales outlets.

The Council is not identifying sites that will not deliver in the Plan period.

MUA – justification : Distribution response:

The Local Plan is not seeking to replicate the Core Strategy and to be found sound at examination is introducing an appropriate new strategy. A Housing and Settlement Strategy Topic Paper will be issued at Plan Submission as update to the Settlement Background Paper issued as part of the 2018 Informal Consultation to further explain the derivation of the Spatial Strategy, including the relative distribution of growth around the Borough. It is considered an appropriate strategy based on available evidence, its unique issues and constraints, such as flood risk and Green Belt, and previous consultations support a different approach to the Core Strategy. The Topic Paper will explain the distribution of growth across the Borough.

The Settlement Background paper issued alongside the 2018 Informal Consultation explains how flood risk constraints have influenced preparation of the settlement strategy and hierarchy. Preparation has been informed by a Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment and Policy 2 refers to provision of development subject to application of the flood risk sequential approach to identification of individual sites. Ranges for growth across the settlements have been included to introduce flexibility taking account of constraints in the Borough including flood risk. In growth settlements affected by flood risk, the Local plan will only propose sites as allocations which have the benefit of planning permission (or approved subject to Section 106 Agreement being signed). Only these can be justified as allocations in the Local Plan because these permissions are deliverable and viable and have site specific flood risk assessments and mitigation agreed as part of the

Development Management stage in consultation with the EA and the Council as Lead Local Flood Authority.

Policy 4: Employment Allocations CPRE 0077 Spatial strategy needs to be considerably re-designed, the No change. The distribution of growth reflects Doncaster's scale and distribution of growth modified, and minimum transport corridors and the employment market and residential density standards established which are demand as reflected in NPPF (para 81 and 82). The level of significantly higher than the assumptions on which the growth has been based on forecasting work undertaken by allocations are based. Reserve judgement on the site Peter Brett Associates allocations until the next stage of consultation. Savills on behalf of Boulter; Hackett and Support Policy 4 in principle but suggest (a) amended Noted. The policy seeks to allocate employment sites solely Hill; and Holford 03422 “business (B1b/c), general industry (B2), storage and for the use for B1 b/c, B2 and B8. The uses listed in the distribution (B8), filling station (sui generis), hotel (C1), response are not employment type uses and would only be drinking establishment (A4) and restaurant and cafe (A3) supported if ancillary to the employment use. No change to uses” policy Cllr Richard Jones 01378 How can allocations be made relative to the development Development requirements will be needed for all, if not requirements if they are still to be prepared. most, sites that are allocated. RPS Group on behalf of Troy Verdion Support Criterion A of proposed Policy 4: Employment Support welcomed 05177 Allocations, which allocates additional land for employment uses. JRA Moorhouse on behalf of Don object (Site 160) and promotes site 001 as the more Noted - further work will be undertaken on assessing all Parkinson 0503 appropriate allocation at Thorne. Site 001 has potential employment allocations overwhelming advantages over Bradholme (160). The locational criteria in the Site Selection Methodology are broad brush and there is no framework or requirement in the Local Plan for an informed appraisal to be made between the only two competing sites of any size in the same locality. In allocating Bradholme, DMBC has disregarded the wishes of Thorne and Moorends as a community, as a Town Council and as Neighbourhood Development Plan authority. The planning application and supporting documents for site 1 (16/02136/OUTM) has been attached as an appendix in support of Site 1. This

application currently outstanding with the Council. Example letters of objection to Bradholme are also included. Carter Jonas on behalf of Harworth Note the proposed restriction of allocated employment Noted Group 05190 sites to: business (B1 b/c), general industry (B2) and storage and distribution (B8) uses. Harworth reserves its position in respect of Policy 4(B) and the indication that sites will developed in accordance. With requirements to be set out in other documents and policies yet to be drafted. Harworth has no objections to entering into any local labour agreement under Policy 4(c). Johnson Mowatt on behalf of Harworth Object to rejection of Site 251. Should be identified as a Noted – these comments will be considered as part of Group 05203 mixed use allocation or as a split allocation of employment further site selection work as part of preparing the and housing. Vision document enclosed. Not clear how this Publication version of the local plan. potential site is to be considered moving forward. Clarification sought regarding the intention of these potential employment sites. Lack of sites in Conisbrough and Edlington in comparison to other Main Towns, including permissions. Colliers assessed the whole site for its employment potential, but this should be identified as a mixed residential and commercial site. 1/3 of the west of the site for employment as a small extension to the site to the north. No highways issues in relation to the employment as will be separate to the residential and accessed from Eland Road. Site does not perform particularly well against Green Belt functions. Lack of housing and employment in Main Towns demonstrates exceptional circumstances. Reject council's dismissal of employment land in the Green Belt based on the majority of employment land being outside the Green Belt. This approach rules out potentially suitable deliverable and sustainable sites purely based on the facts it is Green Belt. Site is suitably located and adjacent to settlement limit,

relates well to existing residential and commercial uses. Rejection does not take account of Colliers report findings on this site. 251 is the only potential site west of the A1, and will stop over focus on the M18 corridor. Takes no account of how this can assist in improving deprivation in the borough. Site can help address deprivation in Denaby. Policy 5: Employment Policy Areas Savills on behalf of Boulter; Hackett and Support Policy 5 but only if land is to be included in EPA Noted Hill; and Holford 03422 Carter Jonas on behalf of Harworth Understand the approach to designating proposed Noted Group 05190 Employment Policy Area has yet to be finalised and the emerging Proposals Map has not been published. Harworth reserves it position in respect of Policy 5. Policy 6: Housing Allocations Home Builders Federation 0129 The plan must deliver the housing requirement and to do Agree the local plan must deliver the housing requirement this the strategy must provide a sufficient range of sites and provide a mix of sites that need to be with enough active outlets throughout the plan period. deliverable/developable in the plan period. The Recommends allocating more sites than necessary as a consultation identified sufficient sites to ensure this is the contingency buffer (at least 20%). Any allocations must be case in line with the strategy. Likewise, the consultation deliverable and assumptions around delivery and capacity identified a significant additional supply of housing to supported by evidence from the industry and sense provide confidence that the requirement will not just be checked by the Council. met but exceeded. other sources of supply are also additional to allocations such as windfalls, reserve development sites, planning permissions 1-4 units, any supply from the Defined Villages etc. Evidence base on housing delivery has been prepared with input from the Industry such as the HELAA. Lichfields on behalf of Hallam Land Do not agree with a methodology for identifying housing Noted - representations provides further detail as part of Management 02311 allocations and Mere Lane, Edenthorpe should be other sections of the consultation and these are addressed proposed for residential development. therefore elsewhere. It should also be noted that this site now has planning permission (allowed on Appeal in Feb 2019) and so is supported as an allocation through the Publication version of the plan.

Spawforths on behalf of H Burtwistle & Increase housing requirement to 1300 dwellings over the Most of these points are more relevant to the spatial Son 03506/ 03507 & Framecourt Homes plan period. Reduce the potential from current strategy and Policy 3 and Site Selection Methodology. Ltd 05176 & Firsure 05215 & Priority commitments and include a non-delivery allowance. There has already been significant discounting of supply Space Ltd 05213 & Avant Homes 05208/ Include housing trajectory and 5yls. Identify safeguarded from commitments to account for sites with deliverability 05209/ 05210 land and allocate additional sites as per their clients issues, no account is taken for supply from permissions at ownership the villages or small sites 1-4 units for example. Likewise, there is already a buffer for non-delivery included in the proposed sites. The consultation only included draft policy text and not the full local plan document which will include the Housing Trajectory in due course and an up-to-date 5YHLS Statement will be prepared as part of the supporting documents to the plan and headlines included in the supporting text. Spawforths on behalf of Strata Homes Supports Policy 6 and its allocation of Broadaxe fro housing Noted. All proposed sites will be reviewed including 02076 (Site 234).The proposal is an appropriate site to provide for comments received from the consultation and used to the housing needs of Doncaster in the short term. inform the sites proposed through the Draft Local Plan at Confirmation of the allocation will contribute positively to the next stage (Regulation 19 - Publication Version) a balanced housing supply in the Borough in sustainable locations. The site can deliver a full range and mix of housing as part of a sustainable community. Development of the site would deliver affordable housing. Doncaster needs to have a robust housing trajectory with a sufficient supply of deliverable sites. The site at Broad Axe, Scawthorpe will assist with this delivery in the short term. The site is situated within a prime location suitable for residential development and as such would facilitate the development of land in an effective and efficient manner. Development of the site would not harm or undermine the area’s wider policy objectives, but seeks to reinforce the need to develop sites within sustainable locations as a priority. Peacock & Smith on behalf of Gleeson Object. See HELAA concerns/considerations. Some of the Noted - these matters are mainly related to the Site Homes 04164 permissions at the settlement have now lapsed or are for Selection Methodology. The site fails the flood risk

specialist housing and should be removed from the supply. sequential test in line with national planning policy. Further Even if the Council is minded to continue with its current to this, the Council does not have a Level 2 SFRA due to ‘Total Homes Identified’ figure of 625, the addition of an modelling and data limitations. The consultation identified allocation at Wike Gate Road for 180 dwellings, will therefore a supply of sites sufficient to meet the increase this figure to 805 total homes - this is still within settlement's growth target range and its share of Local the Council’s assessed requirement of between 510-1,075 Housing Need using sites not at risk of flooding as well as figure. commitments that are deliverable and viable and have site specific flood risk assessments with mitigation measures agreed with the EA. The strategy seeks to avoid housing where possible at risk of flooding in line with NPPF and the settlement growth ranges are another way of achieving this important policy objective. Planning permissions were extant as at the base date of the supply (1st April 2017) and will be updated as part of the next iteration of the plan, including any supply from new permissions consented during 2017/18 monitoring period. The specialist accommodation is self-contained and meets the Planning definition of what constitutes a dwelling and will provide an important form of residential accommodation to meet the housing needs of the Borough. Spawforths on behalf of Metroland Supports Policy 6 and its allocation of Alverley Lane, Balby Noted and support welcomed. All proposed sites will be 05216 (Site 115). reviewed including comments received from the consultation and used to inform the sites proposed through the Draft Local Plan at the next stage (Regulation 19 - Publication Version) Barton Wilmore on behalf of Barratt & Support allocation of 141 but objects to non-allocation of Noted - All proposed sites will be reviewed including David Wilson Homes 04955/ 04956 146 comments received from the consultation and used to inform the sites proposed through the Draft Local Plan at the next stage (Regulation 19 - Publication Version) WYG on behalf of Miller Homes 05071 Plan does not include Armthorpe allocations and excludes The consultation identified allocations as per the recently any sites in the Neighbourhood Plan area from the site adopted Armthorpe Neighbourhood Plan as well as a supply selection methodology which means other sites have not from extant permissions which totalled 1,117 net dwellings been properly assessed and have been overlooked. There over the plan period against the Local Plan housing

is a difference in the Neighbourhood Plan period and Local requirement for the Town of 420-985 net dwellings which is Plan plan period so there will be under delivery over the more than the settlement's housing requirement for the local plan plan period at Armthorpe and the local plan plan period therefore from allocations and Neighbourhood Plan policies will be out-of-date once the deliverable permissions and is exclusive therefore of any Local Plan is adopted. The Neighbourhood Plan is dictating other housing potential at the settlement (windfalls, to the Local Plan and this is not in conformity with NPPF. permissions 1-4 units etc) which would all be additional The SA of the growth options identified Option 2 (less supply. The Neighbourhood Plan is not dictating the Town's dispersal) as the most sustainable option and Armthorpe housing requirement. The target has been derived based on and Grange Farm site will assist in delivering this option. the same methodology for all settlements in the borough The SA objectives used for the Neighbourhood Plan was and the fact the LDF Core Strategy identified the Town as a different to 05that used for the Local Plan which is Principal Town with a similar housing target and the inconsistent and inequitable and fails to specifically Neighbourhood Plan has therefore been planning for a address Green Belt as part of it and is unsound. There are similar level of housing already. Agree some policies in the no exceptional circumstances to release Green Belt when Neighbourhood Plan prepared in conformity with the Core there are deliverable sites elsewhere that are non-Green Strategy will need to be reviewed, but not clear why this Belt. The Housing White Paper and subsequent Green Belt leads to an issue for the Local Plan? Government guidance policy changes strengthens the protection of the Green is clear that Local Plans should seek to avoid conflict with Belt. The plan lacks flexibility for non delivery from issues Neighbourhood Plans where possible. The settlement such as viability and strongly recommended that additional strategy has been informed by full sustainability appraisal allocations are identified such as at Armthorpe and is considered as being an appropriate strategy for the borough and subject to several rounds of consultation already. Green Belt has been considered in the round as part of the site selection methodology and informed by a Comprehensive Green Belt Review. It is acknowledged that further detail is to be provided on exceptional circumstances as part of a Green Belt Topic Paper to be published as part of the next stage of the Local Plan and this will need to address all relevant case law. There is already an element of flexibility built into the plan in terms of allocations and non-delivery. JVH Town Planning on behalf of Mr R Should set out the allocated sites by name, size and Noted - the consultation included draft policy wording but Crowe, Mrs G Platts, Mrs J Lodge, Mr S number of homes to be delivered. The Plan is not clear none of the supporting text or wider parts of the Local Plan Hanson, Messrs MA & JM Youdan how much of the proposed allocation of 13,800 actually at this stage. The next iteration of the plan will indeed need

has planning permission and how much is new allocation. to include the allocations with information on size/ There is no up-to-date 5YHLS as at March 2018 in the capacity/yield etc (although this was included in the background papers so impossible to tell if the Allocations supporting consultation documents such as the site and the sites relied upon are sufficient to deliver the selection methodology and settlement summaries). requirement Likewise the supply from permissions versus new allocations information was included and headlines will be incorporated into the draft local plan. All permissions (not started) and new allocations have been tested in line with the methodology for allocation and considered as deliverable/developable. The planning permissions supply base date for the consultation was April 2017 and the latest 5YHLS was published and also had the same base date. An up-to-date 5YHLS position statement will be prepared in due course Spawforths on behalf of Avant Homes Supportive of Policy 6 and its allocation for Site 170, Noted and support welcomed. All proposed sites will be 05211 Doncaster Road, Hatfield. reviewed including comments received from the consultation and used to inform the sites proposed through the Draft Local Plan at the next stage (Regulation 19 - Publication Version) Savills on behalf of Warde-Aldam There are more suitable sites in more sustainable locations Noted - sites in the consultation were proposed based on Estates 04706/ 04707/ 04708/ 04709 in the borough such as sites that have been rejected at the site selection methodology. Site representations Warmsworth which would be an extension to the Main received through this consultation, including any new Urban Area. Support need for developments to provide a reasonable site options, will be considered as part of the mix of house types and sizes, taking account of stock next iteration of the plan. Commitments have been imbalances, site characteristics, viability and market assessed in line with the methodology also and are considerations, and self build opportunities. Sites should considered as being deliverable/developable in the plan however be assessed on their individual merits. Council period with some discounting on certain sites where cannot over rely on existing commitments as non delivery necessary. Oher sources of supply will also provide could have a significant impact on land supply. Sites additional housing over the plan period. Green Belt proposed can therefore help the borough meet its housing safeguarding is only required "where necessary... and in needs for the borough / MUA. Safeguarding Green Belt order to meet longer-term development needs stretching should be considered. Land at Warmsworth should be well beyond the plan period" in line with NPPF. safeguarded for future development.

Johnson Mowatt on behalf of Strategic Helpful if tables referred to were included in the document The proposed allocations were set out in the site selection Land Group 04444, Mr & Mrs S Hall (PPs and allocations). Would be helpful to have separate methodology paper and supporting settlement summaries 04960, Harworth Group 05204/ 05205/ tables of PPs, allocations and proposed requirements for but will of course be included in the next iteration of the 05203 settlements. Unclear what sites are proposed (if any) in plan. Avoidance of flood risk has indeed informed the areas of flood risk. Confirmation is required that the settlement strategy and subsequent site selection process. previous urban concentration approach which did not give Only commitments in flood risk which are deliverable and the issue of flood risk due weight has been addressed. viable with site specific flood risk assessments and agreed Appears to be 10,000 permissions relied on for delivery mitigation are being included in the plan and contributing within and beyond the plan period. No info on non- towards the housing requirement. Further evidence will be implementation allowance. No account for lapse rate, provided looking at lapses and non-delivery but the despite it being monitored. 10% discount is fair and proposed sites already include allowances and there are reasonable to account for non-implementation of planning additional sources of housing supply which provides permissions. Plan should identify more sites than required flexibility. to create a buffer. Sites still not delivered by UDP exemplify need to do this. Should be a 20% buffer in Site Ref 1013 was not proposed as it forms an extension to addition to 17 years. Several rejected allocations should be a settlement where the housing requirement had already supported. been identified.

Site Ref 252 was not proposed as the site is currently designated as Green Belt and the Phase 3 Green Belt Review concludes that the site has a Moderately Weak Case for inclusion in further site selection work

Site Ref 829 was not proposed as the site is a large urban extension to a no growth settlement.

Site 247 was rejected on the basis of the site not being required to deliver housing for the settlement given other consents at the Town including the wider Colliery site to which this site would be an extension and based on information from the Outline planning permission.

Site 251 was rejected on the basis of the site having access issues.

All representations will be considered as part of informing proposed sites in the next iteration of the plan. JVH Town Planning on behalf of Mr Should set out allocated sites by name, size and number of Noted - the consultation included draft policy wording but Waddington 02343 & Mr Turnbull homes to be delivered. Not clear how many of proposed none of the supporting text or wider parts of the Local Plan 03259/ 03453 homes already have planning permission. Sites should only at this stage. The next iteration of the plan will indeed need be relied upon when they are shown to be deliverable. No to include the allocations with information on size/ flexibility to allow for sites that may not deliver on time or capacity/yield etc (although this was included in the in the plan period. supporting consultation documents such as the site selection methodology and settlement summaries). Likewise the supply from permissions versus new allocations information was included and headlines will be incorporated into the draft local plan. All permissions (not started) and new allocations have been tested in line with the methodology for allocation and considered as deliverable/developable. The planning permissions supply base date for the consultation was April 2017 and the latest 5YHLS was published and also had the same base date. An up-to-date 5YHLS position statement will be prepared in due course Persimmon Homes 03430 Happy to work with the council on their experience of Noted - the proposed sites already included flexibility for housing delivery in the borough. Plan should allocate more non -delivery and other sources of housing supply will come land than is required to meet the housing requirement as a forward over the plan period. All proposed sites are buffer. Should be sufficient to deal with under delivery. considered to be deliverable and some discounting has 20% contingency suggested, or as larger contingency as occurred where necessary to allow for slower lead-in times possible. Sites should be deliverable over the plan period or capacity from sites that cannot be evidenced at present and planned to an appropriate strategy. Assumptions on as deliverable/developable. delivery and capacity should be realistic and evidenced. Savills on behalf of Sandbeck 03569 A number of sites in Tickhill and Stainton are logical and Noted - all site representation information provided as part 03570/ 03571/ 04705 sensible sites for allocation (in clients ownership). Support of the consultation will be considered an used to inform in principal the need for mixes, different size etc., but each proposed sites through the next iteration of the draft plan,

site must be considered on its own merits, site by site. including the assessment of any new reasonable alterative Council cannot rely too much on existing commitments as sites. Non-delivery of any allocations has already been some will not come forward and this impacts land supply accounted for through additional flexibility in land supply position. Clients land should be considered favourably and other sources. (Sites 656; 357; 358; 359 and new site "Stud Farm". Savills on behalf of Sheffield Diocesan Suggests that 6 sites (5 rejected 1 new) are better than Noted - all site representation information provided as part 01097 some of current proposals of the consultation will be considered and used to inform proposed sites through the next iteration of the draft plan, including the assessment of any new reasonable alterative sites. Non-delivery of any allocations has already been accounted for through additional flexibility in land supply and other sources. Policy 7: Doncaster Sheffield Airport & Business Parks Turley 0n behalf of Peel Holdings Supports the identification of a specific policy for Airport. It is not the job of the plan is not to replicate the draft 5201/05202 Also support, in principle, the phased nature of land for airport masterplan proposals verbatim, however elements housing and employment. The policy should be clearly will be supported where deemed appropriate. The policy is defines and identifies as a Strategic Policy of the plan due a Strategic Policy in the publication version of the Local to size and implications of the development and growth Plan. potential. Policy does not fully allocate all of the proposals contained in Airport masterplan Historic England 0016 The supporting text to the policy needs to address how Comments noted. Archaeological impacts are noted in the some of the airports historic legacy is going to be Sustainability Appraisal and the developer requirements addressed. Also the impact redevelopment of this area and would also form an important part of any planning might have on the historic environment. High likelihood of application. The subtext for the airport policy now includes archaeological remains of national significance in the area. information on what is expected from an archaeological perspective. Cllr Richard Jones 01378 Part F mechanisms (ii) Re 280 homes – “how can this The initial 280 dwellings are proposed to be delivered up document predetermine what should happen in the front in lieu of 2545 jobs, however these will be factored in planning process” Appears to be conflict with airport to future calculations for any application for housing. For masterplan re a railway station. (ii) – is not appropriate, additional housing to come forward, the applicant must conflicts with (i) (iii) Manor Farm is sufficient housing to factor in an annualised share of the 2545 jobs (170 per contribute toward Airport employment without the annum), and show these have been delivered at the time of formulae. Why limit Airport Housing to 1200 – with

39 formulae the number becomes endless. Airport General – application, before the additional housing being applied for Has the current 1000 jobs been validated. would be considered.

Regarding mechanisms: The emerging Local Plan must allocate land, doing so is not pre-determining the planning process. Fii) aims to demonstrate at what point and by what mechanism additional housing in this location would be considered via a planning application. The airport have not raised any concerns that there is a conflict between the proposed housing and the proposed railway station. The ECML and the potential airport station is referenced in the policy and elsewhere in the plan. Do not believe Fi) & Fii) are contradictory, Fii) is designed to supplement Fi). Housing proposals at Manor Farm are separate to the airport, although it is of course possible that people who live here could work at the airport. This is accounted for in the release mechanism with one in every 9 jobs resulting in a house at the airport. The capacity of Manor Farm and the potential capacity of the airport housing area are similar, but these are two separate allocations with separate purposes. 1,200 is the proposed total capacity of this site, and should 1,200 houses be delivered, using the ratio it would mean the airport has delivered 10,910 jobs. Capping at 1,200 houses is both realistic in terms of jobs, and also prevents the formula being used indefinitely. The council is working with the airport to validate the exact amount of existing jobs here. The Policy has a 2020 date for the mechanism to start which gives time for this to be assessed.

Yorkshire Wildlife Trust 01546 We would encourage the inclusion of support for The policy has been amended to strengthen the developments within this locality which aim to create an environmental elements, including the DEFRA metric and a ecologically coherent network and achieve net gain in substantial explanation of environmental requirements in biodiversity (through DEFRA metrics) across the Doncaster the Policy subtext. Sheffield Airport Site as a whole. Sheffield City Council 01942 Support approach variety in modes of access from across Support noted the region. DMBC Public Health 03351 Number of health impacts: airports increase emissions and The airport policy has now been published with substantial pollutants; high exposure to noise impacts residents subtext and policy explanation, which previously was not (aircraft and surface transport). In addition to assessments available. This includes a number different requirements to and plans in section J, airport expansion should be subject encourage a holistic approach to development at the to a HIA and public health involved at earliest opportunity. airport. The plan should be read as a whole and Policy 51 Health impact assessment should cover travel deals specifically with health. infrastructure and impacts of increased usage on environment, including air quality. If local centre develops at Hayfield, should be inclusive, clear, walkable and cycle friendly. RPS Group on behalf of Troy Verdion This policy should be recognised as fundamentally linked to The links between the airport and the wider M18 corridor, 05177 the iPort scheme as part of a wider vison of an including iPort, were set out in the Settlement Background “international gateway” (set out by SCR). Paper for consultation, and the Policy subtext now has a includes a noted link to the iport development and "gateway to the city region". ID Planning on behalf of Harron Homes Airport growth supported. Housing growth as proposed in Support for airport growth noted. Other settlements in the 05184 the policy is not supported. Housing growth should be borough will also be delivering housing growth for the delivered through the settlements with existing facilities borough, including Rossington. The housing at the airport is and services close to the airport additional to this and is designed to encourage the growth and economic development of this important asset. Auckley Parish Council 0734 Concerned over monitoring of jobs associated with The airport Policy, subtext and Local Plan appendix are all additional homes. Seek clarification re definition of 'Airport available now and include details on the mechanism and Jobs' or not specifically Airport related, and location of what jobs would be considered to count as jobs which lead jobs i.e contracted off site jobs. Commercial /Retail to housing development at the airport. Likewise, the retail development - do not wish to see this become an out of section of the policy subtext elaborates on what would be town retail park. Would add to traffic problems. expected at the aiport.

High Melton Parish Council 0759 Support better links to the airport including the provision Support noted. A train line in this location is an aspiration of of a train link which will improve congestion and provide a the airport and will be subject to ongoing work on faster journey time. feasibility. It is referred to in the Policy. Policy 8: Delivering the Necessary Range of Housing Sheffield City Council [1942] Sheffield is not in a position to meet any of Doncaster’s The two local authorities’ Statement of Common Ground housing need. Need confirmation post consultation that will establish the level of agreement between Doncaster Doncaster will be meeting all of its own need. and Sheffield on this matter.

Welcomes housing target set in supporting SCR economic growth. Support noted. HBF [129] Housing Mix Government policy and guidance requires that the size, type Johnson Mowat (Strategic Land Group)  Greater flexibility in requirements geographically and and tenure of housing needed for different groups should [4444] over plan period. Latest HNA only ever presents a be assessed in the context of deriving a housing Persimmon [3430] snapshot in time – may not reflect position at time of requirement based on a local housing need assessment. application Local Plan Policy 8 recognises this but allows for flexibility  Should create housing market that will attract (both geographically and temporally) through the use of the investors and provide an element of aspiration to words "or other robust evidence" which can be taken into ensure working people and families are retained within account in individual planning decisions – other the area assessments and evidence will emerge over the plan period. It is not prescriptive on the mix and type of housing. However, the baseline rightly remains the latest housing needs assessment adopted for use by the Council. Updated evidence on housing mix and type as of Spring 2019 is being published alongside Publication draft Local Plan – evidence will emerge over the plan period. In addition, the policy should be read against all other policies and other material considerations. The Plan is providing for a mix of sites which is considered meets a range of needs including those who may bring investment into the Borough and for those aspiring to move within the Borough either locally or elsewhere in the Borough.

Spawforths (Burstwistle [3506] / Fisure  Policy should not dictate mix of housing. No evidence The policy does not dictate the mix of housing that must be [5125] / Priority Space [5213]/ Avant to justify. Flexibility should be introduced. provided. Rather it highlights the needs identified that can Homes [5208-11]) be used to guide implementation of local planning policy. Gladman [2989]. The Plan allows for flexibility through the use of the words or other robust evidence; but it is important that the Plan is based on an evidence based baseline as required by Government policy and guidance. Since the consultation updated evidence is now available in the Spring 2019 Housing Needs Study. DLP (Keepmoat Homes) [3111]  Variations must be as far as possible reflected in Plan’s The Council has undertaken a Viability Appraisal published viability appraisal. for comment and revised for Local Plan publication. This takes account of differing needs across the Borough through the use of development typologies. It is considered this is a robust study that has, as far as possible, balanced the need to avoid over-complication in assessing too many different typologies by choosing a range which is a reasonable reflection of the main variations in development viability across the Borough. The 2019 Viability Appraisal update models a number of actual Local Plan allocations. Both of these studies have had questionnaires circulated to allow stakeholders to input into the assumptions in the viability model. CPRE [77]  Given NPPF2018 requirement for viability to be This suggestion is considered too prescriptive, inflexible and assessed at Plan stage, would refer to six indicative overly onerous for little gain than would be achieved housing mix set for each site allocation. compared to the approach that has been adopted of assessing viability at Plan making stage through the use of site typologies and representative sites. It would be wrong and impractical to apply this for every site.  Additional policy recommended that sets types of As given in response to Policy 3 it is not agreed the housing transformative housing needed for additional housing requirement is set too high. The suggested additional policy provision above standard methodology figure. is therefore not required. HBF [129] Affordable Housing DLP (Keepmoat Homes) [3111]

Spawforths (Burstwistle [3506-7] /  Must ensure viability. Viability report shows low Preparation of the policy has taken account of viability Strata [2073] / Framecourt Homes values areas can’t support any AH, medium areas appraisal evidence, recently updated post NPPF2019 and to [5176] / Avant Homes [5208-11]) would struggle (particularly if BCIS median values are take account of latest proposed local planning policies and Gladman [2989] used) their impact on viability. NPPF 2019 para 57 shifts the J10 [308]  Unrealistic to negotiate site by site because baseline of emphasis on demonstration of viability to Plan making from Johnson Mowat (Strategic Land Group) policy (or policies in combination) will jeopardise the planning application stage. In line with this NPPF2019 [4444] housing delivery para 57 policy it is up to the applicant to demonstrate Persimmon [3430]  The 2016 DVS viability report supporting the affordable whether particular circumstances justify the need for a housing requirements should be updated to reflect viability assessment at planning application stage. The NPPF 2018, particularly for build costs (to reflect Publication draft retain a viability policy which allows for recent and longer term trends); and sales values (to viability to be review at planning application stage where reflect values over longer period of time and ensuring genuine viability issues exist. value areas are correctly defined

 May want to consider revisions to definition of AH and All the policies including Policy 8 has been reviewed provision, set out in NPPF 2018 : AHfR; SH; DMSH; following the publication of the NPPF2019. This includes Other new definitions on affordable housing products.  The 25% target in high value areas is too inflexible. Plan making is subject to viability testing of the Plan as a Does not reflect para 64 of NPPF. whole and this has been considered via the Viability Evidence Base for the Plan. Requiring more than the minimum 10% affordable housing provision that the Government expects on major development sites (NPPF 2019 para 64) is reasonable subject to supporting robust evidence base. The 2019 Viability Study update concludes 23% is more appropriate for the Borough’s high value areas – defined in that Study – and reflected in the explanatory text to the Policy. NPPF 2019 para 57 shifts the emphasis on demonstration of viability to Plan making from the planning application stage. In line with this NPPF2019 para 57 policy it is up to the applicant to demonstrate whether particular circumstances justify the need for a viability assessment at planning application stage. The Viability

Study and update concludes that 25%/23% is not just viable but comfortably so based on the assumptions used.

Lichfields (Hallam Land [2311] /  There is no definition of high value areas – so the The high value areas, as identified in the Viability Evidence, Theakston [1937]) policy is difficult to interpret, is not clearly written. are summarised in the supporting text to the policy at Barton Willmore (Barratt / DW Homes) Publication Stage. [4955-6] HBF [129] Adaptable & Accessible Housing This policy needs to be read in conjunction with Policy 46 of Spawforths (Burstwistle [3506-7] /  Not appropriate that all proposals should require such the Publication Draft Plan on ‘Housing design Standards’. Fisure [5215] / Priority Space [5213] / provision as set out in HBF response to Policy 46 The Council has prepared the policies based on robust Avant Homes [5208-10]) (Housing design Standards). evidence in the Council’s Housing Design Standards Policy Persimmon [3430]  Flexibility should be increased. Evidence Paper (published at Publication). The policies Johnson Mowat (Strategic Land Group together do not rigidly require all new developments to [4444]) provide such measures. Flexibility is included where the applicant can robustly demonstrate, with appropriate Barton Willmore (Barratt / DW Homes) evidence, that site specific factors make the policy [4955-6]  Unclear whether provision of bungalows (which impact unfeasible or unviable. on viability and thus deliverability) are to be imposed or whether this is aspirational. The policy seeks to meet better the needs of elderly people in provision of housing. Bungalows are cited as just one type of housing that can be considered. It is considered the wording is clear that it is not imposing bungalows on all development proposals. HBF [129] Custom & Self Build The policy "encourages" the provision of opportunities for Spawforths (Burstwistle [3506-7] /  Concerned may not actually add to supply – may just custom build and self-build but does not necessarily require Fisure [5215] / Priority Space [5213] / change the type of provider on allocations. Evidence it. It is prepared in accordance with relevant guidance in Avant Homes [5208-10]) should be collected to demonstrate this would actually PPG. Opportunities can be considered as they arise. It is Barton Willmore (Barratt / DW Homes) happen. considered appropriate to include such policy to help widen [4955-6]  Flexibility should be increased. choice and opportunities for housing provision. It is not Johnson Mowat (Strategic Land Group) considered necessary to ensure that house building delivery [4444] from this source necessarily provides an additional Persimmon [3430] contribution to boosting housing supply compared to more

traditional forms of house building – it is more about increasing opportunities and choice. Policy 9: Rural Exceptions J10 [308] Should apply to all settlements regardless. Currently does The 2018 draft Local Plan policy on rural exceptions has not reflect NPPF para 145 (sic). been deleted and is not intended to be replaced. Previous similar local planning policy has not secured any significant rural exceptions housing.

Policy 2 has been revised to be more consistent with NPPF 2019 to allow limited development in appropriate locations, and subject to the safeguards and limitations set out, at Defined Villages. This can include affordable housing and is considered a more positive and flexible approach to secured affordable housing in rural locations in the Borough.

The overall strategy for deciding where to identify allocated growth is set by Policy 2. Working to the approach described in the Housing and Settlement Strategic Topic Paper, the Settlement Audit and past consultations considering options for distributing growth in the Borough, it is considered that a reasonable approach has been proposed to identify where development is most sustainable. It is considered a cut-off in terms of a “settlement” size and services should be used to direct development where it would best enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. Other policy allows for development in the Countryside, namely Policy 26 (Development in the Countryside) sites and NPPF para 71 (entry level exception sites).

Joint Rural Parishes [4013] Can only realistically be provided in urban areas as number As above. and type of defined villages restricts opportunities

Sirius Planning [5000-2] Limiting assessment of affordable housing need to just a As above. defined village is too small and could restrict types of development coming forward due to viability constraints. To ensure the affordable housing needs are catered for a certain quantum of development will be required to ensure a viable development which may require adjacent villages / parishes to be combined into one site. Support statement that "small-scale affordable housing will be supported as a small extension to the village...", and especially support Part C re: market housing and rural site viability. Limiting to 1 or 2 market homes is too restrictive, may require more to make sites viable in some areas. No limits in the NPPF. Policy 9 may be restricting rather than facilitating (contrary to NPPF para. 77). Policy should be altered to enable schemes to be considered on their own merit to bring it in line with para. 77. Object to Part D re: physically well integrated into the village. Could limit the scale of affordable housing coming forward, contrary to para 84 of NPPF. Policy 10: Houses in Multiple Occupation DMBC Public Health 03351 Size and physical condition of HMOs should be conductive Noted. Will consider how to improve policy to take account to health. Should be safe, warm and well constructed, but of comments made and re-consult. provide enough space, good facilities for preparation of food, and adequate storage, including cycle storage. HMO proposals take into account access to wider health improving employment opportunities, social networks, essential services and amenities and green space. Design principles should help support safe and healthy communal living and promote the health of those that live there. Planning should consider impact of loss of large family homes within localities. Policy 11: Residential Policy Areas

SA Criterion B) could be amended to enable non-residential No change is considered necessary. The criterion would uses in residential policy areas where they would help allow for such uses without further amendment. address existing deficiencies in terms of accessibility to jobs and services. Policy 12: Gypsies, Travellers & Travelling Show People DMBC Public Health 03351 Policy goes some way to addressing health and wellbeing General support noted. Interaction with neighbours is issues, including natural environment protection, local covered within the policy, and overall the policy seeks to amenities and infrastructure, highway access, townscape see development that would be sustainable, safe and integration and flood mitigation. Supporting expansion of healthy for potential residents (Part D in particular includes well managed sites could increase availability of healthier points which will contribute to this). Policies within the homes. Gypsy and traveller health and wellbeing should be Local Plan should be read in conjunction with one another, taken into account considering extensions, ensuring sites Policy 51 indicates the need for a HIA. don't harm health of residents or neighbours. Needs a coordinated approach. Sites should be healthy and sustainable economically, social and environmentally. HIA should be undertaken at earliest point and public health involved at earlies point. Michael Hargreaves Planning on behalf Question the assumption that needs can be met within Regarding the 2015 Planning Policy for Traveller Sites, of Horace & Anthony Durrant 05194 existing sites for reasons including: Needs from Gypsies & Annex 1: Glossary (2) clarifies that for the purposes of Travellers who fall outside the 2015 definition; Needs from planning policy, consideration should be given to whether Gypsies & Travellers in housing; poor quality of some or not Gyspises and Travellers are nomadic (whether or not existing sites & related issues of tensions between they still travel or intend to travel). However, the boroughs different families, which means they are not suitable for assessment of Gypsies and Travellers does not discount many residents anyone based on this and therefore hard to see who would be referred to by this comment as long as they have been challenge the requirement (Policy 12 C) for new sites to recorded in the assessment (and the assessment has gone have the capacity for at least 5 pitches. Smaller sites tend to great lengths to capture as many people as is possible to be more successful & favoured by both Travellers have been reached). The report has also attempted to catch themselves & their non-Traveller neighbours. insofar as is possible the needs of any Gypsies and Travellers currently in housing and potential demand arising from this. Where sites are undergoing maintenance and not available immediately they are not recorded as immediately available in the GTANA calculations for vacancies, however

if repair work is scheduled this will be recorded as short term supply available within one year. On council owned sites, where repairs are noted they will be dealt with within a few days or weeks, and therefore should not preclude such sites (if applicable) from any calculations. It is the Council’s view that 20 pitches, in the form of 3 or 4 well located, well laid out and well managed sites, is both preferable to, and would have less impact than, 20 single pitch sites which can be larger than pitches on multiple pitch sites and are likely to be relatively socially and environmentally unsustainable. The creation of new smaller sites within towns and villages would still be possible as would smaller extensions to existing sites subject to relevant policy considerations. Environment Agency 0014 Point D)7) suggests that proposals for new sites or Comments noted. The plan should be read as a whole and pitches/yards will be required to demonstrate that they in accordance with National Policy. Development in areas of can be made resilient to flood risk. In turn, this implies that flood risk is covered elsewhere in the plan and therefore these types of developments are appropriate, without will not be covered here to avoid any confusion over reference to which flood zone they are in. Permanent approach as highlighted. Incorrect cross referencing has residential caravans are classed as ‘highly vulnerable’ and been corrected. Table 3: flood risk vulnerability and flood zone ‘compatibility' in the PPG clearly states that highly vulnerable uses are not suitable in flood zones 3a or 3b. We note that many of the existing sites identified in the table at the end of this policy are located in flood zone 3. This will in turn raise issues for bringing unused land on existing sites into use, and will need to be justified against national planning policy. Points in F belong to D Policy 13:Strategic Transport Network CPRE 0077 Support multi modal approach. Have a number of serious The spatial strategy presented by the Local Plan focuses on concerns about the policy re increase in carbon emissions, delivering sustainable growth. The distribution of and strategy should be more rail and bus. A Plan which development proposed is focussed in and around existing

takes sustainable transport seriously will be markedly less settlement areas and reflects Doncaster's existing key dependent on road-based locational strategies, will focus transport corridors, including key public transport routes. growth around rail nodes, promote walkable The approach adopted through this policy supports the neighbourhoods, and seek to transform the active travel proposed growth using a multi-modal approach to facilitate opportunity in existing neighbourhoods. In our view this the development strategy. A comprehensive multi-modal adds up to a different development strategy than is approach to the Strategic Transport Network is vital to currently proposed, especially in terms of employment successful deliver the Local Plan growth from a transport locations. perspective. The Plan looks to ensure the promotion of We support a multi-modal approach to ensuring that the sustainable travel in all transport policies as a means to movement of people and goods is as sustainable as reduce environmental impact and carbon emissions in line possible. We have a number of serious concerns about this NPPF chapter 9. policy: • It should sit within the context of a meaningful carbon reduction target for the Borough, such that those schemes that will reduce carbon emissions are prioritised, and those which will increase carbon emissions are only progressed if they will not detract from net carbon emissions reductions overall; • In this context the bulk of the proposed road schemes appear to add up to very carbon-intensive growth programme, which we cannot accept as sustainable; • The development strategy should be more clearly predicated on rail and bus connections – the measures in part B need to directly shape development, as we have argued above. Brodsworth Parish Council 0586 Welcomes policy. Hickleton/Marr bypass would relieve Response in support of policies - no change congestion on A635 and impact on air quality. Marr Parish Council 0746 Marr Parish understands that transport Links are vital and Recognise support for West Moor Link scheme, Hatfield Link that they contribute to the prosperity of the Town: Road scheme, Hickleton and Marr Bypasses. With regard to A1-A19 Link, existing connections between A1 / A19 via Marr Parish unanimously agree with the Issue and Options Skellow do not have sufficient capacity to accommodate the responses and support DMBC that development along the additional traffic arising from proposed growth opportunities. The link road will help boost regeneration

A1(M) corridor is inappropriate. and economic development in Doncaster’s northern communities. Support the proposed widening of the existing A1/A1 (M) but is completely opposed to the creation of a new build Concerning the A1(M) schemes, improvements to the A1/A1 (M). Green Belt land will potentially need to be Strategic Road Network are planned and delivered by utilised to enable road widening but it should be kept to a Highways England and beyond the remit of the Local Plan. minimum. Would not support the expansion of the A1/A1 (M) to the west or the creation of a “new” A1/A1 (M) on Green Belt land which as a result would create Green Belt land isolated within an old and new A1/A1 (M).

Does not believe there is a requirement or public demand for a link road between the A19 and A1 (M) and does not support it. This proposed initiative had by far the lowest support in previous consultation. Support DMBC when they state ‘…it is unlikely that extra traffic on the A1 (M) will be supported by Highways England….’. This link road would generate extra traffic on to an already congested stretch on the A1(M). Why is this link road in the local plan? Object to it as there is more than sufficient access to the east of the Borough.

Agree and support that the M18 has capacity for further growth and support development along this transport corridor. Recognise the strategic importance of employment development along the M18 which will not consume any Green Belt land.

Support the dualling of the A630 Westmoor Link Road to improve access to Wheatley Hall Road / Kirk Sandall and potentially release the vast acreage of land and large number of underdeveloped brown field sites in this

location for development.

Support the Hatfield Link road scheme to connect Hatfield/Stainforth to Junction 5 of the M18/Junction 1 of the M180 and unlocking 200ha of development land.

Support the A635 Bypass and its inclusion in the Local Plan. This is a priority as it will address the congested trunk roads in the West of the Borough. It would also help to reduce traffic congestion, pollution and round-the-clock noise pollution in Hickleton, Marr and Hampole, and to improve access to Barnsley and Wakefield respectively. DMBC must prioritise and invest in the existing road/transport infrastructure before it proposes to invest in new link roads, if it is to meet its expected housing growth needs. As a result, the A635 bypass is now a “need to have” in the full Local Plan Draft Proposal.

Strongly oppose the current High Speed Phase 2b proposed rail route through Doncaster and South Yorkshire as well as a proposed rail junction at Clayton or a Parkway Station.

Agree that rail links to the Airport would help to take traffic off the roads and aid congestion. High Melton Parish Council 0759 Supportive of new bus routes between Doncaster and Policy 13- Recognise support for schemes, notes objection Barnsley and the airport. Support increased rail freight to HS2. movements. Support a bypass for Hickleton and Marr as it would benefit the residents and surrounding villages. It should be a priority. Also support: the widening of the A1; the upgrade of the A1 – A19 link; increased capacity for the M1; a northern link Doncaster to Barnsley; the upgrading

of the east coast mainline; and Pennine Links. Strongly oppose HS2. IGas Energy PLC 05129 Supports policy to minimise traffic movement where Response in support of policy. feasible. Any transport policy must recognise that minerals including oil and gas can only be worked where they are found. Cllr Richard Jones 01378 Policy 13b - Should look at the feasibility of a station at Policy supports rail improvements including new, expanded Bawtry. Policy 13 - Mainline connectivity to the Airport or re-opened lines and stations and rail links to outlying should be shown relative to Housing allocations. There towns and communities where feasible. Further work would could be additional stations at Bawtry, Bessacarr and be required beyond the Local Plan to explore the feasibility Askern. Suggest take out paragraph re Great Yorkshire of new lines and stations. The Doncaster Sheffield Airport way. Station scheme is in the early stages of development. Configuration of the station will be subject to assessment throughput the design process and subject to evaluation through planning process. Removed references to FARRRS. Lynn Clark 04850 The A635 is on the most polluted roads in Yorkshire. Traffic Policy recognises the potential benefits of Hickleton & Marr is fast and lorries are intimidating. At least 9 accidents have Bypasses. It is acknowledged that the A635 provides happened in the last year. It is now the time for Doncaster severance and environmental issues within the villages, and Barnsley to work together to bring about a solution to particularly regarding air quality. The schemes are this ever increasing problem. It would be great if the acknowledged as potential infrastructure projects and their problem of the A635 could be solved by cycling, walking, aspiration status has been established in the various electric cars, better public transport and clean lorries but strategic and spatial infrastructure plans including their the road is main artery connecting the M1 and A1 so these inclusion in the Local Plan. Supporting text of policy revised measures will fail. The only option is for a bypass around to acknowledge severance and air quality issues. Hickleton and Marr. DMBC Street Scene 04778 No mention of Green Infrastructure impacts within draft Noted wording – the West Yorkshire Combined Authorities have a GI assessment document that must be completed before any infrastructure works to assess and mitigate negative impacts. Additional impact on Highway and Winter maintenance of extended sections of the new extended Highway network. Road side Lorry Parking facilities and the

negative impact it has on the environment and could lead to cases of ASB along with flytipping, littering and defecation issues. Increasing the need of increased enforcement and implementation of action with offending individuals. Cathy Freeborn 04989 Need for Hickleton and Marr. Current road has become a Policy recognises the potential benefits of Hickleton & Marr total hazard. Unsuitable amount and type of traffic on this Bypasses. It is acknowledged that the A635 provides road. severance and environmental issues within the villages, particularly regarding air quality. The schemes are acknowledged as potential infrastructure projects and their aspiration status has been established in the various strategic and spatial infrastructure plans including their inclusion in the Local Plan. Supporting text of policy revised to acknowledge severance and air quality issues. Anthony Wilson 04990 Inaction to produce by-pass. Environmental disaster and if Policy recognises the potential benefits of Hickleton & Marr not currently have an inadequate road system. Bypasses. It is acknowledged that the A635 provides severance and environmental issues within the villages, particularly regarding air quality. The schemes are acknowledged as potential infrastructure projects and their aspiration status has been established in the various strategic and spatial infrastructure plans including their inclusion in the Local Plan. Amended approach in Local Plan J10 Planning on behalf of Brodsworth Welcome references to A1-A19 link and Hickleton/Marr Policy states commitment to range of Major Road Network Estate 0308 bypass. Not acceptable that it doesn’t say how A1-A19 link Enhancement Priorities including the A1-A19 link. Delivery could be delivered as a standalone project. Tone of opportunities are being explored, A1-A19 link is a named references to link is not very positive or aspirational. The scheme in Transport for North Investment Programme. non-committal approach is odd given that development of BML is dependent on the link. RPS Group on behalf of Troy Verdion Supports ‘Policy 13: Strategic Transport Network’. ‘Policy Response in support of policy. 05177 13. (D)5, provision of iPort strategic rail freight interchange, and its incorporation in strategic policy, is crucial for Doncaster

Martin Elliott 05039 Local Plan must give consideration to the provision of a Policy recognises the potential benefits of Hickleton & Marr bypass for Hickleton and Marr. Due to volume of traffic Bypasses. It is acknowledged that the A635 provides from A635, the road between A(1)M junction 37 and severance and environmental issues within the villages, Goldthorpe bypass is frequently congested. There are particularly regarding air quality. The schemes are major distribution centres that need to use the A635 yet acknowledged as potential infrastructure projects and their the road through Hickleton is unsuitable. Recent air quality aspiration status has been established in the various surveys show pollution caused by traffic exceeds strategic and spatial infrastructure plans including their acceptable levels and has an effect on the fabric of inclusion in the Local Plan. Amended supporting text in buildings. Hickleton is a designated Conservation area with Local Plan listed buildings and work should be done to reduce traffic levels. Turley on behalf of Peel Group 05201/ Welcomes commitment that proposals which will improve Local Plans are required to be reviewed at least once every 05202 rail transport will be supported. The policy needs five years in line with the NPPF. Changes in accessibility, explanatory text which sets out should rail proposals come such as the development of new rail stations, will be forward within plan period there will need to review the reflected in the spatial strategies of such reviews. relevant policies as rail connectivity will increase development opportunities. Tangent Properties on behalf of ION Policy 13 – B – needs to include HS2/NPR specifically; The citing of a potential parkway station in South Yorkshire Property 05207 particularly the potential offered by a “Parkway Station” has yet to be confirmed. It would not be appropriate to along the route of HS2. include policies relating to development opportunities at this stage due to the uncertainty regarding its location. Changes in accessibility, such as the development of new rail stations, will be reflected in the spatial strategies of such reviews. Barnsley MBC 0006 Barnsley strongly supports the components of policy 13. Comments in support of policy. Related to the asset of Doncaster Sheffield Airport and its associated cluster of economic activities and with regard to Barnsley MBC’s response to the Doncaster Sheffield Airport Vision and Masterplan consultation (March 2018 can the following be inserted in to added to policy 13 as criteria B? New connections to Doncaster’s rail network to facilitate access to the cluster of employment and visitor attractions around Doncaster Sheffield Airport from

immediate neighbouring economies such as the Barnsley Dearne Valley currently lacking such rail connections and access. Carter Jonas on behalf of Harworth Support final paragraph of the policy: “developments Schemes related to the SRN are the remit of HE. As such it Group 05190 which generate large volumes of freight traffic…….”. Note would not be appropriate to include details of unconfirmed and support criteria A) It would be useful if the supporting HE schemes in the Local Plan. text in the table in Policy 13 could include the intended M18 improvements. Cllr Cynthia Ransome & Cllr Jonathan Pleased Hickleton Bypass highlighted, but no meaningful Policy recognises the potential benefits of Hickleton & Marr Wood 01394/ 01404 priority is assigned to the project. A list is not a solution. Bypasses. It is acknowledged that the A635 provides Project should have meaningful priority. severance and environmental issues within the villages, particularly regarding air quality. The schemes are acknowledged as potential infrastructure projects and their aspiration status has been established in the various strategic and spatial infrastructure plans including their inclusion in the Local Plan. Amended supporting text in Local Plan DMBC Public Health 03351 HIA should be carried out when transport networks HIA requirements are detailed elsewhere in the Local Plan developed and omitted in this policy to avoid duplication. The Joint Rural Parishes 04013 Do not support the A19 / A1 link road - no requirement or Support for specific schemes. With regard to A1-A19 Link, public demand. Cannot understand why it is still in the existing connections between A1 / A19 via Skellow do not plan. Expect this to be omitted from the full version. have sufficient capacity to accommodate the additional Support Westmoor Link - want included in final plan. traffic arising from proposed growth opportunities. The link Support Hatfield link road - want in final plan. Support road will help boost regeneration and economic A635 bypass scheme - want included in final plan, should development in Doncaster’s northern communities be a priority as Doncaster grows. If not, issues exacerbated by both Doncaster and Barnsley growth. Julie Golze 05041 Makes reference to the Hickleton Bypass but ignores that Policy recognises the potential benefits of Hickleton & Marr Hickleton is a conservation village which is also designated Bypasses. It is acknowledged that the A635 provides an Air Quality Management Area, which now has the worst severance and environmental issues within the villages, NOx levels in Yorkshire. This is totally unreasonable and particularly regarding air quality. The schemes are the Local Plan is therefore unsound. There should be acknowledged as potential infrastructure projects and their pollution reduction strategies for Hickleton, the council is aspiration status has been established in the various

obligated to initiate pollution reduction strategies. strategic and spatial infrastructure plans including their Hickleton was designated and AQMA in 2015, the inclusion in the Local Plan. Supporting text of policy revised recommended level of NOx has consistently been to acknowledge severance and air quality issues. exceeded every year since monitoring commenced due to traffic. Two way traffic movement through Hickleton has been increasing since 2012, including an increase in heavy goods vehicles. Accidents are also increasing on the A635 (9 in Jan - Sep 2018; 8 in 15 previous months). United Kingdom Onshore Oil & Gas Recognises the importance of minimising traffic movement This will be accounted for through planning process 05014 but policy must recognise the principal that minerals including oil and gas can only be worked where they are found. Policy 14: Promoting sustainable transport within new developments Lichfields on behalf of Theakston Estates Not consistent with NPPF 109. Should be amended to: "We In light of NPPF changes, policy to be updated. 01937 will work with developers to ensure that: 5. development does not result in an unacceptable impact on highway safety or a severe residual cumulative impact on the road network. Where necessary, developers will be required to mitigate (or contribute towards) any predicted adverse effects on the highway network. RPS Group on behalf of Troy Verdion iPort supports ‘Policy 14: DMBC should provide a policy Response in support of policy 05177 specifically focused on iPort and prioritise iPort as the primary B8 site in Doncaster. Barton Wilmore on behalf of Barratt & part b, objects to retrospective contributions Removed references to retrospective contributions. David Wilson Homes 04955/ 04956 (unreasonable and unsound) Carter Jonas on behalf of Harworth Support that “new development hall make appropriate Support noted Group 05190 provision for access by sustainable modes of transport……”. Harworth will provide a full range of sustainable transportation measures. DMBC Public Health 03351 Pleased to see inclusion of travel plans as a requirement. Cycle parking is covered through policy 17 and through Policy should include requirement for safe and secure cycle parking standards appendix. parking. Sustainable transport should be addressed early in application process via pre-app / HIA.

Canal & Rivers Trust 03089 Supportive of A)3 ensuring development linkages to Comments in support. Taken account of need to mitigate walking and cycling network. However, mitigation of impacts of development on walking and cycling network. development impacts should also apply to walking and Amended to: Where necessary, developers will be required cycling network. Suggested text amendments provided to mitigate (or contribute towards) any predicted adverse effects on the highway and the wider transport network. Policy 15: Doncaster Town Centre Parking High Melton Parish Council 0759 The proposal to reduce short stay parking to 2 hours is very Policy does not look to reduce town centre parking to 2 restrictive and may deter shoppers who may wish to have hours - it looks to deter commuter parking through a lunch. The Plan is supporting eating establishments reduction of long stay parking. Policy can only be applied to without suitable parking. The focus should be on cost and development requiring new planning permission and will affordability. have limited impact on existing car pars in the town centre which are not subject to temporary permission. DMBC Public Health 03351 Should be a clear reference to cycle parking in the policy. Policy is specifically focused at controlling town centre car Should be similar to car parking. parking to prevent oversupply which could be detrimental to health of town centre and to ensure new provision is to a high standard. Cycle parking is covered through policy 17 and through parking standards appendix. Policy 16: Lorry Parking Brodsworth Parish Council 0586 Welcomes lorry parks if it alleviates problem of overnight Response in support of policies - no change stays on the A635 and Scawsby lane. DMBC Public Health 03351 Need clarity on how lorry parking will be managed in the Policy looks to reduce disruptions caused by inappropriate interim. Support creation of lorry parking strategy and lorry parking through the provision of suitable facilities. recommend HIA on any proposals. Local Plan has limited powers to address existing lorry parking concerns. However, a reference to investigating TRO options has been added. Policy 17: Cycling in Doncaster High Melton Parish Council 0759 Support for the maintenance and improvements of cycling Support. routes and facilities. DMBC Public Health 03351 Cycle networks should be fit for purpose. HIA and pre - app Policy reflects aims and objectives of Doncaster Cycling discussion should be at earliest point. Travel plans should Strategy. Travel Plans and cycle parking are development be in place and monitored and car parking should be requirements.

balanced with safe and secure cycle parking to encourage cycling. Policy 18: Walking in Doncaster High Melton Parish Council 0759 Support new and existing walking routes. Special attention Response in support of policy. Design requirements will be is required with road crossings. Designers need to be covered in support SPD and assessed through planning mindful of obstacles e.g. low walls and bollards. process. DMBC Public Health 03351 Policy needs to reflect Doncaster Walking Strategy. Pre app Policy reflects approach of Walking Strategy. However, and HIA would address impacts of walking at design stage. further amended to strengthen affiliation with Walking Travel plans should be in place and monitored. Strategy. Policy 19: Development Affecting Public Rights of Way Spawforths on behalf of H Burtwistle & Considers Policy 19 unsound. Concerned with Part D. Comments noted. Policy 19 D updated and amended. It is Son (03507) & Strata Homes (02703) & Approach on non-definitive footpaths is onerous and considered to be required within the Planning stages of Metroland (05215) restrictive. Flexibility needs to be incorporated. development, it is considered to be in the developers best interest to consider unrecorded routes and desire lines across a site at an early stage. If not and public rights are proven to exist, following the lengthy legal process, they will be more difficult to accommodate than if they were considered at the application stage, particularly if development has commenced on site. Barton Wilmore on behalf of Barratt & Policy 19 part d, welcomes PROW policy, but unrecorded Comments noted. Policy 19 D updated and amended. It is David Wilson Homes (04955) routes and desire lines cannot be considered the same as considered to be required within the Planning stages of PROW. Delete from policy not revised NPPF compliant development, it is considered to be in the developers best interest to consider unrecorded routes and desire lines across a site at an early stage. If not and public rights are proven to exist, following the lengthy legal process, they will be more difficult to accommodate than if they were considered at the application stage, particularly if development has commenced on site. DMBC Public Health (03351) Any development impacting PROW should be discussed at Noted pre-app and HIA should be at earliest possible stage. Policy 20: Access, Design and Layout of Public Rights of Way

Spawforths on behalf of H Burtwistle & Considers Policy 20 unsound. Approach in part B and C is Comments noted. It is considered Policy 20 is relevant for Son (03507) & Strata Homes (02703) & onerous and restrictive and could hinder schemes delivery. planning consideration. The widths are outlined in the Metroland (05215) Needs flexibility. Rights of Way Improvement Plan and have been included to prevent narrow, enclosed, undesirable paths and the perceived crime and antisocial behaviour that these types of paths attract. The NPPF (para 98) seeeks planning policies and decisions to protect and enhance public rights of way and access, including taking opportunities to provide better facilities for users, for example by adding links to existing rights of way networks including National Trails. Rights of Way Circular 1/09 Guidance for Local Authorities (7.8) states that in considering potential revisions to an existing right of way that are necessary to accommodate the planned development, but which are acceptable to the public, any alternative alignment should avoid the use of estate roads for the purpose wherever possible and preference should be given to the use of made up estate paths through landscaped or open space areas away from vehicular traffic. Barton Wilmore on behalf of Barratt & Concerned re Policy 20 and considers it unsound. Noted David Wilson Homes (04955) Incorporate flexibility or remove restricted elements. DMBC Public Health 03351 Any development impacting PROW should be discussed at Noted pre-app and HIA should be at earliest possible stage. Policy 21: Road, Rail, Canal and River Crossings DMBC Waste & Highways Team Policy title is misleading as this is abut PROW Noted – policy title amended to make clear DMBC Public Health 03351 Consideration should be given to suicide prevention in Noted - the policy text already makes clear that proposals design, including barriers to prevent jumping, boundary must show that all safety and accessibility considerations markings and lighting. Pedestrian and cycle safety should have been taken into account which addresses these points be taken into account. Matters can be addressed through pre-app and HIA. Policy 22: Telecommunications & Utilities Infrastructure Home Builders Federation 0129 Policy could create deliverability issues - i.e. provision not The NPPF (10) states that that "Policies should set out how in control of developer. high quality digital infrastructure, providing access to

services from a range of providers, is expected to be delivered and upgraded over time; and should prioritise full fibre connections to existing and new developments" Local Plan Policy 22 Part B " All new housing and commercial developments must provide connectivity to the Superfast Fibre Broadband network unless it can be clearly demonstrated that this is not possible. " It is expected that developers will liaise with network providers to provide the required connectivity. Anglian Water Services Ltd 0031 Focus seems to be on Telecoms rather than utility Noted infrastructure (water/sewers etc). High Melton Parish Council 0759 Support super-fast broadband connectivity. Specific Policy 22 supports the connectivity to 'Superfast Fibre standards should be part of the planning process. Poor Broadband' which is typically 8 times faster than landline quality materials had to be replaced on Pastures Road, connected speeds. Mexborough. Infrastructure connections should be underground on public land. Cllr Richard Jones 01378 All existing properties should be able to connect to the Policy 22. The council in partnership with Superfast South minimum standard 17mbs. Yorkshire and BT connect is committed to a plan for connecting 95% of all existing homes and business to the Fibre Super Fast Fibre network by 2019. Super fast has a speed of 80mbs DMBC Street Scene 04778 Part D – there is a serious conflict between underground Policy 22: Comments noted. The issues raised are valid services and trees, particularly damage to roots on existing points which should be considered at the planning trees. Appropriate utility layout planning to avoid conflict application stage and appropriate mitigation for any needs to be reflected in the policy. Wherever possible negative impacts placed as conditions of any approval. services should be ducted to avoid future excavation should trees be planted afterward. Sharing of service ducting to reduce the impact of services on planting areas is also important – the Rossington link road from FARRRS has been all but sterilised by utility services and the new pit estate in Armthrope was supposed to have a boulevard of trees that didn’t happen because of shallow utility services in the verges.

DMBC Public Health 03351 Needs to be done in a way that doesn't impact local Comment noted. Policy does state that any works should community. HIA should be completed for every application minimise impact on community. on this. Persimmon Homes 03430 Digital infrastructure not in the direct control of the Doncaster Council is working proactively in the provision of development industry and could create deliverability connectivity in that we are part of the Super Fast South issues. Council should proactively work with Yorkshire consortium who in partnership with BT telecommunications and not rely on the development Openreach is committed to providing full fibre connectivity industry on this. Part R of Building Regs setts the standards throughout south Yorkshire. The NPPF (10) states that that out which are in the control of the house builder. "Policies should set out how high quality digital infrastructure, providing access to services from a range of providers, is expected to be delivered and upgraded over time; and should prioritise full fibre connections to existing and new developments" Local Plan Policy 22 Part B " All new housing and commercial developments must provide connectivity to the Superfast Fibre Broadband network unless it can be clearly demonstrated that this is not possible. " It is expected that developers will liase with network providers to provide the required connectivity. Any deliverability issues would be entered into at the planning application stage. Policy 23: Locating Town Centre Uses Lichfields on behalf of BL Doncaster Sets threshold of 750sqm, NPPF indicates a min. of Noted, however, drawn on the findings of the Doncaster Wheatley Ltd 03130 2500sqm. Impact threshold proposed is one third of the Retail, Leisure and Town centres Study (2015) and the NPPF recommendation. Threshold should be appropriate advice from the NPPF/PPG it is recommended that the to size and vitality of town centre. It should be noted these policy to be adopted has a local floorspace threshold of floorspace projections relate to net sales area, whilst the 750sqm gross. NPPF impact threshold relates to gross floorspace. As written, the proposed threshold will be interpreted as 750 sqm, which could equate to about 560 sqm net. To put the suggested 750 sqm threshold into further context, Policy 23 seeks to introduce a floorspace threshold of 500 sqm for all other locations within the Borough. This includes local centres, which are much smaller than the

retail offer of Doncaster. Whilst we strongly believe that a threshold 2,500 sqm is appropriate for Doncaster, if a reduced threshold is to be applied, reflecting the Planning Practice Guidance, Doncaster’s size and position in the hierarchy, and the threshold identified for much smaller centres, this needs to be substantially greater than the 750 sqm figure currently proposed. We would suggest a figure of at least 1,500 sqm (gross). A threshold set below this level would be unduly onerous. DMBC Public Health 03351 Public Health support town centres as critical to health of Noted – support welcome population. Policy in relation to out of town centres is positive step forward to ensure local centres can provide retail diversity. Policy 24: Development Within Town, District, and Local Centres DMBC Public Health 03351 Welcome inclusion of criteria in relation to cumulative Noted. Support welcomed. Policy explanation will include impact of betting, pay day loan and pawnbroker shops. 3C clarification on "over concentration" for considering requires more clarification - what is an 'over - planning applications. concentration'?

Policy 25: Food & Drink Uses DMBC Public Health 03351 Welcome inclusion of 400m criteria to schools etc. Point C - Noted. Support welcomed. Policy explanation will include need to define "over - concentration" and "cluster" clarification on "over concentration" for considering planning applications. High Melton Parish Council 0759 Doncaster is over-saturated with food outlets which do not Noted – support welcomed promote healthy living. There are also unwanted food smells and litter problems. SSA Planning on behalf of Kentucky Concerned about the proposed 400m zone around The Local Plan has a strong focus on the links between Fried Chicken 05137 education and recreation uses in regard to restrictions in health, wellbeing and planning. Recognising the many ways opening times. Acknowledge need to improve healthy planning can contribute to the development of an food and lifestyle opportunities. Restricting specific uses in environment that supports positive health outcomes for certain places is not effective in improving health. Could Doncaster residents. reduce linked walking trips, undermine footfall and make The borough has high levels of overweight and obese places less walkable. No consistent evidence linking residents and Doncaster Council is putting a number of

adverse effects to proximity of hot food takeaways. What measures in place to address overweight and obese levels undermines healthy living objectives needs to be better across the borough; restricting the proliferation and defined. Policy should not dissipate uses away from availability of Hot Food Takeaways within certain locations accessible places. is one way it is doing this. Public Health England Local Health report 2018 shows that: • In Reception year 10% of children are obese and 23.2% carry excess weight. • In year 6 18.9% of reception age children are obese and 33.3% have excess weight. • 29% of adults are obese. Data published by the Office of National Statistics (Oct 2018) shows that: • In 2010 Doncaster had 120 Fast Food Outlets (FFO) and was ranked 6th highest amongst its CIPFA Near Neighbours for total number of FFO. • In 2018 Doncaster had 200 FFO; an increase of 80 or 67% from 2010. • Nationally there has been a 34% increase in the number of fast food outlets between 2010 and 2018. • Doncaster now ranks 5th highest for total number of FFO amongst the Near Neighbours. • In terms of the percentage increase from 2010 Doncaster ranks 8th highest. Planware Ltd on behalf of McDonalds Fully support policies aim of promoting healthier living and See response above to 05137 Restaurants Ltd 05138 tackling obesity however policy approach is unsound and fails to provide an evidence based way of achieving the policy’s objective. Approach found unsound by several planning inspectors. However, objects to policy in current form in particular point C and 400m exclusion zone. It is inconsistent, discriminatory and disproportionate and planning should not limit people’s dietary choices. Limited justification to focus on ‘hot food’ takeaways. 400m zone not justified by evidence and found unsound by Inspectors

due to the lack of evidence of link between fast food, school proximity and obesity.

This is potentially damaging to the economy. Majority of days in a year schools are not open.

Needs to be policies that are more positive based on evidence and comply with NPPF (para 80 & para 81)

Point C restricting over concentration fails to comply with the Framework. Effectively creates a moratorium against A5 uses leaving them nowhere reasonable to locate. No sound justification of policy. Should be deleted if 2 detrimental restrictions remain (400m zone and over concentration)

McDonald’s offers: Economic and Environmental benefits. Offers value for money and healthy options and Supports active and healthy lifestyles among Employees and Local communities. Policy 26: Development in the Countryside Lichfields (Hallam Land Management)  Do not agree with extent of the Countryside areas It is not agreed a "blanket approach" to protection of [2311] defined as out of the defined Development Limits and countryside and Green Belt areas has been adopted. the Green Belt or the blanket protection afforded. Nevertheless, Policy 2 has been revised to that proposed at 2018 Informal Consultation to be more consistent with NPPF 2019 in supporting rural housing. Given that the Borough’s Defined Villages (lowest tier of the settlement hierarchy) have limited services, allocations are not identified and development is limited to that considered acceptable according to other policies in the Plan. Non- residential development is supported if justified to support a prosperous rural economy. In Part 5 of the revised Policy criteria are provided to guide possible development in

appropriate locations adjacent to Defined Villages subject to the safeguards and limitations of the policy approach set out. Together, these clarify what level of development is considered appropriate for the Defined Villages.

Savills (Warde Aldam Estate) [4706-9]  Support in principal, however criteria A of Part 1 Accepted. Criteria A of 2018 Draft Part 1 of Policy 26 is should be deleted as it does not conform to 2018 NPPF deleted. Whilst there is nothing in NPPF 2019 preventing para 79 when considering proposals that involve introduction of such a requirement, it is accepted it would conversions in the countryside. Criterion A : “it is be difficult to implement as it is difficult to define what demonstrated that reasonable attempt has been made would be a “reasonable attempt”. to secure an appropriate use that will support the rural economy in preference to residential use;” Historic England [16]  Parts 1 and 2 should be amended to refer to relevant Disagree. The Plan is to be read as a whole. To avoid Historic Environment policies where they involve listed repetition, cross referencing within policies is minimised to buildings or buildings of local historic merit. those where it is absolutely essential. Savills (Various)  Supports Policy but Part 4 (New Non-residential Paras 83 and 88 of NPPF2012 referred to Green Belt – Policy development in the Countryside) should be amended. 26 does not apply to Green Belt. Policy does not need to

In particular should conform to para 83 and 88 of specifically refer to NPPF – unduly repetitive as all policies NPPF2012. are read in conjunction with it. It is accepted that draft criterion B should refer to significant impact on neighbouring uses. Criteria 4E of 2018 Draft Part 4 of Policy 26 is deleted : to be consistent with NPPF 2019 and its support enabling a prosperous rural economy, it is considered inappropriate to retain this requirement. iGas [5129]  Part 4 - must recognise that minerals including oil and Minerals development proposals are covered by specific UKOOG [5014] gas can only be worked where they are found. Policy is mineral policies. It is considered repetition is not needed in over restrictive and does not take account of the Policy 26. Policy 26 does not apply to Green Belt. temporary nature of mineral developments. Conflict (part 4B) can be avoided through good design. Should not be presumption against temporary developments in the GB. Townplanning.co.uk [4950]  Policy restricts new countryside development and is Policy 2 has been revised to that proposed at 2018 Informal contrary to the NPPF and PPG. Outside of the Green Consultation to be more consistent with NPPF 2019 in Belt, policy should allow for small scale housing supporting rural housing. Given that the Borough’s Defined development in or adjacent to all rural settlements Villages (lowest tier of the settlement hierarchy) have within large groupings of built development in the limited services, allocations are not identified and countryside. Only isolated housing should be development is limited to that considered acceptable restricted. Policy should have regard to NPPF para 11. according to other policies in the Plan. Non-residential Policy is inconsistent with NPPF2018 para 78 and 79, development is supported if justified to support a and Braintree cases case law. prosperous rural economy. In Part 5 of the revised Policy

criteria are provided to guide possible development in appropriate locations adjacent to Defined Villages subject

to the safeguards and limitations of the policy approach set out. Together, these clarify what level of development is considered appropriate for the Defined Villages.

The strategy for deciding where to identify allocated growth is set by Policy 2. Working to the approach described in the Housing and Settlement Strategic Topic Paper, the

Settlement Audit and past consultations considering options for distributing growth in the Borough, it is considered that a reasonable approach has been proposed to identify where development is most sustainable. It is considered a cut-off in terms of a “settlement” size and services should be used to direct development where it would best enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. Other policy allows for development in the Countryside, namely Policy 26 (Development in the Countryside) sites and NPPF para 71 (entry level exception sites).

Green Infrastructure & Natural Environment (Policies 27-34) Representation Representation Summary DMBC Response Name & Reference No

CPRE 0077 Policies 27 to 51: Environmental Policies Support welcomed broadly support policies and look forward to analysing them in greater detail at Publication Draft stage

Yorkshire Wildlife Policy 27 - Section A 2 and 3, should include reference to protect Policy 27. Comment noted; wording will be identified in body text Trust 01546 and enhance areas to create an ecologically coherent network across Doncaster. This should include reference to NIA’s; Section 4 add in providing a net gain for biodiversity’ through the usage of DEFRA metrics; section 9 include mention of encouragement of the use of ecosystem services and designs such as SUD’s and natural flood management; Section B3 strengthen to include improvements to water quality and functionality/connectivity of ecological networks Policy 28 - strengthened by including 'development not comment noted supported in areas likely to harm biodiversity value unless in exceptional circumstances' Policy 30 B, strengthen to say developments which fragment or In line with the guidance in the NPPF policies need to be positively worded. impact on priority habitats or ecological networks will not be The emphasis of the policy has been strengthened to say: "Proposals will permitted unless in exceptional circumstances and not without 'only' be supported…". NIA's will be discussed in the supporting text. the provision of a net gain in biodiversity Policy 31 - Suggests changes to policy wording The policy already does this. Part A of the policy covers harm to designated local wildlife sites AND none designated sites or features of biodiversity. The supporting text will reference the use of the DEFRA metric for biodiversity offsetting. Point 3 has been amended to include reference to connectivity.

Policy 32 - Suggests changes to policy wording In line with the NPPF, policies are positively worded. The protection of local wildlife sites is dealt with in policy 31 while policy 32 is more concerned with the designation of local wildlife sites.

Policy 33 - Suggests changes to policy wording This will be included within the supporting text of the policy.

Policy 34 - Suggests changes to policy wording These issues are discussed in policies 30 and 31. Planning applications will need to consider all polices within the local plan.

Lichfields on Policy 29 - Requirement of open space is too high and lacks Policy 29. comment noted. Evidence base identifies approach. No changes behalf of Hallam justification. What is the definition of 'family dwellings'?. Policy proposed Land Management is not sound and should be revised. 02311 Sheffield Area Sub para. A1 and A2 applies only to biodiversity, should be Policy amended to include a 6th bullet point. Geology Trust expanded to include geological sites. Suggest new sub-para. A6 01747 stating: “Where the permanent loss of a bio conservation or geo conservation site occurs, a proposal will be supported only if provision is made for the site to be recorded by a suitably qualified expert”. This will be beneficial for sites that have long been inaccessible. Lichfields on 29: Re: over 20 dwellings = 56sqm POS/per dwelling - mindful of Policy 29. comment noted. Evidence base identifies approach taken. No behalf of viability and request additional evidence is provided to justify changes proposed Theakston Estates this from a POS and viability perspective. 01937 34: should be revised to: "Proposals will be supported that take Disagree with the need to change the policy. All policies within the plan account of the quality, local distinctiveness and the sensitivity to must be considered in combination with one another and within the needs change of distinctive landscape character areas and individual of a planning balance. landscape features. Development will be encouraged to conserve, enhance and, where possible, restore landscapes while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change. Mineral Products Policy 31 Valuing Biodiversity and Geodiversity - fails to properly Disagree with the comments. The policy does differentiate between the Association 04371 reflect NPPF (para 171)… does not properly distinguish between hierarchy of international, national and locally designated sites. the hierarchy of international, national and locally designated sites… redraft policy IGas Energy PLC Policy 31 - Does not take account of the temporary nature of Comments noted. The restoration of minerals sites is dealt with in the 05129 mineral developments. Sites can be restored in an enhanced minerals policies of the Local Plan. environmental condition. Policy 34 - Any policy must recognise that minerals including oil Comments noted. and gas can only be worked where they are found.

Marr Parish Welcome DMBC’s aspirations to be a “greener” Doncaster and Policy 29. Comment noted. No change needed. The policy identifies for '20 Council 0746 that developers will need to set aside 10% of land for “green family dwellings or more will only be supported which provide 56sqm of spaces”. This will have a positive influence on reducing obesity open space per family dwelling' not as a % and improving health and wellbeing. Marr has had play equipment removed from its park but not replaced. There are funding issues regarding play equipment. This means that Marr has little confidence that a greener Doncaster will ever be delivered. Spawforths on Concerned about Policy 29. Requirements of Part A could comment noted. behalf of H render between a 5th and a quarter of potential housing site Burtwistle & Son greenspace. Include flexibility rather than a requirement. (03507) & Strata Homes (02703) & Metroland (05215) Cllr Richard Jones Policy 29 - Section A must include ‘planning authority and the Noted 01378 community’. North Yorkshire identification and inclusion, within the New Plan of cross Noted and support welcomed County Council boundary Green Infrastructure corridors is welcomed 05170 DMBC Public 27: A HIA should be undertaken on any development that Noted Health 03351 impact on blue and green infrastructure including developments that enhance or create additional blue and green infrastructure.

28: HIA should be undertaken on any development that impacts Noted on green open spaces, even if they are expected to enhance the area.

29: A HIA should be completed for new developments and Noted should encompass community consultation to ensure the type of use(s) meets the needs of all residents along the life course.

30 - 33: Favourable conservation status of wild flora and fauna Noted essential for ecosystems and human wellbeing. Support

commitment to improve, protect and enhance wildlife sites including creating new sites and increasing connectivity. Important they are accessible to all residents.

34: Landscaping should produce a positive outcome for people, Noted environment, economy. HIA should be conducted on any developments that impact positively or negatively on the local landscape.

Natural England Welcome approach to green infrastructure in the plan and 03820 welcomes improvements to Policy 27. Would like to see clearer links to the Dearne Valley Green Heart Nature Improvement Area (NIA) and the Humberhead Levels NIA which both lie in the plan area. Will contribute to aims of NPPF para 96. Links to external websites provided for info.

Disappointed to see that Policy 41 'Masterplanning for Green Infrastructure' is no longer included.

Broadly agree with the approach but suggest use of metrics for provision of appropriate quantity of green space to meet local needs as identified in NPPF para 96

30: Welcome policy but needs mapping. Consideration of Nature Biodiversity opportunity areas and NIA's will be shown on maps within the Improvement Areas may fit most neatly into 30D. supporting text of the plan.

31: Should include criteria for protection and enhancement of Comments noted. Priority species, habitats and protected species have all priority habitats and species and protected species. Welcomes been added to the policy.

updates to policy 31, especially in relation to SSI. Pleased with ambition to deliver net gains and reference to utilising the biodiversity offsetting metric to achieve this.

33: Advise that polies should include protection for ancient Comment noted. Policy amended to include protection for ancient woodlands and veteran trees, as per NPPF para. 175. Should woodland and veteran trees. also consider other irreplaceable habitats such as deep peat habitats.

34: Welcome approach to local landscapes - appropriate and Comments noted clearly articulated.

United Kingdom Policy 31 - Development is of a temporary nature and land can Comments noted Onshore Oil & Gas be restored. Should be considered with Planning Applications. 05014 Policy 34 Land can be restored in line with planning conditions taking full account of landscape character. East Riding of It may be useful to include reference to the landscape value of Noted. Reference to Thorne and Hatfield Moors has been added to the Yorkshire Council Thorne and Hatfield Moors (potentially as part of Policy 34). policy. 0009 Canal & Rivers Policy 34 Part D - supportive Comments Noted Trust 03089 Policy 27 - Supportive. Part (B) Principles of Part B should apply to all development in the Borough. Suggest amendment to text Historic England Policy 34 – Support Support welcomed 0016

Environment Policy 33. Developments with ancient woodlands within their Policy amended to include protection for ancient woodland. Agency 0014 zone of influence should demonstrate no significant impact on these woodlands as they are irreplaceable The Joint Rural General: Pleased to see 10% land set aside for green spaces. Noted Parishes 04013

Historic Environment Policies (35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 & 41) Representation Name & Reference No Representation Summary DMBC Response CPRE 0077 Representation offers broad support for Policies 27 to 51 (which include the na historic environment policies) but reserves comment in more detail for the publication stage.

Brodsworth Parish Supports Policy 35. for improving accessibility and enhancement of heritage Welcome support for this policy. Maintenance of verges Council 0586 assets specifically Brodsworth Hall and parkland but would like to see and litter would not fall under planning issues. enhancements to surrounding approach roads (ie maintaining green verges and picking litter). South Yorkshire Policy 36 - Support Policy but suggest amendments. See response form for Both policy 36 and policy 40 have been amended in line Archaeological Service detail. with the suggested amendments or similar wording to 01076 Policy 40 - Supportive of Policy but has suggested amendment reflect the spirit of the suggested amendments.

Lichfields on behalf of Policies inconsistent with 2018 NPPF and need revising accordingly. Especially Policy 35: reject suggested amendment. The wording Theakston Estate 01937 need to consider these against NPP7 195-196. relates to preserving and or enhancing the significance 35: The NPPF is concerned with the impact of a proposed development on the and setting NOT preserving the heritage asset as such. significance of a heritage asset. It recognises that significance can be affected The setting of a heritage asset can be an important by development within the setting of a heritage asset, but ‘harm’ under the component of its significance and the wording is definitions provided in the NPPF (Paragraphs 195 to 197) relates to the effect intended to make this overt. Policy 37 has been revised on significance and not setting. The NPPF is also clear that heritage assets omitting references to use and to partial demolition with should be “conserved” in a manner appropriate to their significance rather a greater focus on heritage significance and we have kept than “preserved”. Should be revised to: "Proposals and initiatives will be the additional tests referred to in the representation as supported which conserve and, where appropriate, enhance the heritage this reflects the distinction between substantial harm and significance of the Borough’s heritage assets…." less than substantial harm. For policies 40-41 we 37: Draft policy 37 should be amended to be consistent with the NPPF and acknowledge that archaeological assets might be avoid the use of inconsistent additional tests, such as that a building must also considered alongside buildings of local historic interest

75 be beyond reasonable repair: "Proposals that enhance or better reveal the (and parks and gardens of local historic interest) in a significance of a listed building or structure will be supported. Proposals which generic undesignated heritage assets policy however we would harm the significance of a designated asset will not be approved unless believe that it is more beneficial to group our policies by there is a clear and convincing justification in the form of public benefits that heritage type which is more easily recognised by users of clearly and convincingly outweigh the harm using the balancing principles set the policies. Similarly we have grouped parks and gardens out in national planning policy and guidance. The remainder of the policy both local and national together. The individual policies should be deleted." distinguish between the designated and undesignated 40: The second half of the policy (B) relates to non-designated heritage assets heritage assets. We have not done this with listed and therefore should be addressed through Policy 41 which would benefit buildings as these are governed by a separate listed from becoming a policy relating to “non-designated heritage assets” rather building consent regime. It may be that archaeological than “buildings or structures of local historic interest”. assets are upgraded to national significance in the course Draft policy 40 should be amended as follows: of further archaeological investigation. Proposals for development that would affect, directly or indirectly, the significance of Scheduled Monuments or non-scheduled archaeological remains of demonstrably equal significance will be permitted where the proposals would conserve or enhance the significance of the Monument or remains, including the contribution to that significance of the setting of the Monument or remains. Any harm to or loss of Scheduled Monuments or nationally important archaeological remains must be justified in accordance with the principles set out in national planning policy. 41: Non-designated heritage assets include non-listed buildings, archaeological remains which are non-scheduled and not nationally important and historic parks and gardens which are not registered. The policy should be expanded to include such assets and not be limited to buildings and structures. The policy should also reflect the NPPF in its consideration of effect on significance and must reflect the balancing principle set out in Paragraph 197 of the NPPF. The policy should be updated as follows: "Proposals which conserve or enhance the significance of a non-designated heritage asset will be supported. When considering proposals that would affect, directly or indirectly, non-designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be made having regard to the significance of the heritage

asset, the scale of any harm or loss, and the benefits of the development in accordance with the principles set out in national planning policy."

Mineral Products Policy 36 Understanding and Recording Historic Environment - We accept that the proposed wording would be in Association 04371 Fails to reflect NPPF (para 189) suggested amendment in bold to part A; A) accordance with the wording of the NPPF. However we The provision of a heritage statement (or its equivalent) with a level of detail feel that the exiting phrasing 'sufficient information to proportionate to the assets’ importance and no more than is sufficient to gain an understanding of the potential impact that the understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance that proposals will have on the significance of any heritage includes… asset affected' gets to the point of the NPPF p189 and keeps the policy succinct. We would instead use the explanatory text to reflect 'proportionate' and 'no more than is sufficient'. High Melton Parish Support the protection of conservation areas. Large development should not Policy 38 on conservation areas particularly mentions the Council 0759 be permitted along with development that may have an adverse impact on importance of trees, open space and views and vistas open spaces, landscapes and key views. Development should enhance the where they contribute to the character of the character. conservation area. Where harm is identified this would need to be outweighed by demonstrable public benefits DMBC has never invested in any protection for High Melton village. HGV (this is in line with national policy). Acknowledge that traffic is directed through the village. Any additional traffic should be carefully traffic impact and speed is an issue in High Melton CA. considered. Cllr Richard Jones 01378 Policy 35 - Christchurch must be included. Christchurch conservation area would be reflected as part of the Georgian townscape of Doncaster in point 3.

Special regard would be given to the historic grain and street layout of the CA as well as views of Christchurch spire. DMBC Street Scene Policy 38 & 41 - Does this include cenotaphs and statues? Cenotaphs and statues located in conservation areas are 04778 Policy 39 - Should the Historic Garden list be made publicly available and covered by policy 38 and if listed also by policy 37. The reference is made within this Policy? would need to be identified on a published list as of local historic interest to be covered by policy 41. Nationally registered Parks and Gardens are already available from the Historic England website. The list and location of parks and gardens of local interest are already published on the council's website including a map and a description of their special interest. DMBC Public Health 35 - 41: Support aims to preserve and enhance historic environment, and Supports historic environment policies 03351 improving access to these. Building a relationship between people and place and demonstrating public value can have a positive socio - economic impact for locals. Potential health impacts should be considered. Savills on behalf of Historic environment should not preclude future development in appropriate We can confirm that the intention of policy 38 is not to Warde-Aldam Estates villages. Conservation areas should not preclude development but seek to preclude development within the historic environment 04706/ 04707/ 04708/ ensure special care is taken in proposals and design which can enhance the but that decisions are based on preserving or enhancing 04709 & Sandbeck heritage asset. Otherwise no issue with Policy 38. identified heritage significance. Estates 03568/ 03569/ 03570/ 03571/ 04705 Spawforths on behalf of Objects to Policy 39 and considers plan unsound. Concerns that the The objection in the representation to the wording of Avant Homes 05208/ designation of sites of Local Historic Interest and that the designations do not Policy 39 appears to be unsupported. On closer reading 05209/ 05210 match the historic connections. Suggest to amend Cusworth Hall Local Historic the objection is over the veracity of the local park and Interest to remove the north eastern field. garden entry within the evidence base for Cusworth Hall park and garden of local historic interest. We stand by our analysis within the evidence base of the heritage significance of this local park and garden designation and see no reason to amend this policy.

Historic England 0016 Policy 35 – support - General comment on Policies 36-41 - Subject to the We have amended Policies 36-41 in line with the amendments set out below, taken as a whole, these Policies provide clear comments made in the representation. guidance about how decision makers should react to development proposals affecting the historic environment.

Policy 36 - It might be preferable of the final part of this Policy set out slightly more specifically how the knowledge gained from any detailed investigation is disseminated.

Policy 37 - Policy would benefit from a small number of changes to more closely reflect national policy guidance.

Policy 38 - Criterion C would benefit from a slight amendment to better reflect national policy guidance.

Policy 39 - Criterion C of the Policy does not differentiate sufficiently between the weight that will be given to the conservation of nationally-designated Historic Parks and Gardens and those which have been locally designated.

Policy 40 & 41 - support Design & Built Environment Policies (42;43;44;45;46;47;48;49;50)

Representation Name & Representation Summary DMBC Response Reference No

Home Builders Federation Policy 43 - Generally satisfied with principle of part (a). Would Disagree, these are specific measures which are 0129 recommend that policy should be amended to allow for flexibility and prescriptive and would not complement the flexible nature include additional factors such as market aspirations and viability. of the policy and are covered under the BREEAM

requirement if suitable for a development. Policy 29 relates Policy 46 - Nationally described space standard - Council will need robust to POS justifiable evidence to introduce any optional housing standards based on Need, Viability and Timing. See extensive comments re space standards. Housebuilders may build houses that don’t meet the standard but they Amended as suggested. are doing that to meet a need (see comments).

Accessible and Adaptable Dwellings - suggests referring to PPG (ID 66-07) Amended as suggested. Spawforths on behalf of H Policy 46 considered unsound. Concerned with Part A. To deliver national Comments noted – these standards are evidence based and Burtwistle & Son 03507/ space standards (intended as optional) would reduce yield of sites and have been tested for viability to ensure they do not put 03506 & Strata Homes could have potential implications on the site yields resulting in the Council development at risk form coming forward 02073 & Avant Homes failing to meet housing targets. Remove part A and part B which requires 05208/ 05209/ 05210/ 30% of all new homes to be accessible and adaptable. 05211 & Framecourt Homes 05176 & Metroland 05216 & Firshure 05215 & Priority Space Ltd 05213

Gladman Development Policy 43 - Support such a policy but should be avoid being over Agree schemes need to respond to site specifics. However Ltd 02989 prescriptive. No one size fits all solution to all schemes. Should be on a it is not considered that the policy is over-prescriptive, it site by site basis. Suggest for flexibility in policy wording. sets out general design principles which recognise the need for a flexible approach. It does not prescribe solutions Policy 44 - Views and vistas to be protected should be clearly identified but design challenges to be addressed. Likewise the design with clear evidence as to why they are ‘considered special’ criteria are not just concerned with aesthetic matters but also covers issues of functionality, quality and undertaking Policy 46 - It essential that the Council have robust and justifiable a good design process. evidence to introduce any of the optional housing standards based Need, Viability and Timing (see response for additional), Standards can in some Points noted. Important views will be explained in the instances have a negative impact upon viability, can increase affordability explanatory text which was not the subject of the issues and consumer choice. consultation. Landscape character is assessed in the Landscape Character Assessment which is published online as evidence, as well as character assessments which will be referred to in the design policies explanatory text. If an applicant follows the process required by policies 42 and 43 which require a robust context analysis and community consultation, then the issues of attributing value to features will be determined properly and an appropriate design response undertaken.

Comments noted. At the time of consultation the Council are still developing the evidence base associated with justifying the need and requirements in relation to the policy on housing standards, which will also need to be viability tested again, so the policy may change prior to submission or be removed if found not to be required.

Cllr Richard Jones 01378 Policy 43 - “Not to use block paving on roads unless they are cemented Comment noted. The standard specification for new block same as outside civic centre” paved roads in residential areas includes a bitumenous substrate as per CCQ. Policy 46/47 - Recycling grey water/solar panels should be a standard Noted. Part a of policy 45 covers impacts on neighbouring adopted. Bream good – is not good enough to reduce carbon levels. The properties and states new developments must protect Nordura system is an excellent example of sustainability. existing amenity. The Government has made it clear that Council's cannot specify renewable energy or specific sustainability requirements over building regulations for new residential properties. However the mentioned sustainability measures can help developers achieve BREEAM which is a national standard for more sustainable buildings which policy 47 requires developers to meet. Policy 47 also requires 10% of a development's energy to come from renewable sources, so encourages PV in addition to BREEAM as a potential measure. BREEAM is a flexible way for developers to meet sustainability requirements on a case by case basis using the most appropriate methods for the development proposed. A balance has to be struck between sustainable construction and ensuring development remains viable and based upon our evidence this is an appropriate level to set sustainability which is over and above what is required in Building Regulations.

DMBC Street Scene 04778 Policy 42 - In addition to public art could planting areas / landmark trees Comments noted. The Council has aspirations to create a be considered as well, also who will have the asset responsibility for the good quality environment which these policies will help management and maintenance of these items in future. Any extension to achieve. New development and housing development has the Public Realm that will have an impact on Street Scene and Highways commuted sums or management arrangements agreed for will end up as that services responsibility and stretch resources without many of the elements discussed. It is now common practice any additional capacity being built in. for these elements to be maintained out of the Policy 43 - Impact on Street Scene and Highways operations from what is responsibility of the local authority, or where they are, going to be built additional footpaths, trees, road ways, lighting, drainage appropriate commuted sums will be required. New and green spaces. Will growth in developments reflect in growth in development brings with it increases in Council revenues resources for service delivery. from taxation and additional spend in the local economy. Policy 45 B) 8 – What does compliment mean? Also the right size access How the Council chooses to allocate these resources are gates and entrances must be enabled to allow maintenance equipment to made through the budget setting process in line with access effectively. corporate priorities. Will the footway and roadway surface be robust to enable maintenance Complement in this context means to the character of the vehicles to access without any damage or mess to entrance point street, clarity has been added to the policy. These are surfaces. detailed questions that must e considered on a case by case 9 – Will the demarcation lines be the responsibility of the householder basis. In most instances boundaries will be the and not DMBC including railings and hedgerows etc. responsibility of the property and not the Local Authority Policy 47 - Who will be responsible for the long term maintenance of the unless the development is by them or in their ownership. landscaped areas following initial implementation of such works? Policy amended in regard to lighting to reference Policy 48 - Street lighting is design to national standards (TR22) and is LED appropriate standards. These are detailed questions that complaint to highway standards and standard to DMBC inventory. must be considered on a case by case basis. In most A.8) Clear responsibility for boundaries is essential, particularly if DMBC is instances boundaries will be the responsibility of the adopting or has existing land adjacent. Street Scene does not want property and not the Local Authority unless the responsibility for boundaries and developers should be told that development is by them or in their ownership. The criteria ownership should be clearly identified on all plans resting with about CCTV says it should have adequate coverage which householders NOT the Council. would need to take account of trees. A.9) CCTV planning should take account of existing and proposed trees in New development and housing development has public realm to avoid conflict. commuted sums or management arrangements agreed for Policy 49 - Impact on all future sites from SUDS should and must not have SUDS with appropriate specialists from the Council any detrimental impact on DMBC managed and maintained land. Also on consulted on relevant applications.. It is now common Public Open Spaces who will be responsible for SUDS impacted land? Who practice for these elements to be maintained out of the is responsible for the planting of hedges, trees and installing street responsibility of the local authority, or where they are,

furniture. appropriate commuted sums or agreements will be D) Again, Street Scene should be involved in maintenance strategy for any required in agreement with the Local Authority specialists. land intended for adoption to ensure that appropriate standards are Comments noted and policy amended to refer to included. interference with maintenance regimes. The point about Policy 50 - Any placing of signage should not interfere with maintenance mowing strips is noted but is a matter of detail which does schedules and any future agreed or sponsored sign should have a not need to be mentioned in a LP policy. concrete mowing strip at the base.

Barton Wilmore on behalf Policy 42 part b, Objects to negative presumption towards the use of The policy aims to encourage imaginative and distinctive of Barratt & David Wilson major house builders standard house types. accepted that in some design appropriate to context in line with the NPPF. Part B Homes 04955/ 04956 cases special cases revisions may be but the policy as enables the has been amended to provide an opportunity for applicants

Council free reign to request revisions to house types. Should be to demonstrate why a standard design is appropriate as deleted not NPPF compliant part of their assessment of local context and character. Unfortunately this process is seldom undertaken rigorously Policies 43 and 45 - Generally support, but need to add subject to viability enough. Note support. Viability is adequately covered under other Policy 46 - objects to part a, no justification provided by the council as policies in the Local Plan and any development proposal to why there is a need for the Nationally Described Space standards to would be subject to consideration of the full suite of be introduced into the borough. Quotes PPG … is clear (ID 56-020), that policies. Therefore it is not considered necessary to “where a need for internal space standards is identified, local planning reference it in the policy. It is considered the policy is authorities should provide justification for requiring internal space flexible enough to respond to market aspirations. policies”. Note support. Viability is adequately covered under other policies in the Local Plan and any development proposal Policy 49 - generally supportive but needs to add subject to viability would be subject to consideration of the full suite of policies. Therefore it is not considered necessary to reference it in the policy. It is considered the policy is flexible enough to respond to market aspirations. Comments noted. At the time of consultation the Council are still developing the evidence base associated with justifying the need and requirements in relation to the policy on housing standards, which will also need to be viability tested again, so the policy may change prior to submission or be removed if found not to be required. Transition periods will be considered as part of this process. Thanks for pointing out the relevant guidance which we are aware of. Viability is adequately covered under other policies in the Local Plan and any development proposal would be subject to consideration of the full suite of policies. Therefore it is not considered necessary to reference it in the policy. It is considered the policy is flexible enough to respond to market aspirations. DMBC Public Health 42: Support innovative design that promotes art and local distinctiveness. Support noted. 03351 Local community should be seen as an asset and involved at start of an

85 inclusive process.

43: Within point 12.5 that the HIA process should form part of the best Note support. HIA added to explanatory text. practice design approach when developing proposals.

44: HIA should be submitted as part of planning process. Noted now covered under policy 43 and 51.

45: Following wording should be in policy: “Proposals in relation to this Support noted. HIA is adequately covered under other policy should demonstrate that they have undertaken a comprehensive policies in the Local Plan (51) and any development Health Impact Assessment put in place measures to mitigate any negative proposal would be subject to consideration of the full suite effects arising from the development.” of policies. Therefore it is not considered necessary to reference it in the policy

46: Support 30% of homes on new developments meeting M4(2) building Support noted. HIA is adequately covered under other regs. May not be adequate for some areas. Should include: “Proposals in policies in the Local Plan (51) and any development relation to this policy should demonstrate that they have undertaken a proposal would be subject to consideration of the full suite comprehensive Health Impact Assessment put in place measures to of policies. Therefore it is not considered necessary to mitigate any negative effects arising from the development.” reference it in the policy

47: Should include in policy: “Proposals in relation to this policy should HIA is adequately covered under other policies in the Local demonstrate that they have undertaken a comprehensive Health Impact Plan (51) and any development proposal would be subject Assessment put in place measures to mitigate any negative effects arising to consideration of the full suite of policies. Therefore it is from the development.” not considered necessary to reference it in the policy

48: Cycle routes should be included in point 4. HIA will highlight any issues policy amended as suggested. HIA is adequately covered of safety / security. under other policies in the Local Plan (51) and any development proposal would be subject to consideration of the full suite of policies. Therefore it is not considered necessary to reference it in the policy 49: Include: “Proposals in relation to this policy should demonstrate that HIA is adequately covered under other policies in the Local they have undertaken a comprehensive Health Impact Assessment put in Plan (51) and any development proposal would be subject place measures to mitigate any negative effects arising from the to consideration of the full suite of policies. Therefore it is development.” not considered necessary to reference it in the policy

50: A boards which impede pedestrian flow and advertising activities Noted and is covered by policy criteria. adverse to public health (gambling, unhealthy food etc.) should be restricted, especially in deprived areas. Natural England 03820 Consider including requirements around designing biodiversity in Noted development in this section. May include masterplanning recommendations for nest boxes, bat boxes or appropriate planting

47: Should include clear criteria to avoid hydrological impacts on Thorne and Hatfield Moors SPA, Thorne Moors SAC and Hatfield Moors SAC and loss of offsite foraging land for nightjar. Sport England 03933 43 & 45: Should include active design principles Noted

HMS Town Planning on Could the council state its position on density and intensification? This The LP will demonstrate Doncaster has sufficient land to behalf of Brian Sables would assist with the design process at early stages. SPDs need to be meet its requirements. Therefore it is not considered that a 04615 explained due to designer perception that they are merely a guide and 'densification' approach is required. That being said in line officers have discretion leading to differing standards. Could this be sured with the NPPF the Council wish to support efficient use of up in DM policies for technical matters? land and higher densities where warranted and justified. The policy 43 part A sets out the approach in relation to this. Note comments in relation to SPD's . The weight of SPD's is clearly explained on the Council's SPD web page. http://www.doncaster.gov.uk/spd Peter Pennington 1017 Fails to sufficiently meet the national crisis in housing. Policy as proposed Note the issues highlighted. The suggested design policies results in an extravagant amount of space used to meet need. Offers aim to improve the distinctiveness of new developments single plots to a restricted market of buyers, who can afford the price and ensure they are appropriate to character. with no regard to the market. Market is skewed. Not everyone wants a garden, single plots help developers maximise profits. Needs more regard to older "last time buyers" who can free up housing if there demands can be mer. Need a wider type of housing provision. Apartments should be provided. to meet demand. Should be market housing, not social. Would allow older people to be better integrated instead of isolated in bungalows.

Design and appearance of recent houses is banal and featureless. Apartments should not be high rise in locality (Thorne). The appearance of the design of some of the recent houses is banal and featureless. Any apartments in this locality (Thorne) should not be of the high-rise variety. The Joint Rural Parishes Elderly demographic needs have not been dealt with sufficiently, need to Policy 46 will encourage more lifetime homes, now covered 04013 understand shortfalls of suitable housing (as per SHMA). New homes under part M42 of the building regulations. At the time of should reflect lifetime standards and have a proportion of suitable elderly consultation the Council are still developing the evidence homes (bungalows, sheltered etc.) Suggest 10% of homes should be base associated with justifying the need and requirements wheelchair accessible. DMBC also should deliver a much needed in relation to the policy on housing standards, which will retirement village in the Local Plan. Without dealing with this issue there also need to be viability tested again, so the policy may will be limited provision to meet growing demand. If dealt with, people change prior to submission or be removed if found not to can plan for future and free up existing housing stock. Housing targets be required. Transition periods will be considered as part of focussed on younger peoples needs. As drafted, the plan is not robust or this process. fit for purpose as it does not meet "future needs" in this regard. Johnson Mowatt on 46: Concerns about prescriptive nature of policy requiring NDSS as a At the time of consultation the Council are still developing behalf of Strategic Land minimum. This is intended to be optional. Justification is needed. Ageing the evidence base associated with justifying the need and Group 04444 Mr & Mrs S population overlaps with Policy 8. Not clear what the justification is for a requirements in relation to the policy on housing standards, Hall 04960 Harworth 30% requirement of all new homes to be accessible and adaptable which will also need to be viability tested again, so the Group 05203/ 05204/ dwellings, or the 10 dwelling threshold at which to apply the 30% policy may change prior to submission or be removed if 05205 requirement. found not to be required. Transition periods will be considered as part of this process. 47: This policy includes a large list of design requirements for commercial It is not considered that the policy is over-prescriptive, it / Employment developments. There is potential the cumulative impact of sets out general design principles which recognise the these requirements could render schemes unviable. Flexibility needs to need for a flexible approach. It does not prescribe solutions be incorporated into the Policy in order that the policy is not too onerous. but design challenges to be addressed. Persimmon Homes 03430 43: Policy should be amended further to allow for flexibility and include Support noted. This policy focuses on design principles. additional factors such as market aspirations and viability to assist with Viability is adequately covered under other policies in the deliverability. Local Plan and any development proposal would be subject to consideration of the full suite of policies. Therefore it is 46: Space standards are optional and can only be introduced where there not considered necessary to reference it in the policy. It is is a clear need and they retain viability. Based on need, viability and considered the policy is flexible enough to respond to timing. Council need robust justifiable evidence to introduce any optional market aspirations.

housing standards based on these three criteria. Government have made these optional. Can impact viability. Industry know what is wanted and Comments noted. At the time of consultation the Council would not sell houses below enhanced space standards if they did not are still developing the evidence base associated with appeal to the market. Generally supportive of accessible and adaptable justifying the need and requirements in relation to the housing but if the council want to adopt higher optional standards they policy on housing standards, which will also need to be should only do so by adopting PPG criteria (ID 56-07). Council need to viability tested again, so the policy may change prior to prove why these are needed. If council can prove this then a transition submission or be removed if found not to be required. period should be included within the policy. Also need to consider other Transition periods will be considered as part of this process. site specific factors such as vulnerability to flooding etc. Policies for Thanks for pointing out the relevant guidance which we wheelchair accessible homes should only apply to dwellings where the are aware of. local authority is responsible for allocating or nominating a person to live there. Chris Thomas on behalf of Sound except for criteria g) which is unlawful and unenforceable and Note comments and agree. Part g to be removed British Design & Graphics should be deleted. The definition of advertisement is extremely wide and Association 03035 cannot be confined to only commercial areas. There is no legal requirement for adverts to preserve or enhance. Canal & Rivers Trust Policy 49 - Part A - supportive Support welcomed 03089 Historic England 0016 Policy 42 & 43 - support Support noted

Policy 44 - Criterion A – the justification to this Policy needs to identify Support noted - Explanatory text will set out key views and what it considers to be the ‘important views’ and what is considers to be significant heritage assets. ‘significant’ heritage assets. The supporting text should also address this.

Policy 47 - Criterion A14 (relating to historic shop fronts) its wording Support noted. Policy amended as suggested. ought to be amended to reflect the fact that not all ‘traditional’ shop fronts are on buildings that would be regarded as ‘historic'.

Policy 50 - support Support noted Environment Agency Policy 43 : Good urban design - We would like to see consideration of Disagree, these are specific measures which are community gardens/food growing areas, biodiverse green spaces and prescriptive and would not complement the flexible nature green infrastructure such as green roofs and living of the policy and are covered under the BREEAM

walls included in this policy. requirement if suitable for a development. Policy 29 relates to POS Policy 45 : Residential Design (Strategic Policy) Amended as suggested. Bullet point B) 11 should say “flood resistance and resilience measures, with an allowance for climate change, are incorporated…”.

Policy 49 : Landscaping of New Developments Amended as suggested. Landscaping proposals should not increase or cause flood risk elsewhere. It is a key requirement of the NPPF that flood risk is not increased to third parties as a result of new development and landscaping can have a huge effect on this by changing flood flow routes.

Bullet point A) – In addition to the provision of SuDS, we would like to see floodplain compensation and preservation of flood flow routes (both river and surface water) accounted for in landscape design. Health & Wellbeing (Policies 51-56)

Representation Name & Representation Summary DMBC Response Reference CPRE 0077 Polices 27 - 51 Noted. Support welcomed.

Broadly support all of polices. John Waggitt 01837 A VERY positive agreement that at the end of the project (assuming Noted DN7/Unity) the general public’s life style will be enhanced.

Mineral Products Policy 51 Health (Strategic Policy). Policy needs deleting as it exceeds the The link between planning and health has been long Association 04371 requirement of NPPF and National Planning Guidance. Paragraph 04 established and almost every planning decision or policy Reference ID: 53-004-201400306… Proposed Changes. A health impact has a potential effect on human health. A HIA helps assessment may be a useful tool to use where there are expected to be planning decisions make choices about alternatives and significant impacts (MPA emphasis) Plus delete bullet point D possible improvements to prevent disease and actively Policy 55 pollution. Proposed Changes… when determining planning promote better health. The NPPF promotes healthy and applications, the agent of change principle will be applied, and particular safe communities and the Planning Practice Guidance consideration will be given to… maintains that a Health Impact Assessment may be a useful tool to use where there are expected to be significant impacts. The Local Plan supports the submission of HIAs, for major applications and those applications where its viewed necessary a HIA would be required, to ensure planning decisions made by Doncaster's LPA are contributing to a healthy community and is a good place to grow up and grow old in.

Comments noted. The agent of change are considered to strengthens the Councils position with respect to developers wishing to introduce receptors into an area. For example: a developer applies to build a residential premises within an AQMA; then the AOC clause would reinforce our requirement for the developer to include mitigation into the site/build design.

IGas Energy PLC 05129 Policy 55 – Pollution. Policy appears to address impacts on amenity Policies within the Local Plan should be read in rather than pollution. Policy should recognise the role of other conjunction with one another, Policy 51 indicates the regulators need for a HIA. HIA's are also included on Doncaster's The role of the EIA should be clearly stated in the policy and justification Planning Application Information Requirements and text. Policy or text should refer to how noise should be addressed as per PPG. Validation Checklist (Nov 2018). Policy 51 - Part D – where development is subject to EIA, health impacts The drafted policy encompasses Pollution from a general should be included in that process. Policy 56 - Many of the criterions of this policy are regulated by the EA point of view and takes account of considerations within and this should be clearly stated in the supporting text. the NPPF which includes protecting and enhancing our natural environment. Policies within the Local Plan should be read in conjunction with one another.

The drafted policy addresses contamination and unstable land from a planning point of view and takes account of considerations within the NPPF which includes the risks arising from natural hazards or former activities and mitigation. Policies within the Local Plan should be read in conjunction with one another.

Cllr Richard Jones 01378 Policy 51 - Health Impact Assessment has no evidence and does not An HIA is a practical approach used to judge the effects a correlate to this plan. proposed development may have on the health and Policy 53 - Education facilities should be considered as part of any wellbeing of different groups of people. The findings are housing development proposal. ‘Free’ open space should be provided if then used to make recommendations to the decision practical. Policy 54 - Policy does not go far enough to give infrastructure support. makers as to how any positive health impacts of a particular scheme may be increased and any negative Should consider provision of ‘outreach services’ –Doctors, Health visitors, impacts reduced. HIA's are also included on Doncaster's social services and IT connectivity. Planning Application Information Requirements and Validation Checklist (Nov 2018). The Local Plan supports the submission of HIAs, for major applications and those applications where its viewed necessary a HIA would be required, to ensure planning decisions made by Doncaster's LPA are contributing to a healthy community and is a good place to grow up and grow old in.

Policies within the Local Plan should be read in conjunction with one another Policy 66 considers Developer Contributions which considers the necessary supporting infrastructure, and can make appropriate contributions towards new infrastructure as required, in order to deliver sustainable development.

Policy 53. Comments noted. It is considered that Part B of Policy 53 reflects the consideration for provision. .

DMBC Street Scene 04778 Policy 51 & 55 - Again any new facilities impact of ongoing maintenance Comment noted. Draft policy amended to reflect healthy liabilities. Also the green environment is a key asset for health lifestyles and not just physical activity. improvement in its own right, not just by providing a location for exercise – could the policy not promote an increase in tree canopy coverage in the Policies within the Local Plan should be read in longer term? conjunction with one another Policy 33 and 34 considers woodlands trees and hedgerows and the landscape during the design process and delivery of development. Other policies consider the Open Space aspects which will protect, enhance and maintain and where possible extend or create Doncaster's natural environment.

Felsham Planning & Policy 55 - Emissions and any potential environmental impacts associated It is the Council's understanding that whilst the EA may Development on behalf of with Oil and Gas developments are regulated by the EA through the consider the impact of a process on an existing air quality INEOS Upstream Limited Environmental Permitting Regulations. ‘Site Containment’ plans are management area it is not clear as to whether the EA will 05058 also required by the EA to address any risks to surface or consider that such emissions may result in the need to groundwater and the wider environment. This should be stated clearly in the policy and any justification text to avoid confusion declare an AQMA. We note also the respondent’s comment with respect to the opportunity for LPAs to Noise impacts, PPG is clear on how noise should be addressed and consider air quality as part of an EIA; conversely though therefore this policy should clearly reference this guidance. they also allude to the fact that the criteria for an EIA may not always be met. Therefore it is recommend that air quality should remain as is within Policy 55.

Barton Wilmore on behalf Policy 51 - HIA should be part of validation checklist not planning policy. The link between planning and health has been long of Baratt & David Wilson Information required within a HIA is beyond the control of the established and almost every planning decision or policy Homes 04955/ 04956 applicant and related to individual choice. supportive of a strategic policy has a potential effect on human health. A HIA helps to improve the health and wellbeing of Doncaster residents, but there is planning decisions make choices about alternatives and no evidence to suggest HIAs are required to support major developments possible improvements to prevent disease and actively promote better health. The NPPF promotes healthy and safe communities and the Planning Practice Guidance maintains that a Health Impact Assessment may be a useful tool to use where there are expected to be significant impacts. The Local Plan supports the submission of HIAs, for major applications and those applications where its viewed necessary a HIA would be required, to ensure planning decisions made by Doncaster's LPA are contributing to a healthy community and is a good place to grow up and grow old in. HIA's are also included on Doncaster's Planning Application Information Requirements and Validation Checklist (Nov 2018).

DMBC Public Health 51: HIA required for major developments, but recommend this should be Policies within the Local Plan should be read in 03351 required for all developments conjunction with one another, Policy 51 indicates the 52: A HIA should be completed where a proposal arises that could lead to need for a HIA. However, an HIA is considered relevant the loss of community facilities which demonstrates the impact on the and proportionate to the detail and type of development local community. 53: Support development of good quality facilities. Active travel should e.g. major applications, where development results in the be prioritised and provision of secure cycle parking for pupils and staff loss of a community facility or where the Planning Officer should be included. Expect policy to be specific in requesting a travel considers an HIA relevant. plan. Any alternations to existing schools or new development should be subject to a HIA. Policy 52: Comments noted. The Policy does state that 54: Provision of safe and secure cycle parking and a specific requirement development resulting in the loss of an existing facility for a Travel Plan should be included in the policy. Any alternations to will be "assessed on merit". All due consideration of any existing schools or new development should be subject to a HIA. negative impacts will be given at the planning application 55: HIA should be undertaken on any development with a potential to stage. Policy 53: Comments noted. The Policy as drafted cause pollution, regardless of level. Public Health should be involved at should adequately address the points raised. any detail earlies opportunity. Suggest following for policy and recommend it is finalised with air quality specialists in pollution control: Policy 1 Air would be considered at the planning application stage. Quality – need Tech Guidance SPD/SPG/Guidance Policy 53. Comments noted. Part 7 of the Policy covers Proposals will be required to mitigate any potential air quality issues as set out below: access by sustainable transport. Any potential loss of A) evidence is provided that shows the development will either not result facility or changes to existing facility will be covered by in deterioration in air quality or any such deterioration will not cause an Policy 52. unacceptable impact; B) suitable and effective measures have been provided to address any negative impacts and to demonstrate how this will successfully address potential harmful effects; C) within Air Quality Management areas or areas likely to exceed EU limit values, suitable and effective measures are incorporated into the design and layout of developments to address the effects on humans of the extant air quality issues; provision for alternative modes of transport should be considered; and D) cumulative effects have been considered and, as necessary, provision for mitigation against the total emissions has been provided.

Explanation The quality of the air we breathe is affected by many factors. These include emissions from local industry, domestic sources and exhaust gases from the traffic travelling around the borough. National planning policies should sustain compliance with and contribute towards EU limit values or national objectives for pollutants and if necessary declare air quality management areas pursuant to extant air quality objectives and standards. Poor air quality is a serious public health risk and as such national legislations is in place to improve the quality of the air we breathe across the country. Locally, it is a major factor in the reduction of life expectancy in Doncaster. Protecting air quality is as important as improving air quality within the air quality management areas. Therefore, even when development has only a minor influence, it is important to consider cumulative effects and require mitigation against the total emissions. The Environment Act 1995 requires local authorities in England to review air quality in their area against the objectives in the Air Quality Regulations, the objectives are designed for protection of human health. As air quality improves nationally poor air quality hotspots will become more localised and local authority action will become more important. New guidance clearly states that planning, along with the transport and environmental departments of a local authority must work together to develop measures in the pursuit of improving air quality. 56: HIA should be undertaken on any development with potential to cause contamination or unstable land.

Natural England 03820 55: Recommend that reference is made to ecological receptors, Comments noted. Will consider comments and consult particularly in relation to traffic emissions and polluting industrial with the Council's Air Quality/Environmental Health development. officers. 52; 54 - Should include clear criteria to avoid hydrological impacts on Thorne and Hatfield Moors SPA, Thorne Moors SAC and Hatfield Moors SAC and loss of offsite foraging land for nightjar.

Sport England 03933 51: Should include active design principles (link provided to Sport England Comments noted. Doncaster's Local Plan policies Guidance) demonstrates the whole system approach/health in 52: Unclear if policy covers tennis courts, swimming pools, MUGAs etc. policies for obesity/physical activity/health generally and Concerned about 52A - object - would allow a developer to let a playing the Sport England Active Design principles have been field become unfit for purpose to allow development. Maintenance should not be a material consideration. 52B - Should be amended to refer considered. to an up to date PPS and Built Sport Facility Strategy. 52C should make Comments noted. Explanation text updated to support clear that alternative provision is also of equivalent or better quality, and of equivalent or greater quantity, and in a suitable location, and subject the identified need in the Built Sport Facility Strategy and to equivalent or better accessibility and management arrangements. 52D Playing Pitch Strategy. Enabling policy contrast to NPPF 97. Object to criterion, should be removed or made clear not related to playing fields / sports facilities. Policy 52 - Policy supporting text includes a list of what 53: Welcome A5 encouraging community use of new education facilities. 'Community Facilities' could inlcluded but is not Sport England provide a free online resource on this (link provided) exclusive. Other types of facility will be assessed on a Supporting text should make reference to this. case by case basis (as stated in the Policy supporting 54: 54A Should be amended to make reference to where the need is text). Regarding 'maintenance' - again this will be identified in a Built Sport Facility Strategy and PPS (may include sites assessed on a case by case basis. It may be that in some identified for the provision of changing rooms etc.) cases lack of adequate maintenance is out of the control of the Council. Policy part (C) text amended to more closely comply with NPPF para 97.

100

DMBC Pollution Control In general terms I would support any improvements to sustainable and Comments noted and support welcomed. 04357 public transport that the Local Plan can help bring about. Road building will result in an increase in vehicle emissions and this will need to be mitigated against using appropriate damage costs, these could be included in design but also should be included in Planning Conditions and Obligations where appropriate. Development that results in The Air Quality Regulations (2000 & 2002) and EU Limit Values being exceeded could constitute a material consideration.

101

United Kingdom Onshore Policy 51- Where development is subject to EIA, health impacts should be Comments noted. Policies within the Local Plan should Oil & Gas 05014 included in that process and a separate HIA should not be a separate be read in conjunction with one another. Chapter 14 requirement. considers and makes the best use of mineral resources in Policy 55 - Has been used as a catch all for issues which are not strictly Doncaster. pollution but may be better described as ‘nuisance’. Issues such as noise should be separated from a general policy on pollution (see response for greater detail). Policy should clearly reference Planning Practice Guidance on how noise should be addressed (see response for greater detail) Policy 56 - Where project subject to EIA all impacts are assessed and suitable avoidance and mitigation measure must be identified. This should be stated in the policy and any justification text must make it clear. Reference should also be made to PDR (part K) for oil and offshore gas exploration sites.

102

Canal & River Trust 03089 Policy 51 - Part (A) - would be more effective if supporting text provided HIA's are also included on Doncaster's Planning clarity as to how development can be designed to support healthy Application Information Requirements and Validation communities and lifestyle. Checklist (Nov 2018). Additional guidance is available online; What is a HIA? Why is it required? Where to get help? and including specific tool kit and guidance in preparing development proposals to help shape and inform design choices and to demonstrate the benefits of the proposal.

103

03113 Policy 51 - 2017 EIA Regs do not require a HIA to be undertaken. The link between planning and health has been long established and almost every planning decision or policy has a potential effect on human health. A HIA helps planning decisions make choices about alternatives and possible improvements to prevent disease and actively promote better health. The NPPF promotes healthy and safe communities and the Planning Practice Guidance maintains that a Health Impact Assessment may be a useful tool to use where there are expected to be significant impacts. The Local Plan supports the submission of HIAs, for major applications and those applications where its viewed necessary a HIA would be required, to ensure planning decisions made by Doncaster's LPA are contributing to a healthy community and is a good place to grow up and grow old in.

Department for Education Policy 53 - Welcomed. In part B of the policy a commitment is made to Comments noted. It is considered that Part B of Policy 53 04361 seek on-site provision of schools, which is supported by the DfE. It would reflects the consideration for provision. be helpful if this part of the policy also included a commitment to allocate sites as part of larger developments, as this would provide greater certainty to the development industry and education trusts that are seeking to establish new schools.

David Nicklin 04544 53 b) not deliverable in Skellow, Carcroft, Adwick or Askern. Will Comments noted. The requirements and detail of part B developers deliver this as part of the developments, and if offiste - where of policy 53 would be considered at any planning and how will this be funded? Doubt developers could fund a whole application stage on a site by site basis. school including staff.

104

Anne Nicklin 04673 Policy 53(b) is not deliverable in Skellow, Carcroft, Adwick or Askern with Comments noted. The requirements and detail of part B reference to sites 165, 186 and 782. of policy 53 would be considered at any planning application stage on a site by site basis.

The Theatres Trust 0569 Policy 54 Support. Request the addition of cultural services within the Comment noted. The supporting text of Policy 54 details policy which would give consistency with the NPPF. Also encourage there the evidence requirements for any development to be robust evidence requirements to be set out within the supporting proposals that involve the loss of key facilities. text which guide how applications for the loss of facilities will be assessed such as evidence of marketing at an appropriate value. The Coal Authority 01223 Support Noted, support welcomed.

Climate Change, Minerals & Resources & Energy (Policies 57-61) Representation Summary DMBC Response Representation Name & Reference No CPRE 0077 Policies 57-60 - Climate change - Carbon reduction target is a grave Noted – legislation such as the Climate Change Act is omission. Without target plan cannot contribute to Council duties under implemented through national planning policy and the NPF the Climate Change Act 2008. will lead to plan not being legally so as long as Local plans are in general conformity with compliant. See response for further detail. such then the requirements of the Act are being fulfilled. Yorkshire Wildlife Trust Policy 58 - Suggests changes to policy wording Policy 59 - Unclear as to how the suggestion should be 01546 Policy 59 - Suggests changes to policy wording interpreted in relation to the policy Policy 60 - Suggests changes to policy wording Policy 60 - policy amended as suggested. Cllr Richard Jones 01378 Policy 57 - grey water use should be part of this policy. Normally section Noted - however these are not considered necessary to D is as part of a drainage disposal system the maintenance undertaken by include in the local plan policy but are important areas the local Authority or water company so this should apply to SUDS and where the supporting guidance set out in the explanatory become part of flood risk management and maintenance policy 58. text provides further detail such as the adoption and maintenance of SUDs. DMBC Public Health 03351 57 - 58: Flooding impacts upon the lives of local people in several ways. It Policies 57 & 58 - Noted and agree can affect their homes and ability to travel and work. Floods may also cause injuries, infectious disease outbreaks, chemical contamination, disruption of power and water supplies and difficulties accessing health services. These policies aim to prevent flooding using the planning

105

framework by including measures to reduce the risk and impact of flooding.

59: Should note that biomass can impact on air quality and public health. Policy 59 - Air quality added to B2 of policy. HIA is HIA should be undertaken in all cases and investigation into impact on adequately covered under other policies in the Local Plan existing health inequalities. (51) and any development proposal would be subject to consideration of the full suite of policies. Therefore it is 60: HIA should be conducted prior to any wind energy development not considered necessary to reference it in the policy

61: Development impacting on these resources should be subject to a Policy 60 - HIA is adequately covered under other policies HIA in the Local Plan (51) and any development proposal would be subject to consideration of the full suite of 62 - 65: HIA should be undertaken on any development with a potential policies. Therefore it is not considered necessary to to have a negative impact on health and wellbeing. reference it in the policy Policy 61 - Noted - it is likely that proposals that impact on the significant loss of best and most versatile agricultural land are likely to be larger scale major development where a Health Impact Assessment will be required. Banks Group 05119 Amend wording in policies 59 and 60 Policy 59 - Comments noted and policy amended as suggested. Policy 59 relates only to principle B), which rather than a requirement is simply a list of criteria which, if met, renewable energy development will Policy 60 - Policy amended and further clarification added be supported. to explanatory text.

Criterion 1 - generally supportive

Criterion 2 The terminology of what is meant by ‘local amenity’ is wide ranging and should be defined further. It is suggested that the language be changed from “protect” to “do not result in any unacceptable adverse effects”.

Criteria 3 and 4 - generally supportive

106

Criterion 5 - suggest that the Policy should not use “no significant adverse impacts”… rewording of Criterion 5 from “significant” to “unacceptable” as it would allow for an acceptability test to be carried on a case by case basis

Criterion 6 - promote an addition to this criterion to state that the reclamation should be carried out within a defined period specified by condition.

Policy 60

15 Policy 60 outlines 10 criteria to which any wind energy development proposal that demonstrates will be supported:

Criteria A & B - suggest that the wording of criterion A should read “Medium to large-scale proposals are directed toward areas with the highest relative landscape capacity with priority given to those within the Area of Search for Wind Energy Developments as shown on the Proposals Map”.

Criterion C - generally supportive of the wording of point C as it exists.

Criterion D - amend “significant” to “unacceptable” to allow for a planning balance test of the issue to be undertaken.

Criterion E - change wording from “significant adverse” to “unacceptable” in order for an acceptability test to be carried out to each proposal.

107

Criteria F, G, H, I - generally supportive of the wording of points F, G, H and I

Criterion J - To have the backing of the local community is onerous and open to interpretation. No other form of development is subject to such standards and without specific guidance on what is meant by ‘has their backing’ the risk to Banks Renewables in progressing a wind energy development is high. (planning system already allows for communities views) (check response for further detail)

Allow for evolving technological advances in turbine technology thereby not limiting future development. Care must be taken to ensure that Policies 59 and 60 do not result in a decline in renewable energy production DMBC Pollution Control Policy 59 - with regard to support of biomass energy, from an air quality Noted. Air quality added to B2 of policy. 04357 perspective this should be discouraged, especially close to and in residential areas. This energy sector is not considered to be low emission and it remains up for discussion as to whether it is truly low carbon. The emissions from biomass installations are far greater than for a similar gas fuelled system and should only ever be encouraged where the gas network is not viable. Biomass is now thought to account for the majority of particulate matter emissions in some urban centres and may constitute a risk to public health. Canal & Rivers Trust 03089 Policy 57 - Part E - supportive Support welcomed

Policy 59 - Supportive Historic England 0016 Policy 59 - support Support welcomed

Policy 60 - Criterion E – NPPF Paragraph 8 makes it clear that the This is covered by the policy criteria of policies 59 and 60. environment objective of sustainable development has three elements – Policy amended as suggested wording. the natural, built and historic environment. This ought to be reflected in this Criterion.

108

Policy 62 - policy makes no reference to reopening historic sources of building stone Minerals Policies (62-65) Representation Name & Representation Summary DMBC Response Reference No CPRE 0077 Policy 65 - Hydrocarbons - Further extraction of hydrocarbons must be Policy 65. Comment noted. No national policy requirement presumed incompatible with a CO2 reduction strategy. Part B of policy to add the additional criterion. Policy has been significantly needs an additional criterion ‘which can clearly demonstrate a net updated to refer to national planning policy benefit to achieving the Council’s carbon reduction target' Anglian Water Services Ltd Policy 65 - Suggests amendment to the policy wording ... policy to refer Policy 65 Comment noted. Wording to be considered for 0031 to water resources/environment and require applicants to demonstrate added in explanatory text that there proposals would not have an adverse impact on potable water sources Yorkshire Wildlife Trust Policy 64 encourage this policy to support the restoration of sites to Policy 64. Comment noted and wording will be identified in 01546 achieve a net gain in biodiversity. body text Sheffield Area Geology Policy 63: Suggest inclusion of another requirement encouraging Policy 63. comment noted. Additional wording to be Trust 01747 developer to permit temporary access to excavations in superficial and provided in explanatory text. bedrock geology for the purpose of recording geological data, some of which may be rarely-seen, by suitably qualified experts. Policy 64. comment noted. Additional wording to be provided Policy 64: suggest inclusion of another requirement in sub-paragraph B which encourages the permanent conservation of geological assets and the retention, where possible, of pre-existing or newly-created geological exposures and features for future study by the scientific community and appreciation the public. Mineral Products Policy 62 : Providing for and Safeguarding Mineral Resources (Strategic 62A – comment noted. added in the word ‘steady’ to the Association 04371 Policy) policy 62 A2 – comment noted. (the word 'steady' added in to the Proposed Changes (deletions in strikethrough; new text in bold) beginning of policy 62A) 62 A4 – comment noted regarding monitoring arrangements. plan period review is implicit in national policy

109

The policy needs rewording to be consistent with the NPPF and therefore 62 B - comments noted no amendments made to policy. make it sound. Body text should provide additional detail 62B ‘500m buffer’ added into policy. note on ‘agent of Proposed Changes (deletions in strikethrough; new text in bold) change principle’ added in to explanatory text 63 C – minor changes made to policy but not to the extent The extraction and production of aggregate, industrial, building stone of the MPAs suggestion and energy minerals that contribute to infrastructure and construction 63 D – section D added but not to the extent of the MPAs projects will be supported through the following principles suggestion. Safeguarding exemption criteria list added to body text. A) We will plan for a steady and adequate supply of minerals aim to deliver adequate, efficiently and sustainably sourced minerals during the plan period by:

1. encouraging the use of suitable secondary and recycled material in the first instance, minimising the need for primary extraction;

2. providing plan for a steady and adequate supply of for sufficient industrial, and energy minerals that balance both the economic and environmental benefits:

3. contributing toward local provision by maintaining, where possible, a landbank of permitted reserves for at least seven years for sand and gravel and with Rotherham Council at least ten years for aggregate limestone;

4. monitoring and reviewing the permitted reserves of sand and gravel, and aggregate limestone and producing an annual aggregate assessment and reviewing the plan as required but in any event at least every 5 years.

5. requiring proposals for sand and gravel to demonstrate that the mineral resource includes at least 20% sharp sand and gravel;

110

6. identifying on the Proposals Map existing mineral sites, new mineral proposals (preferred areas), and ‘Areas of Search’; (see Table below)

7. identifying on the Proposals Map minerals supporting infrastructure to be safeguarded during and beyond the plan period (see Table below); and,

B) Proposals for non-mineral development within Mineral Safeguarding Areas, or within 500m of their boundary or an active quarry, will have the agent of change principle applied and furthermore will only be supported where:

1. consideration has been given to the long-term economic value of the mineral and a full geological report identifying the extent and quality of the mineral forms part of any application for non-mineral development;

2. non-mineral development can take place without preventing the mineral resource from being extracted in the future taking into account the agent of change principle;

3. the proposal can feasibly incorporate the prior extraction of any minerals of economic value in an environmentally acceptable way;

4. the need for the development outweighs the need to safeguard the site for future;

5. the development is permitted, minor or temporary in nature, or is consider as exempt development on the safeguarding criteria list.

Includes suggested safeguarding exemption criteria…

111

(check page 3 and 4 of the response)

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

Proposed Changes (deletions in strikethrough; new text in bold)

No changes to a and b, changes to para C and D

…C) the borrow pit is situated next to and used only for the project it is intended to supply sand and gravel borrow pits will only be considered where it is demonstrated that:

1. geographically they are well related to the project they will serve

2. the quantity and timescale for the supply of sand and gravel may not pose problems of supply from existing quarries, or prejudice the steady supply of construction material for the local market

3. an unacceptable level of mineral traffic, and / or movements of unsuitable material

112 arising from the scheme, will be removed from the public highway and / or from passing through local communities

4. the site will be restored within the same timescale as the project to which it relates, and that restoration can be achieved to an approved scheme in the event that it is only part worked

5. there will be no importation of materials other than from the project itself unless required to achieve beneficial restoration as set out in an approved scheme.

D) proposals for development involving the incidental extraction and off site removal of mineral, will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated:

1. there is a proven need for the proposal

2. that any mineral extracted will be used in a sustainable manner

113

3. where the proposal relates to a reservoir, the design minimises its surface area by

maximising its depth

4. the minimum amount of mineral is to be extracted consistent with the purpose of the

development

5. the phasing and duration of development proposed adequately reflects the importance

of the early delivery of water resources or other approved development

The determination of planning applications will have regard to the objectives and policies in

this Plan. 05124 Cuadrilla Resources Draft policy 65(Providing for Energy Minerals (Gas and Oil Comments noted – the policy has been significantly Ltd (Hydrocarbons)). changed since the consultation to defer to national policy

65B No policy support for applying exceptional circumstances with regard to 500m buffer. (quotes MPGs). Written Ministerial Statement (WMS) states “Plans should not set restrictions or thresholds across their plan area that limit shale development without proper justification. application of a

500m buffer zone without sufficient justification is contrary to the 2018 WMS. 500m ‘exceptional circumstances’ area and would in effect sterilise

114

the development of onshore oil and gas development within the plan area. IGas Energy PLC 05129 Policy 65 Comments noted – the policy has been significantly changed since the consultation to defer to national policy Policy is specific to Hydrocarbons – may benefit from being title as such.

First line of policy is written in a negative way – inappropriate to refer to ‘principles’

Criterion A)

Should be re-worded to say developments for hydrocarbons will be supported within the PEDL areas identified on the proposals map.

Criterion B)

The term ‘only’ is negative.

HC’s are a national energy resource – can only be worked where they occur. Policy as currently drafted is contrary to national policy and guidance.

Buffer Zones

Use is inconsistent with NPPF, PP Guidance and the Written Ministerial Statement (WMS) energy policy 2018. Inclusion is unacceptable. No policy support for applying exceptional circumstances.

Goes on to list several PPG sections and the WMS as evidence.

If retained ‘buffer zone’ would make the plan unsound.

115

Criterion C)

Unnecessary to have specific written criterion that implies a stand-alone HIA is required.

C.5 – sub-surface matters are outside the scope of planning.

C.7 – not clear what purpose ‘agreed timescale’ would constitute.

Are existing well pads ‘facilities’? (See response for additional comments)

Evidence base update – evidence base has not been used fully to inform draft policy.

Policy 57 Contamination plans – reference to the role of the EA in requiring such plans should be made in the justification text.

Policy 64 operators will agree restoration and aftercare conditions with the planning authority in line with the requirements of the EA and HSE Cllr Richard Jones 01378 Policy 63 - May need revision re new NPPF. Comments noted – the policy has been significantly changed since the consultation to defer to national policy Policy 65 - Siting should be at least 2.5 Km from habitation to allow for mitigation. Lichfields on behalf of Draft policy 62 - propose that it is amended to state ‘the principle of the Policy 62 – Comment noted, explanatory text clarifies North Lincs Property Ltd) draft policy above is to allocate extant planning permitted minerals sites permitted sites with extant permission that contribute which contribute toward the landbank provision. toward the landbank of permissions.

Policy 63 - Reference is made within the draft policy to ‘biodiversity opportunity areas’. Further reference and clarity should be provided as what and where these are. North Yorkshire County Policy 62 – Providing for and safeguarding mineral resources (Strategic Policy 62 - 64 – Comment noted Council 05170 policy) – We support the policy, the mineral safeguarding area which adjoins the North Yorkshire County Council boundary matches the North

116

Yorkshire County Council safeguarded area. Policy 65 - Comments noted – the policy has been significantly changed since the consultation to defer to Policy 63 – Minerals Development Proposals, Borrow Pits and Incidental national policy Extraction – We support the policy.

Policy 64 – Reclamation of mineral sites (Restoration, Aftercare and Afteruse) – We support the policy

Policy 65 – Providing for Energy Minerals (Gas and Oil (Hydrocarbons) – we support the policy, and welcome the inclusion of the 500m buffer for hydrocarbon development to avoid associated adverse impacts on residential amenity, and work within the buffer will only be allowed in exceptional circumstance Felsham Planning & Policy 64 Policy 64. Comment noted Development on behalf of Policy 64 B5. Comment noted. No change proposed INEOS Upstream Ltd 05058 Operator will agree restoration and aftercare conditions with the Policy 65 - Comments noted – the policy has been planning authority in line with the requirements of the EA and HSE. significantly changed since the consultation to defer to operator cannot relinquish its environmental permits until the EA are national policy satisfied that there are no-longer any risks to the environment

Policy 64 B5 - ‘economic feasibility of restoration of hydrocarbon sites’ should be deleted

Policy 65 - Objection to policy, does not reflect the positive approach to unconventional gas required by the Written Ministerial Statement (WMS) of 17th May 2018 and revised NPPF 2018, which are material considerations I plan-making and decision-taking. Draft policy does not reflect national guidance. Policy should identify which regulatory regimes fall outside the planning process and associated roles. No credible justification has been put forward for the imposition of an "exceptional circumstances" test to development within the 500m zone. Assessments and decisions should be made, and mitigation applied, on a case-by-case basis as identified in national policy. Health Impact assessments should

117 not be required as a comprehensive stand-alone document. Health is assessed and addressed in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). Impact on health embedded in EIA process. Repeating the process of what will be covered in a EIA, through a non-regulatory HIA where all the health stakeholders already agreed the risk through the scoping process will dilute best practice.

Policy 65, C5 - PEDL award is made in the context of existing mineral resources. The requirement to provide information about existing designated seam areas is not relevant to the determination of a planning application and is not the remit of the planning authority. The impact on the coal resource is within the regulatory remit of the Coal Authority.

Policy 65 C6 - when making an application for an appraisal well it will not be possible to supply a completed appraisal of the hydrocarbon resource field.

Policy 65 C7 - National policy does not require that production is undertaken within a specific timescale

Policy 65 C8 – facilities may not be suitable for production and production may take place elsewhere. Restriction does not comply with NPPF or WMS

Suggested policy 65 revision:

Oil and Gas Development

Exploration

118

1. Proposals for hydrocarbon exploration will be supported provided they do not give rise to any unacceptable impacts on the environment and residential amenity.

Appraisal

2. Where hydrocarbons are discovered, proposals to appraise, drill and test the resource will be permitted provided that they are consistent with an overall scheme for the appraisal and delineation of the resource and do not give rise to any unacceptable impacts on the environment and residential amenity.

Extraction

3. Proposals for the extraction of hydrocarbons will be supported provided they are consistent with an overall scheme for enabling the full development of the resource and do not give rise to unacceptable impacts on the environment and residential amenity.

4. Where proposals for hydrocarbon development coincide with areas containing other underground mineral resources evidence must be provided to demonstrate that their

119

potential for future exploitation will not be unreasonably affected.

Restoration

5. All applications for hydrocarbon development will be accompanied with details of how the site will be restored once the development is no longer required. Turley on behalf of Peel Policy 62: For completeness, request any Mineral Safeguarding Area Comment Noted. No change proposed. National guidance Group 05201/ 05202 identified within the Airport masterplan's be removed and plan/proposal states 'Safeguarding mineral resources should be defined map makes this clear. The area should not be unnecessarily constrained in designated areas and urban areas where necessary to do in its delivery. so. For example, safeguarding of minerals beneath large regeneration projects in brownfield land areas can enable suitable use of the mineral' DMBC Public Health 03351 62 - 65: HIA should be undertaken on any development with a potential Comment noted. Explanatory text will reference policy 51 to have a negative impact on health and wellbeing. (health and the requirement for a HIA) Sirius Planning on behalf of Sutton quarry is listed as "site awaiting restoration". Is listed as a Comment noted. Site status clarified in table, but not FCC Environment Ltd permitted quarry with an extant permission, and not considered to removed 05000/ 05001/ 05002 contribute towards the land bank. Given quarry does not contribute to the aims of the policy, reference should be removed. United Kingdom Onshore Policy 64 Provides comment. Once a site is restored an operator Policy 64 – comments noted Oil & Gas 05014 cannot relinquish its environmental permits until the EA are satisfied that there are no-longer any risks to the environment. (this can take up Policy 65 - Comments noted – the policy has been to 5 years) Policy 56 significantly changed since the consultation to defer to Reference should be made to the role of the EA in the permission national policy process.

Policy 64 - Provides comment. No suggested changes.

Policy 65 - There is no definition or assessment of what the authority considers to be ‘significant’ in terms of ‘significant benefit to the local economy’

120

65c – agree don’t need to separate conventional and non-conventional hydrocarbons 65C 2 – requirement for HIA duplicates EIA requirement 65C 3 and 5 – requirement outside scope of planning considerations 65c 6 - operators can / will submit an assessment of the potential resource for an individual site, or range of sites, but unable to provide an appraisal of the hydrocarbon resource field. Assessment before exploration is not possible

65 (c) 8. – is this proposal referring to existing well pads as ‘facilities’ or is it referring to BF sites or other assets?

Any impacts to the environment will be indented through the EIA and avoidance and mitigation measures identified. This should be stated in the policy and any justification text must make it clear.

Policy 65

The use of 500mt Buffer Zones

Use does not align with NPPF, Planning Practice Guidance or the WMS; Energy Policy May 2018.

Use of zones would make the plan unsound.

Applications should be assessed on a ‘case by case’ basis.

Policy 65

There is no policy support for a HIA for all hydrocarbons.

In respect of hydraulic fracturing - Should be stated in Policy that where an EIA is required an assessment of potential health impacts would be

121

included.

(Oil and Gas) Alignment with ‘hydrocarbon evidence Base Update’ (August 2018)

Evidence base has not been used to fully inform P65 – there are several issues that do not align with evidence base. Text should make clear the role of the Planning authority in context of surface development for onshore oil and gas. East Riding of Yorkshire It would be useful to clarify within Policy 62 on providing for mineral comment noted will be shown in explanatory text 0009 resources how much aggregate (an annual apportionment figure and/or an overall tonnage over the Plan period) the Plan should be providing for. Joint Rural Parishes 04013 Support low carbon aims. Concern over omission in the local plan of how Noted this will be achieved. Object to wind / solar farms in Green Belt. Would support solar on large (industrial etc. roofs), followed by a roll out on residential properties. DMBC should ensure all developers demonstrate how they support boroughs green ambitions.

Oppose and support DMBC policy in objecting to fracking permits. Historic England 0016 Policy 62 - policy makes no reference to reopening historic sources of policy 62. comment noted. Will provide information in building stone explanatory text

122

Sibelco Uk Ltd 03133 Policy 62. Policy 62. Comments noted. Policy 62. Comments noted; need to provide for a 'steady and adequate' supply of mineral. Industrial minor amendment proposed. Policy 62B comment noted minerals required for different end-uses not construction. identification clarification made. comment noted; policy 1 considers of Specific Sites is not noted in bullet point 6 sustainable development as a whole. comment noted; Welcomes Policy. - see additional notes in rep. industrial and energy minerals linked for brevity

Bullet point 6 - specific sites should be identified where info available. Policy 64 - comment noted amend wording to be more akin to PPG requirement for restoration and aftercare B) - clarification required that all points need to be satisfied.

Bullet point 5 - are definitions available for non-mineral developments that are minor or temporary in nature.

Policy 62B - Sibelco seeks clarification that all the points under item B and definition of minor and temporary development. Policy 62 A (2) - NPPF this policy is also required to address the social benefits. questions why industrial and energy minerals are linked together in this policy sub- heading. A (2) - why are industrial and energy mineral linked together in sub policy heading?

Policy 64

after-use is not a matter for mineral planning : all policies should be only applicable to relevant types of development since several policies may be relevant for non-mineral development but not appropriate for mineral development The Coal Authority 01233 Support policies Support welcomed Delivery: Developer Contributions & Viability (Policies 66 & 67)

123

Representation Name & Representation Summary DMBC Response Reference No Department for Education Policy 66 - Welcomes mitigation of large scale development by providing Support welcomed - proposed housing sites will include 04361 on site infrastructure including education facilities. Proposed sites or developer requirements which may provide for safeguarded sites should seek to clarify requirement for delivery of new contributions towards school capacity and education schools. The explicit reference to mitigate the impacts of large-scale facilities as well as sites identified on the Proposals Map development by providing on-site infrastructure is welcomed. for new schools (where necessary and planned) Home Builders Federation Policy 67 - Significant concerns re implementation of this policy. Agree the Government is looking to reduce the need for 0129 Reassessment of viability appraisals at set trigger points could add site specific viability appraisals at planning application further burdens to developers and could be counter to Government stage with greater emphasis on testing of policies as part initiatives. Policy causes unnecessary uncertainty and additional risk for of the development plan making stage. However, it is not developers considered the policy provides an unnecessary burden to developers or is counter to Government's intentions. The policy allows for re-assessment of viability at appropriate points in the future and is intended to assist therefore, particularly large or complex schemes, rather than hinder them from coming forward. The Government's Planning Practice Guidance on Viability in relation to how should viability be reviewed during the lifetime of a project supports such an approach and states "where contributions are reduced below the requirements set out in policies to provide flexibility in the early stages of a development, there should be a clear agreement of how policy compliance can be achieved over time." Spawforths on behalf of H Policy 66 concerned unsound. Supportive of the need for contributions, Noted - further viability testing will be undertaken in line Burtwistle & Son 03507/ however is concerned that with all the requirements it could undermine with the latest Planning Practice Guidance and published 03506 & Strata Homes the delivery of housing through the need for a viability assessment on a alongside the Publication version of the local plan, 02073 & Avant Homes regular basis. including any consequential amendments to local plan 05208/ 05209/ 05210/ policies requiring developer contributions. 05211 & Framecourt Policy 67 considered unsound. Concerned with the all the requirements. Homes 05176 & Metroland Propose a review and update the viability assessment and provide clarity 05216 & Firshure 05215 & on Part b or remove. Priority Space Ltd 05213

124

04778 DMBC Street Scene Please include any developer contributions for adopted POS (s106) or Noted - this is an internal matter for DMBC and not a tree planting on highway verges (s38) to be made to Street Scene for of matter for local plan policy Communities or Highways as happens now.

All S106 monies should still continue managed by SPU although the allocation and spend should be managed by a Placed based function and not current as with the people based service Communities. RPS Group on behalf of Supports ‘Policy 66: Developer Contributions (Strategic Policy)’ re Noted and support welcomed Troy Verdion 05177 providing necessary supporting infrastructure. DMBC Public Health 03351 66 - 67: Developer contributions provide a real opportunity to improve Noted - support welcomed - this is an internal matter for community health and wellbeing. Developer contributions should always DMBC be sought and effectively utilised, and Public Health should be involved in discussions to maximise the use of Section 106/Community Noted - developer requirements need to be considered in Infrastructure Levy (CIL) funding. 67: pragmatic and flexible approach the context of viability as well as all the other planning and may lead to health and wellbeing benefits being lost. Steps should be policy considerations and objectives. Recent changes to taken to ensure that viability testing doesn't lead to insufficient national policy and guidance on viability places greater community investment or missed health and wellbeing opportunities. Public Health should be involved in pre-application discussions for emphasis on the need to test policies at plan-making stage developments that meet the criteria for a HIA. to ensure the majority of schemes are viable and that site specific appraisals are the exception rather than the norm.

Persimmon Homes 03430 66: Affordable housing target of 15% unviable in many low or medium Noted - further viability testing will be undertaken in line areas, council should be mindful of this. Policy requirements could with the latest Planning Practice Guidance and published undermine the delivery of housing through the need for a viability alongside the Publication version of the local plan, assessment of schemes on a regular basis. Government want to avoid including any consequential amendments to local plan assessments being submitted regularly to vary planning obligations. Council should instead ensure this policy is well tested to ensure policies requiring developer contributions. allocated sites are deliverable. It is unrealistic to negotiate on a one by one basis because the aspiration of a policy is set too high as this will jeopardise future housing delivery. Site by site negotiations should only be occasional.

67: Significant concerns about how frequently this will be used. Trigger

125

points could over burden developers to reproduce viability assessments on a potentially regular basis. Policy causes unnecessary uncertainty and additional risk to developers, disincentive them and impeding the development process and the deliverability of large sites which need to be phased. Johnson Mowatt on behalf Welcome pragmatic, flexible approach to planning obligations, concerns Agree the Government is looking to reduce the need for of Strategic Land Group about Part B. As written Part B may result in the re-assessment of an site specific viability appraisals at planning application 04444 & Mr & Mrs S Hall agreed lower level of contribution once development commences. This stage with greater emphasis on testing of policies as part 04960 & Harworth Group will introduce unnecessary uncertainty to developers. Further of the development plan making stage. However, it is not 05204/ 05205/ 05203 information is required regarding when such re-assessment may be considered the policy provides an unnecessary burden to considered to be appropriate, and what constitutes ‘suitable trigger point(s). developers or is counter to Government's intentions. The policy allows for re-assessment of viability at appropriate points in the future and is intended to assist therefore, particularly large or complex schemes, rather than hinder them from coming forward. The Government's Planning Practice Guidance on Viability in relation to how should viability be reviewed during the lifetime of a project supports such an approach and states "where contributions are reduced below the requirements set out in policies to provide flexibility in the early stages of a development, there should be a clear agreement of how policy compliance can be achieved over time."

Spatial Proposals (Policies 68-73)

Department for Education Policy 70 - Helpful if it could detail the amount of land safeguarded for Noted - the policy has been updated to refer to the 2.9ha 04361 the provision of the school. sized school site

John Waggitt 01837 Policy 70 - A lack of a direct link to the motorway complex via junction 5 Noted - part of the Unity proposal is to build a new road of the M18. linking directly to J5 of the M18 motorway with access to

126

Hatfield-Stainforth via various connections to the existing highway infrastructure.

Cllr Richard Jones 01378 Policy 70 - Needs to have same ratio applied for homes/employment. Noted

Policy 71 - E – Underground parking should be a consideration.

Cllr Mark Houlbrook 03651 Town Centre shop front design policy contained in the Neighbourhood Thorne is proposed as Main Town within the borough, it is plan provides a framework of ensuring that such designs are in setting also designated as a Main Town in the hierarchy of centres with the area and are of an appropriate design. Representations and (Policy 2, Table 2). This draft policy is intended to submissions from the Thorne and Moorends Town Council will provide compliment Thorne and Moorends Neighbourhood Plan. evidence of Town Centre focus which includes parking. There is requirement to revisit the impact of fast food takeaways in the Town Centre.

Carter Jonas on behalf of Note and welcome the support for a range of improvements to Thorne Support welcomed Harworth Group 05190 Town Centre.

DMBC Pollution Control Policy 71 - Thorne is being closely monitored for air quality Air Quality has been added as a consideration into the 04357 concentrations that are close to the objectives in the Air Quality Policy in points E) and I). Comments welcomed. Regulations 2000 (as amended 2002) and air quality could therefore constitute a material consideration, the impacts of which should be thoroughly considered when finalising the elements of this policy to avoid conflict.

Historic England 0016 Policy 71 - support Support welcomed

Policy 72 - support

127

The Theatres Trust 0569 Policy 68 - This is an appropriate place in which to advocate the This policy and the Heritage policies contained within the restoration and re-use of the Grand Theatre. Local Plan support the re-use of historic buildings for appropriate uses.

DMBC Public Health 03351 68 - 69: Policies should drive forward good place making by ensuring Policy 68 updated to reflect comments made regarding streets and public spaces are of a quality and that people feel safe to people feeling safe to walk and cycle in the town centre. walk and cycle in the town centre. Connecting routes and ways of Policies within the Local Plan should be read in conjunction wayfinding are important. Mixed use means areas do not have with one another, Policy 51 indicates the need for a HIA. prominent day and night time activities (and are otherwise quiet at With respect to the term used "the disabled" in the specific times). The ambition to improve the health and wellbeing of our policies, we welcome the comments and the policies have residents should be a key driver of this programme of redevelopment been updated to reflect this. and improvement. HIA should be referred to in this policy. Community Policy 69 - Noted. Regarding HIA - all policies should be consultation should include street audits to ensure pedestrian access read in conjunction with one another, Policy 51 indicates meets population needs. The term ‘the disabled’ on point H of policy 69 should be changed to a more inclusive term, such as “disabled people”. the need for a HIA. All relevant policies have been amended to say "disabled people"

Policy 70 Noted 70: Scale can bring lots of positive health benefits. The surrounding areas are deprived and this can help uplift these areas. Enhancing connectivity Policy 71 updated to reflect comments made regarding between old and new settlements is imperative. Health impacts should active travel and sustainable transport modes. Policies be considered at pre-app and via the completion of a comprehensive HIA. within the Local Plan should be read in conjunction with This should be included in description 16.25. one another, chapter 7 contains policies regarding cycling and walking in Doncaster. 71 - 73: Design of towns should encourage active travel and sustainable transport modes. No mention of safe and secure cycling in 71E or 72K. Policy 72 updated to reflect comments made regarding Safe and secure cycling should be included alongside reference to the active travel and sustainable transport modes. Policies inclusion of infrastructure that promotes active and sustainable travel. within the Local Plan should be read in conjunction with The term ‘the disabled’ on point I of Policy 71 should be changed to a one another, chapter 7 contains policies regaring cycling more inclusive term, such as “disabled people” and walking in Doncaster.

128

Policy 73 updated to reflect comments made regarding people feeling safe to walk and cycle.

Waystone Ltd 01716 Policy 70 - Strongly support, the policy is positive, effective and will help Part A3 of the policy has been updated to include these deliver a well planned mixed use development. Part A3 - We support the permitted uses in line with the planning permission. provision of retail, education and community uses in the ‘Unity Town’ Correction made from 3 form entry primary to a 2 form zone however in accordance with the planning permission we would also entry school in line with S106 Agreement. Part A5 - where like to see commercial, healthcare and retirement uses also listed as they practical has been included as suggested by the are permitted uses within Unity Town as well. Part A4 - under the s106 Representation. Part A10 - noted and agree role of third agreement for Unity the obligation is for the provision of a 2 form entry parties so suggested wording accepted. Part D has been primary school. Part A5 - Suggest a slight change of wording to this revised to make references to other uses maybe section of the policy with the insertion of the words ‘where practical’. supportable subject to long term conservation of the grade Part A10 - Under the s106 agreement for Unity the obligations are to 2 listed headstocks. Additional development of the provide a park and ride contribution, pedestrian footbridge improvement Ashfield Tip site is not identified as being necessary for the contribution and a rail station improvement contribution. Any specific time being given the scale of the project which already works at the station or on the railway is obviously dependant on third runs well beyond this plan period. parties and so we consider that it would be helpful for the policy wording to be slightly more generalised for example “Improvements to Hatfield and Stainforth railway station through contributions facilitating the delivery of improvements to passenger facilities, transport links and pedestrian facilities”. Parts C&D - We suggest that the lay-down area in Section C is appropriate for redevelopment and this area should be combined with the wider area of the former Hatfield Colliery which is described in Section D. We are particularly supportive of Section D which allows for the redevelopment of the former Hatfield Colliery site for employment and other appropriate uses. This element of the policy represents a proactive approach to the re-use of brownfield land and as stated above, we consider that it should include all of the former colliery land including the

129

laydown area. Furthermore we also think that the area north of Kirton Lane currently forming part of the Ashfield Tips should be included and we have prepared a plan to show our proposed site boundary for Policy 70/Site 418.

We also consider that some of this is land is suitable for housing - particularly adjacent to the existing settlement therefore we proposed that residential use should be included in the list of uses in Section D.

Hargreaves Land Ltd 05226 Agree with policy 70 in part and pleased to see a specific policy covering See response above Unity. Reference at parts C & D to the Colliery site is welcome but the policy could go further. The reuse of colliery spoil from both the lay down area and the Ashfields Tip adjacent to the Unity site should be supported. In the event that the lay down area is cleared of spoil it should be considered as a potential development site as is the former Hatfield Colliery through Policy 70 Part D. Part D is welcomed but wording should be expanded with detail provided including that the site should be considered as containing elements of retail and leisure uses. This section does not adequately describe either the current status of the site nor address the challenges associated with bringing the site back into use. Should have a sub-policy of Policy 70 or a separate policy that seeks to regenerate and re-use both the colliery and Ashfields Tip site a give them a Special Policy Area status to support regeneration elsewhere within he former colliery site. This should acknowledge that both the colliery site and Ashfields Tip could be described as BF land.

Canal & Rivers Trust 03089 Policy 69 - Minister canal side - welcome the policy aims. Doncaster Support welcomed. Policy text for Doncaster Waterfront Waterfront - welcome the policy aims but suggest removal of reference has been amended to include …"where feasible a to new footbridge which may not be deliverable over what is a navigable footbridge…" water. Remove reference or amend to 'when feasible'.

130

Marshgate - welcome the reference to ecological works and the Support welcomed formation of informal recreation routes.

Policy 73 – supportive

131

New Sites for Housing, Employment and Minerals Q5 - Do you agree with our selection of potential Site Allocations? Q6 - Are there any potential Site Allocations that you think we have missed? Q7 - Do you have any comments on individual sites as shown in the following location maps and schedule of sites? (Please quote reference number(s) when commenting). Q8 - Do you agree with the proposed boundary of the Site? Q9 - Do you agree with the identified proposed use(s) on the Site? Q10 - Are there any special local issues or problems that could affect future development of the site that should be identified? Q11 - Are there any restrictions that should be put on future development of the site, for example, in terms of use or buildings? Q12 - Are there any conditions that should be met before development of the Site?

Housing Sites

The following table (Table 1) is a summary of the housing sites where the highest numbers of objections have been received in highest-to-lowest order from members of the public. Sites with less than 5 letters of objection have not been included. Table 2 then provides further detail on the reasons for why people objected and Appendix 1 of this report includes a full summary of all the responses for completeness.

Table 1: Objections to Proposed Housing Sites (Highest-Lowest Order) No of Site Town/ Site Name Current Number of Number of objections from public Objections Ref Village Development Plan Houses Ranking Designation Proposed 1 165/186 Carcroft- Crabgate Lane, Skellow Green Belt 340 • Petition of 465 signatures objecting; Skellow • 203 standard letters of objection;

• 27 individual letters of objection;

2 777 Barnburgh- Plot 3, Doncaster Rd, Green Belt 66  Petition of 212 signatures objecting; Harlington Harlington  31 individual letters of objection;

132

3 164/430 Doncaster East of Warning Tongue Countryside Policy 275 • Petition of 144 signatures objecting; Urban Area Lane, Cantley Area • 75 individual letters of objection.

4 350/407 Doncaster Rose Hill, Cantley Housing Allocation 166 • Petition of 83 signatures objecting; Urban Area • 30 individual letters of objection;

5 147 Barnby Dun Hatfield Lane, Barnby Countryside Policy 98 • 90 letters of objection; Dun Area 6 115 Doncaster Alverley Lane, Balby Green Belt 150  70 individual letters of objection; Urban Area 7 234 Doncaster Broadaxe, Scawthorpe Green Belt 480 • 20 individual letters of objection; Urban Area 8 139 Mexborough Wath Road, Green Belt 418  16 individual letters of objection; Mexborough 9 379 Mexborough Garden Street, Housing Allocation 15  13 individual letters of objection; Mexborough 10 040 Conisbrough- Sheffield Road, Green Belt 200  11 individual letters of objection; Denaby Conisbrough 11 141 Bawtry Westwood Rd, Bawtry Green Belt 20  7 individual letters of objection; 12 929 Sprotbrough North of Cadeby Road, Green Belt 80  6 individual letters of objection. Sprotbrough 12 261 & Doncaster Plot 5a & Plot 6, Mixed Use 87 & 53  6 individual letters of objection; 262 Urban Area Lakeside Regeneration Project Area

133

Table 2: Detailed Summary of Objections to Proposed Housing Sites

Site Site Name Response Summary Summary Of Comments Objecting to the Proposed Sites DMBC Response Ref

350/ Rose Hill, • Petition of 83 - there are better sites elsewhere to build on and we do not need all Comments are noted. The site is 407 Cantley signatures objecting; these additional houses; already allocated for housing in the - should build on brownfield sites instead; statutory development plan and is • 30 individual letters of - the deeds for the land include existing covenants which must be being brought forward by the objection; addressed before the site can be developed such as only allowed to landowner for development. Issues develop single storey dwellings; in respect to access and  Objection from DMBC - development on this site was rejected 15-20 years ago and this capacity/highways etc will have to Ward Member should still stand; be addressed through the planning - over-intensive development of the area and would lead to another application process. As would housing estate and change the character of the local area; issues in respect to residential - decrease in property values; amenity. The Local Plan has - loss of open countryside, trees, hedgerows and wildlife and their sought to bring forward brownfield habitats including important species; sites where available and suitable - loss of our only area of greenspace and is a well-used recreational but they are not sufficient to meet area and helps maintain healthy active lifestyles and mental health the plan period housing and well-being; requirement. Using urban sites - impact on noise/residential amenity/inconvenience to existing such as this that are already residents and impact on current quality of life; allocated for housing reduces the - disruption from construction; need to allocate sites in the Green - access into the site is a problem; Belt or Countryside. The site has - increase in traffic/congestion/safety concerns on roads both been assessed via the site immediately around the site and within the wider area/network; selection methodology (including - increase in number of HGVs; full Sustainability Appraisal) and - increase in air pollution, noise and dust; performs strongly. The Local Plan - insufficient capacity of utility infrastructure; is supported by infrastructure - local schools are too far away and will require children crossing the planning which includes busy Bawtry Road and will have to be driven; consideration of issues such as

134

- the local post office has closed down; capacity of schools, services etc. - insufficient local services and facilities in the area including public the Local Plan has policies to allow transport; contributions to be made by - will impact on the Racecourse and coverage of Racing as currently developers to increase and improve very attractive woodland/greenspace backdrop is broadcasted on infrastructure where necessary. the television rather than pictures of a housing development. 164/ Warning • Support from agent/ - No need for any more houses; The Local Plan evidence base 430 Tongue landowner (JVH Town - How has housing need been identified and how many of these will identifies a need for 920 new Lane, Planning Consultants (on be for local people/affordable housing; homes per year over the course of Cantley behalf of GB Turnbull); - Loss of greenfield land, greenspace, and agricultural land as the the plan period. The site is land has been farmed for the past 8 years and should continue to be countryside rather than Green Belt • The site is located on so especially given the current uncertainty around Brexit; and is not Public Open Space - Loss of Green Belt; (being in private ownership and the boundary of Severn - Already lost too many greenspaces around Doncaster to housing; used for agriculture). Full potential Trent’s catchment so - NPPF says we should put greater emphasis on small sites and of smaller sites and previously may be difficult for them making greater use of existing land and buildings so DMBC should developed land have been taken to serve, but Yorkshire focus on bringing back into use empty properties first; through allocations but there are Water may be able to - Branton has seen a lot of growth recently in what is a small village, insufficient suitable and available accommodate this this will add to this and mean new properties have increased in the sites to solely allocate brownfield proposal; area by 40% since 2015; land. The site is contained by strong - The site is used by dog walkers and this will be lost if developed; boundaries of the road network so • Petition of 144 - Merges Doncaster with the wider rural area/villages; minimises intrusion into open signatures objecting; - Should develop brownfield sites first as there are plenty of them in countryside/merging of settlements. Doncaster and housing needs to be shared around more; Issues in respect to access and

 75 individual letters of - Better sites elsewhere, such as at Blaxton Quarry, Mosham Road capacity/highways etc will have to objection; Auckley and near Walkers Nurseries; be addressed through the planning  Objection from Branton - Significant development already in the area at Branton, Auckley and application process. As would with Cantley Parish the Airport despite lots of local opposition to it; issues in respect to residential Council; - 3-storey houses would not be in keeping with the area; amenity. The site has been - Loss of views and impact on the landscape which I why I paid a assessed via the site selection premium for my property; methodology (including full - Houses in the area are already difficult to sell; Sustainability Appraisal) and

135

- Increase in traffic which is already under pressure from new access performs strongly. The Local Plan is to Yorkshire Wildlife Park and the opening of Great Yorkshire Way supported by infrastructure planning and these roads were never constructed with these levels of which includes consideration of development in mind; issues such as capacity of schools, - Already difficult to exit from driveways and sideways onto Warning services etc. the Local Plan has Tongue Lane; policies to allow contributions to be - Site will be unviable given the scale of highway works that will be made by developers to increase required (existing roads, roundabout and Motorway bridge); and improve infrastructure where - Air quality is an issue already from high levels of congestion; necessary. The site is not identified - Noise and dust pollution during construction; as being at risk from main river of - Safety of children attending McCauley’s school from increase in surface water flooding. traffic and already problems during term-term when roads are at a standstill; - Already speeding cars on the road and accidents/collisions which will be made worse; - The bend adjacent to the site is already an accident hotspot and needs traffic calming measures on the Lane as well as traffic lights or a roundabout at the junction with Bawtry Rd/Warning Tongue Lane; - Should remove the bus route; - The removal of the weight limit over the railway has exacerbated problems - The road is used by emergency services vehicles and additional housing will make this harder for them to utilise; - Where will children living on the development go to school; - Flood risk to the site and surface water pollution; - Water pressure to existing houses will reduce, pressure on waste water and already issues with localised flooding in the area; - Insufficient services and amenities in the area; - Pressure on infrastructure already full to capacity such as GPs and Dentists, schools, nurseries and parks;

136

- Promised amenities such as Manor Farm/new Medical Centre have not been delivered; - Loss of wildlife including deer; 115 Alverley Lane  70 individual letters of - Loss of Green Belt; The Local Plan evidence base objection; - The area has already absorbed a large increase in housing identifies a need for 920 new homes  Objection from DMBC development over the years; per year over the course of the plan Ward Members; - There are already lots of houses on the market in the area and plenty period. The site is Green Belt but is of land to develop at Woodfield Plantation/Carr Lodge instead; not Public Open Space (being in - Woodfield Plantation has ceased development and possible land private ownership and used for banking from the development industry; agriculture). The site has been - Planning permission on Green Belt land could increase the value of assessed through the Green Belt the land by up to 500 fold; Review and has a case for further - Will impact on our quality of life; consideration through the site - Hope you have exhausted the re-use of brownfield sites before you selection process. Full potential of start gobbling up green land; smaller sites and previously - The brownfield site at the bottom of Alverley lane (ex-garage developed land have been taken business) would better serve the area with a reduced number of through allocations but there are properties being built; insufficient suitable and available - There are plenty of other sites elsewhere and enough is enough as sites to solely allocate brownfield we are at saturation point; land. Issues in respect to access - Concerned that villages and communities are losing their identities by and capacity/highways etc will have becoming absorbed into each other; to be addressed through the - The site should be protected as a managed green space/ nature planning application process. As reserve; would issues in respect to - A children’s play area would be more beneficial on the space for the residential amenity. The site has community; been assessed via the site selection - Impact on character of the area; methodology (including full - Loss of wildlife and environmental impacts, local wildlife in the railway Sustainability Appraisal) and embankment parallel with the site will be affected; performs strongly. The Local Plan is - Loss of agricultural land, must be kept for after we leave the EU; supported by infrastructure planning which includes consideration of issues such as capacity of schools,

137

- Alverley Lane and Tickhill Road is gridlocked at rush hours and services etc. the Local Plan has likewise Springwell Lane and Broomhouse Lane and impossible to policies to allow contributions to be get emergency vehicles to access Alverley Lane at these busy times; made by developers to increase and - Repeated efforts to have traffic lights installed have been rejected; improve infrastructure where - Existing public transport consists of just 2 buses per hour; necessary. The site is not identified - Current speed limit of 50mph on Tickhill Road means school children as being at risk from main river of and other pedestrians are at risk when crossing and you have to surface water flooding. Policy will cross on Alverley Lane to access the bus stop; expect a % of the new houses to be - Evidence suggests the landowner is preparing the site for building affordable housing. and they are confident of gaining planning permission even though the consultation says it does not end until 26th October so there is concern locally about transparency and fairness of the process; - Increase in flood risk, Alverley Lane properties flooding in 2008 and some cannot now get insurance; - Warmsworth Beck has serious problems of flooding which will be made worse with more houses built, the holding tanks system and flood plain at Peglers Sports Field are not as effective as we were assured they would be, the Beck causes problems on our land and those of neighbouring farmers, the dirty water causes problems with the quality and quantity of crops grown; - Would severely impact adjacent farm and business; - There are horses on land at the cross-section of the A1(M) and M18 and flooding may bring additional chemicals onto the land and affect any future crops; - Noise pollution; - Light pollution; - Impact on health; - Increase in traffic and the area is already impacted by proximity to M18 and high frequency of HGVs and tankers which are causing problems; - Speeding traffic on Alverley Lane already; - Problems with parked cars are also an issue on Alverley Lane;

138

- Problems getting on and off our drive with queuing traffic; - Access between Alverley Lane and Tickhill Road is unsuitable and promised improvements to footpaths/ chicanes have never materialised; - The following measures may improve the current traffic situation: a) implement a speed restriction of 20 mph between Melford Drive and Tickhill Road and 30mph along the rest of Alverley Lane; b) restrict the tonnage of vehicles on Alverley lane; c) introduce double yellow lines along the stone wall between Farm Grange and Tickhill Road and a single yellow lines on the opposite side of the road; d) create a small car park at the top of the field for residents/visitors affected by the restrictions; and e) divide a one-way system which would permit access onto Tickhill Road from Alverley Lane; - Footpaths inadequate and increased risk of further accidents; - Local infrastructure does not have sufficient capacity such as schools, dentists, and GPs, the sewers cannot cope; - Air quality and pollution issues; - Devaluation of property prices and will lead to negative equity and therefore lead to financial distress; - Previous planning applications on the site have been refused already; - Loversall Lakes is filled with valuable stock and at times of flooding would harm or even kill fish. - Houses will not be affordable so why doesn't the council take a lead and ensure that the properties are council houses which benefit the community. 234 Broadaxe, •Support from Agent/ - There is no shortage of housing in Doncaster already; The site is no longer being Scawthorpe developer (Spawforths - There is already more than our fair share of new housing being built proposed as a housing allocation on behalf of Strata around us; through the Local Plan (Publication - Bemused and dismayed that others sites surrounding the site have Version – June 2019) and is being Homes); been rejected, other sites are Brown Belt; proposed to remain as Green Belt.

139

• South Yorkshire - It will spoil and destroy the Roman Ridge Scheduled Monument and Archaeology Service – archaeology; objects to proposed - Loss of Green Belt, it will result in urban sprawl and loss of agricultural land; housing allocation unless - There is not enough Green Belt land in the borough as it is; clear assessment that - There are no exceptional circumstances demonstrated to use Green the potential harm to the Belt’ Roman Ridge is - Broadaxe field has high levels of Radon gas which has been linked outweighed by the to higher than average cancer rates; benefits of the - Residents have previously been told development has been development; rejected and as such it will remain as farmland for perpetuity; - Planning permission has already been refused on this site; • 20 individual letters of - There are alternative sites available elsewhere for this development objection; such as at Marr, High Melton, Epworth and Burghwallis; - Over development of the area where there is already insufficient  Objection from DMBC open space and will change the character of the area; Ward Members - Impact on landscape; (Roman Ridge & - If the site were to be developed then a limited amount of the south Bentley); side of the site should be considered with a buffer between the new  Objection from houses and The Sycamores which will reduce some of the concerns Brodsworth Parish above and could provide some facilities such as new public open Council space to the north of the site; - Loss of wildlife; - Development will contribute to the decline of Doncaster Town Centre and mean brownfield sites elsewhere are less likely to come forward; - Should use empty homes and vacant buildings and shops in the town centre first as this is a no-go area at present; - Should develop the other rejected Green Belt sites adjacent to Broadaxe first such as Cusworth, Scawsby Lane and the north- western part of Broadaxe field (Refs: 217, 436, 494);

140

- Should build on flood risk sites/along the River Don at Waterfront and Marshgate in the Town Centre instead as these can be mitigated and the EA Maps do not take into account the presence of flood defences (Refs: 257, 438 & 439); - Allocating Green Belt sites first over flood risks sites is not in conformity with NPPF; - It will increase flood risk in the area and properties on Jossey Lane and York Road have previously been flooded through surface water run-off; - Lack of infrastructure and already at capacity such as schools and GPs, Ridgewood and Don Valley schools are already at capacity and children will have to cross busy duel carriageway as no one would use a bridge; - The development is not within the catchment of a local school; - There is low demand for housing in this area; - Increase in traffic on York Road and concerns for the safety of existing residents; - Loss of views; - It will devalue my property and I paid a premium for my house due to its existing open outlook and views; - Already have wind turbines on the horizon. - It will overlook properties on Stanley Road; - Overlooking/shading/loss of light; - Yet another junction on A638 - previous proposal for similar junction was rejected and old u turn closed for safety reasons; - Increase in pollution; - Will be raising this with the Media if the site is not rejected; - Development should not be driven by profit maximisation; - Local people are considering crowdfunding to fund a legal challenge.

141

261 Plot 5a & Plot  6 individual letters of - There are few enough decent leisure facilities in this area and the Comments are noted. The sites are & 6, Lakeside objection council has failed to place much needed outdoor community being brought forward by the 262  Objection from DMBC facilities in this much needed location; landowner for development. Issues Ward Members - You are reducing areas where children, youths and adults keep fit in respect to access and but also introducing more and more venues that will add to capacity/highways etc will have to Doncaster's high obesity ranking; be addressed through the planning - Residents who have bought their homes with a beautiful view of the application process. As would lake are being cheated by this development. issues in respect to residential - - Already too much traffic; amenity. The Local Plan has sought - - Increased pollution and noise; to bring forward brownfield sites - - Area is overpopulated; where available and suitable (this - - Sites would be better suited to amenities around the lake (e.g. picnic site is considered as being area) - - The development spoiling the frontage of the lake which is used by brownfield given it formed part of clubs, groups and schools for activities. the former Airport). Using urban - sites such as this that are already - The building of shops, café or a pub would be more welcome; allocated for housing reduces the - - Housing estates such as Lakeside have little infrastructure to need to allocate sites in the Green develop a community; Belt or Countryside. The site has - - Noise and dirt from construction activity. been assessed via the site selection methodology (including full Sustainability Appraisal) and performs strongly. The Local Plan is supported by infrastructure planning which includes consideration of issues such as capacity of schools, services etc. the Local Plan has policies to allow contributions to be made by developers to increase

142

and improve infrastructure where necessary. - Loss of Green Belt; 139 Wath Road,  16 individual letters of - Appreciate that Green Belt designation does not mean land cannot The site is no longer being Mexborough objection; be developed in the future but it does indicate that the proposed as a housing allocation  Objection from DMBC through the Local Plan (Publication Ward Members; land is considered important enough to be afforded some protection Version – June 2019) and is being  Objection from High and should be developed only as a last resort; Melton Parish Council; - The site boundary is incorrect and the land is not all within the proposed to remain as Green Belt. ownership of the site promoter; - The area is important for wildlife. There are birds of prey and bats. Any development of this area would most definitely affect the bats' habitat and might displace them; - Should develop on Brown Belt land first; - Should develop Brownfield sites such as Wind Hill and other sites in the Town; - Don’t use avoiding flood risk as an excuse as you are developing sites in the flood plain already such as at Pastures Rd; - The site is in Adwick-Upon-Dearne so will not contribute towards Mexborough’s housing needs; - Not clear how or where a safe and suitable access could be provided; - The road at the top of Highwood's and Wood Walk is very narrow; - Increase in traffic and congestion;

- Choose to live her as a peaceful and quiet location;

- Loss of views;

143

- We use the fields for recreational uses and this is one of the few areas of greenspace left;

- Loss of access to the open countryside; - Loss of agricultural land; - This land is needed to allow expansion of the adjacent farm which is too small to make work as a viable farm with modern methods of farming practice; - New households may raise amenity issues with the farm such as odours, noise from cattle, vehicle movements, agricultural buildings etc; - If this site is allowed for housing then the adjacent farm and land should also be allowed to be developed for the same; - Impact on health and well-being of existing residents;

- Fly tipping and litter problems;

- Mexborough high street is already struggling and there are high levels of crime which will be made worse by the site being developed;

- Not a good use of time and resources;

- Lack of services and facilities in the local area;

- Local facilities and infrastructure have no capacity to support any further development;

144

- Already on street parking problems and roads are in a poor state of repair;

- Devaluation of property prices;

- Concerned that the new estate may be entirely social housing;

- The site is of high archaeological interest;

- This development alongside HS2 makes us very worried about the overall impact on the area;

- The wrong type of housing could be built on the site which is not in line with forecast demographic changes such as an ageing population;

- Disruption to local community during construction;

- Listen to the local community and what the people of Mexborough want. 379 Garden  13 individual letters of - removal of free parking will have a detrimental impact on Mexborough The site is no longer being Street, objection; High Street and the Town Centre where there is already a shortage proposed as a housing allocation Mexborough  Objection from DMBC of such; through the Local Plan (Publication Ward Members; Version – June 2019) - this free parking is the only incentive to shop in an otherwise declining and poor Town Centre;

- the Town centre is already run down and this will only make matters worse, businesses are struggling due to reduced public transport, an increase in homelessness, higher levels of crime, poor cleanliness of

145

the environment, appalling restoration of the market place, and dated Christmas decorations;

- will lead to increased congestion in the town centre;

- around 50-80 cars use this car park per day which will not be compensated by the development of 15 houses in terms of footfall for the Town Centre;

- proposed site would increase use of multi-story car park which could become open to increased price charges and is a magnet for antisocial behaviour so not safe to use;

- Current road is not able to support additional traffic, especially the junction from lower Dolcliffe.

040 Sheffield  1 letter of support from - Loss of Green Belt; The Local Plan evidence base Road, landowner confirming - Conisbrough was once a small village but now a large town; identifies a need for 920 new homes Conisbrough- the site is still available - Conisbrough does not need this many new homes; per year over the course of the plan for development; - Loss of high grade agricultural land; period. The site is Green Belt but is Denaby  11 individual letters of not Public Open Space (being in objection; - Should develop unused urban sites instead and bring back empty private ownership and used for properties; agriculture). The site has been assessed through the Green Belt - Infrastructure cannot cope with more housing such as schools, GPs, Review and has a case for further dentists and Police and there must be some investment in the area if consideration through the site more housing is to be supported; selection process. Full potential of smaller sites and previously - There will be an increase in pot holes from increased traffic; developed land have been taken through allocations but there are - Do not support any social housing on the site; insufficient suitable and available sites to solely allocate brownfield

146

- Loss of views; land. Issues in respect to access and capacity/highways etc will have - Devaluation of property prices, houses adjacent to the site will be to be addressed through the worth £5,000 less if development goes ahead; planning application process. As would issues in respect to - Increased traffic and increased likelihood of traffic accidents; residential amenity. The site has been assessed via the site selection - Lack of mains sewerage; methodology (including full Sustainability Appraisal) and - Loss of open fields; performs strongly. The Local Plan is supported by infrastructure planning - Conisbrough has lost nearly all of its open space already; which includes consideration of - Disagree this is the best site at the Town for housing, should develop issues such as capacity of schools, services etc. the Local Plan has on Denaby Craggs instead; policies to allow contributions to be - Impact on wildlife habitats; made by developers to increase and improve infrastructure where - Impact on residents during construction such as dust and noise. necessary. Policy will expect a % of the new houses to be affordable housing. 165/ Crabgate • Support from - Loss of Green Belt and would result in urban sprawl with no The Local Plan evidence base 186 Lane, Agent/Landowner (JVH demonstration of exceptional circumstances; identifies a need for 920 new Skellow on behalf of GB Turnbull) homes per year over the course of for proposed allocation; - NPPF states that meeting housing need alone is not the only factor to the plan period. The site is Green consider when drawing up a local plan and taking land out of the Belt but is not Public Open Space • Petition of 465 Green Belt; (being in private ownership and signatures objecting; - Low demand for housing in the area and already enough housing used for agriculture). The site has • 203 standard letters of stock with 86 properties currently being on the market; been assessed through the Green objection; Belt Review and has a case for further consideration through the site selection process. Full potential

147

• 27 individual letters of - Focus should be on tackling the quality of existing housing rather than of smaller sites and previously objection; building more and replace the old pit houses first; developed land have been taken through allocations but there are  Objection from - No local employment for an additional 340 families so new residents insufficient suitable and available Burghwallis Parish will commute to work; Council sites to solely allocate brownfield - Density greater than adjacent development; land. Issues in respect to access and capacity/highways etc will have - Social housing would be unacceptable in the area; to be addressed through the planning application process. As - The proposed housing is more than the settlements requirement so would issues in respect to do not add up and why are you proposing 90 more than what you say residential amenity. The site has are required; been assessed via the site selection - Would lead to amenity issues with existing houses and affect the methodology (including full character of the area; Sustainability Appraisal) and performs strongly – other options - Local schools, dentists and GP are already at capacity; roads are also have failed the flood risk sequential congested and issues with traffic already in the area; test and generally are also Green Belt as well. The Local Plan is - Lack of local shops, cafes etc - not sufficient for new development; supported by infrastructure planning - Local transport links are poor; which includes consideration of issues such as capacity of schools, - There will be an impact on drains, sewers, and electricity supply; services etc. the Local Plan has - Proximity of new housing to A1(M) will create air quality issues; policies to allow contributions to be made by developers to increase - Likely to result in noise disturbance and nuisance to the detriment of and improve infrastructure where existing neighbours; necessary. The site is not identified as being at risk from main river of - Access onto the A1(M) is dangerous; surface water flooding. Policy will

148

- Other sources of flood risk should be considered such as surface expect a % of the new houses to be water flooding and the site should be rejected on surface water affordable housing. flooding grounds and will increase flood risk to the rest of Skellow;

- Potential for archaeology, field to the north of the site has the remains of the earthworks of a roman fort, and there are other areas within the vicinity that are historically important.;

- Loss of open space;

- Pollution and impact on health;

- Loss of best and most versatile agricultural land;

- Using these 2 sites purely on the basis of a lack of alternatives is not an adequate justification;

- Large development will cause stress to an already underfunded and overlooked part of Doncaster;

- Overhead cables on the site;

- Nothing should happen until A1(M) is upgraded;

- Should only be allowed to happen after full local consultation, not just those adjacent;

- Should be built in phases linked to delivery of jobs in Skellow, Carcroft and Adwick employment zones;

149

- Jobs should be in place before houses - this will prevent area being for commuters;

- Brownfield land should be developed first and only when the urban area is exhausted should alternatives be sought, this would link people better to employment opportunities;

- Less than 10% of Site Ref: 185 is flood risk so could be developed instead and without using the part that is at risk, likewise parts of Site Refs: 148 and 042 could be developed and still avoid the flood risk parts;

- Disruption to local residents

- Devaluation of property prices;

- Loss of privacy – currently have ‘open aspect’ and site will be intrusive to my property;

- Loss of my ‘right to light’;

- Very few recreational facilities in local area;

- Loss of flora and fauna which is beneficial to the environment;

- Increased pollution;

- Increase in crime and more houses would present more opportunities for criminals.

- Not objecting but families that cannot afford to buy homes should not be further impacted by having to live next to the A1(M), cannot open

150

windows due to dirt and pollution which covers the house, risk of respiratory illness, noise is a constant burden, even with double glazing, and garden unusable. The plan should mitigate these problems and ensure that the young or least financially able are not placed in a position where they will be impacted by the busy A1(M). Should also consider the proposed widening of the A1(M) impacts.

147 Hatfield • Support from Agent/ - Loss of Green Belt and this cannot be developed on; The site is Countryside and not Lane, Barnby Landowner (JVH Town designated as Green Belt therefore. - Loss of greenfield land; Dun Planning Consultants (on The site is in private ownership and behalf of Crowe, Platts, - Should remain as an agricultural field - this would be in keeping with is not public open space (being in Lodge, Hanson and Barnby Dun as a rural village instead of part of urban sprawl; agricultural use). The site is one of Youdan); only 2 options at the Village for - Loss of open space for residents to use; housing which does not involve • 90 letters of objection; sites entirely at risk of flooding. - Too many GF sites proposed and undermines regeneration Although the northern part of the Objection from Barnby objectives; Dun with Kirk Sandall site is at risk the area at lowest risk Parish Council; - Loss of wildlife, some birds and animals in the area are rare and is identified as being the part that protected, and there is also much plant life in the area; will be developed and the remainder will be used for open - Why does Barnby Dun have a housing requirement? space and/or landscaping. The site area has been reduced since the - Other areas in Doncaster must be more suitable; last consultation and developer - Barnby dun reached its natural capacity; requirements make this clear. Infrastructure requirements will - If more houses are built work needs to be done on Station Road at the need to be addressed including junction with Armthorpe Lane; potential contributions towards increasing capacity and policies in

151

- The site is part of the flood plain and its development will increase the Local Plan facilitate this. A flood risk elsewhere; planning application will also need to address matters such as ecology. - Local road infrastructure will need improvement;

- There has been a vast increase in available housing and population with little improvement in facilities or infrastructure;

- The amount of traffic and HGVs has increased as has the speed of traffic;

- Development would be preferable on the part of site 147 that is not flood risk;

- 58% of the site is in Flood Risk so why have others been rejected and this one not;

- Concerned that the whole site may end up being developed and not just the part that is not at risk of flooding;

- Homes will be refused insurance due to flood risk, mortgage lenders will be reluctant to lend to buyers;

- Partial development is a waste of useable land, cost of services and utilities would be proportional expensive per dwelling;

- How will the plans for Gas Fired Power Station and this development impact on the village;

- Will remove community values and increase the population by 10%;

152

- There are problems with Anti-Social Behaviour in the village and this is likely to get worse with more houses;

- Would change the area and the reasons why I brought a house here;

- Loss of views and devaluation of current housing around the site;

- Infrastructure cannot cope with further development, especially the schools and GP;

- Police already stretched;

- Does not agree with site boundary, too large and includes land in Flood Zone 3, does not agree with proposed site use, 98 homes will grid lock Pine Hall junction;

- Provide bungalows;

- Ensure that 50% of new homes are built with some form of renewable energy generation;

- Roundabout required at Armthorpe Lane/Station Road;

- Roads narrow and unsafe.

- Construction traffic will create issues with noise;

- Bus services are limited;

- No more housing can be supported without investment in roads and easing congestion at the railway bridge;

153

- Need to consider loss of wildlife.

- The village should remain the same size as it is at present and more houses will ruin the village feel and people will not want to live here;

- The integrity of Barnby Dun as a village is being threatened.

- Site Ref:108 should be the preferred site and would have less impact on houses;

- Site Ref: 1007 is preferable;

- Site Ref: 347 is a far better;

- Better idea would be smaller scale developments in more locations to allow for better integration in a more manageable way.

- Access to the site has not been considered;

- The public footpath is used by walkers, cyclists etc. which might disappear alongside the field and scenery;

- Pollution;

- Where people going to work?

- Could build homes on the old Barnby Dun Middle School site;

- If you continue with the proposed plans many residents will look to relocate out of the area therefore housing shortfall will be covered by people leaving;

154

- No consideration of existing residents;

- Loss of light to adjacent properties.

141 Westwood  Support from - Loss of Green Belt with no exceptional circumstances demonstrated; The site is one of only 2 sites in the Road, Bawtry developer/ landowner borough where the Green Belt (Barton Wilmore on - Is against the principles of sustainable development; Review has identified a strong case behalf of Barratt David for the site to be considered further Wilson Homes); - Brownfield sites elsewhere in Bawtry are suitable and should be through the site selection process.  7 individual letters of developed first; objection; Exceptional circumstances have  Objection from Bawtry - The Council has not fully considered all other reasonable options first; been set out in the supporting Town Council; Green Belt Topic Paper. All - No clear need for more housing in the area;  Concerns from DMBC reasonable site options at Bawtry Ward Members - the site cannot support 20 new dwellings; have been considered and assessed (see site selection - The proposed density is far greater than any other part of the Green methodology). Issues such as Park Estate; residential amenity and ecology will need to be addressed via a the - There are 900 new dwellings proposed within 1 mile of the site; planning application and - Scale of development is excessive and a 250% increase to existing Development Management stage. A housing; site specific flood risk assessment will also be necessary. - Erode integrity of current village boundary;

- Loss of residential amenity and character;

- Increase in traffic and safety concerns;

- Poor access;

155

- There is a ransom strip on Westwood Road;

- Insufficient drainage capacity and the pumping station is most certainly not adequate to manage further development;

- The site has a history of flooding and development will make this worse as well as existing properties being flooded in the past from surface water;

- This land contributes to maintaining the countryside wildlife and fauna as well as the unique character of Bawtry.

929 Cadeby • Support from - Loss of Green Belt with no exceptional circumstances; There are relatively few site options Road, landowner (Sandstone available at the Village and all have Sprotbrough Technology); - There are better sites elsewhere in the village which would have less been assessed in line with the impact on the village; methodology. Exceptional • 1 individual letter of circumstances have been set out support; - There are significant access issues via Cadeby Rd due to bends/visibility; through the supporting Green Belt • Objection from Don Topic Paper. Infrastructure Gorge Community - The villages infrastructure and roads are already above maximum requirements will need to be Group; capacity, Cadeby road is not capable of accepting more vehicles and addressed including potential Melton Road is already very busy; contributions towards increasing • Objection from agent capacity and policies in the Local - Increased traffic will make it dangerous for pedestrians travelling to promoting alternative site Plan facilitate this. A planning the 2 schools; at Village (Ref: 252); application will also need to address matters such as ecology. Policies in • 6 individual letters of - Waiting times already high at local schools, GPs and dentists; respect to car parking for new objection; - Main sewer system is already over capacity and liable to flooding; residential development are set out in the Local Plan. Sites have been

156

 Objection from DMBC - Important to preserve countryside and prevent ‘urban sprawl’; assessed for impact on heritage Ward Members; assets.  Objection from - Need to preserve our rural areas such as this; Sprotbrough Parish Council & - Proposal has a higher ratio of houses per hectare compared to the Neighbourhood Plan rest of the village and this would upset the balance of village life; Group  Objection from High - The added vehicles would also cause issues at the tight turn at Main Melton Parish Council; Street and Thorpe Lane;  Objection from Joint Rural Parishes - On many new building schemes there is inadequate on-site parking/drive space resulting in vehicles parking on the road causing issues, would the development allow for sufficient parking?

- A larger site on Melton Road by A1 depot (Ref: 788) was rejected but this would have less impact on the infrastructure of Sprotbrough;

- Numerous grade I & II listed buildings on Main Street.

777 Plot 3,  Petition of 212 - Loss of Green Belt; There are relatively few site options Doncaster signatures objecting; available at the Village and all have Road,  31 individual letters of - There are better sites elsewhere which are connected to the been assessed in line with the objection; Harlington Motorway and not at risk of flooding; methodology. Infrastructure  Objection from DMBC Ward Members - Plenty of brownfield sites elsewhere in Doncaster and adjoining local requirements will need to be  Objection from authority areas that should be developed first; addressed including potential Barnburgh-Harlington contributions towards increasing Parish Council; - The village cannot sustain a further 66 new houses and infrastructure capacity and policies in the Local  Objection from High such as schools and GPs are already at capacity; Plan facilitate this. The site is not Melton Parish Council; identified a sbeing at risk from main  Objection from Joint river or surface water flooding Rural Parishes

157

- The highway network is already at capacity with the village used as a (albeit it is noted that the land to the rat run for workers commuting to Manvers and farm traffic; south is and has a history of flooding as supported through a - Speeding problems along Doncaster Road so access to the site here video submitted by a local resident will cause havoc; as part of the last consultation). A - Insufficient public transport services to the village; site specific Flood Risk Assessment will be required as part of a - The electricity supply often trips during peak times; Planning Application. Agree the proposed route of HS2 is to the east - The pumping station on Mill Lane is not big enough; of the site. Issues such as - Loss of pasture land; residential amenity and ecology will need to be addressed via the - Concerned that the site will be developed for social housing; planning application and Development Management stage. - Site provides protection from flooding and drought; The type of housing on the site will - The site has a history of flooding, ¾ of the site was under water in also be a matter for the application 2000 and during the June 2007 summer floods, water flooded the which will need to take into account adjacent property on Mill Lane; latest evidence on housing needs, including housing for older people - Mill Lane and surrounding fields are a designated flood plain, a DVD and comply with policies in respect showing footage of the summer 2007 floods shows the functional to housing standards. Around a flood plain to the south in use, as well as wider flooding to the area; quarter of the homes will be - River Dearne’s 30ft embankment breached in June 2017, resultant expected to be affordable. flooding was frightening for Mill Lane residents, site development would lead to the same worry, adjacent house has already built an embankment to protect property from flooding and the water table is high;

158

- HS2 will make the new houses undesirable/unviable to develop;

- HS2 will increase risk of flooding to the area and is adjacent to the site;

- Loss of wildlife and habitats;

- Impact on air quality;

- Loss of countryside views;

- Destruction of our environment;

- These villages are popular because of the rural lifestyle they provide and the proposed development will be detrimental to the approval of these villages;

- The development of 51 houses goes against the objectives of the local plan;

- Smaller sites in villages should be developed;

- There are numerous brownfield sites which should be prioritised as they have better access to public services and public transport;

- 20 houses would be more reasonable, but 62 is half the village;

- If homes have to be built they should be in keeping with the area, bungalows suggested as they will allow older people to move and free up housing for young families;

159

- Pastures Road, Mexborough should be used as an alternative to this site;

- No walking options - footpath between Crane Moor Close and Church Lane is undaunted and unlit, with high planting along it. Church Lane narrow with no footpath;

- The cemetery is filling up fast.

160

Employment Sites

The following table (Table 3) is a summary of the employment sites and Appendix 1 of this report includes a full summary of all the responses for completeness.

Table 3

Site Site Name Response Summary Summary Of Comments Objecting to the DMBC Response Ref Proposed Sites

160 Bradholme, Support for the Site: This site option is no longer being supported Thorne through the Publication version of the Local

 Carter Jones (on behalf of Plan – see site selection methodology for more Harworth Group) information. (Agent/Landowner)

Objection to the Site: Loss of countryside/Green Belt;  Local Community – Petition of 60 signatures and 151 letters; Problems with flood risk and surface run off/should  Thorne-Moorends Ward not allocate in Flood Risk Areas; Members strongly object;  Thorne-Moorends Town Council Increase in traffic and congestion particularly and Thorne-Moorends through Thorne Town Centre (detrimental impact on Neighbourhood Plan Working the centre) and rat running through the Village of Group strongly object; Hatfield-Woodhouse;  DMBC Pollution Control state that Thorne is at risk of being Current road infrastructure is inadequate,/ A614 declared an Air Quality junction is already congested; Management Area; Likely to be more road accidents;

161

 Campaign to Protect Rural Impact on wildlife and habitats, including nightjar England - development may foraging habitats/proximity of site to Thorne & draw demand away from Unity; Hatfield Moors SAC;  Natural England – have asked for a number of issues to be Air quality issues; considered including traffic and industrial emissions, Noise and light pollution; hydrological impacts and loss of foraging habitat for nightjars Lack of pedestrian access and public transport services;

Too much warehousing already in Thorne/ existing Industrial area already so no need for a further one;

Will create low skilled jobs that do not benefit the community;

Does not comply with the Neighbourhood Plan;

Site would be better suited as a golf course and attract tourism into the area;

Potential historical/archaeological importance as the site of ‘Thorne Mere’;

Segregated from Thorne by railway line and canal/ site is isolated from the Town of Thorne and even more so than Moorends;

Loss of views/public amenity (walking/countryside);

Negative impact on house prices;

Permission has previously been refused on the site;

162

Any development should retain the existing hedgerow between the canal and the site;

Development may compete with demand for Unity at Hatfield-Stainforth;

001 Thorne North, Support for the Site: This site option is now being supported (M18 Junction through the Publication version of the Local 6)  Mr D Parkinson (landowner) and Plan in place of the site that was consulted on Mr A Moorhouse (agent); (160 – Bradholme) – see site selection  Thorne & Moorends Ward methodology for more information. Members;

 Local Community – 4 letters including some who suggested Site 001 rather than Site 160 Bradholme;

Objection to the site Loss of countryside;  Local community – 17 individual letters; Problems with flood risk and surface run off;  DMBC Pollution Control state that Thorne is at risk of being Increase in traffic and congestion/ road safety declared an Air Quality issues/ Highways England recommend the pending Management Area. application should not be granted until issues are resolved;

Additional traffic through Thorne;

The site is not in single ownership and no expressions of interest to purchase or develop the site;

163

There are more deliverable sites in the area;

Not in the vicinity of other warehousing (Nimbus Park/ Capitol Park);

Not a sustainable urban extension/ located further away from the Motorway compared to site 160;

Neighbourhood Plan consultation – just 3 people voted for this site, Neighbourhood Plan has disregarded local communities’ opinions, no support in the Neighbourhood Plan;

Community want employment locations on established locations to south of M18 and former Thorne Colliery;

Housing is required – not this type of development;

Power lines cross through the site;

No footpaths or cycle ways;

Impact on wildlife and habitats/ loss of flora and fauna/ Loss of wildlife habitat – site is part of Humberhead levels;

Air quality issues;

Noise and light pollution;

Lack of pedestrian access and public transport services;

164

Too much warehousing already in Thorne;

Will not create many employment opportunities;

Inadequate sewage system to cope with more development;

Loss of high value agricultural land;

1031 J4 Armthorpe Peacock & Smith (on behalf of Blue The site owner/agent have provided supporting Comments are noted. The site has been (937) East Anchor Leisure) information to demonstrate the suitability and assessed through the site selection deliverability of the site (as a better option to site methodology but alternative employment sites 160 Bradholme and 441 Bentley Moor Lane); are being supported/identified that provide sufficient employment land for the plan period Site is in single ownership; requirement – see methodology for more details. There is considerable developer interest;

Flood risk – significant part of site is in FZ1;

Countryside is ‘low value’;

Bus services could be extended into any development;

The potential workforce accessible by 937 far exceeds that of sites 160 and 441;

Site is not in a mineral opportunity area;

There is a shortage of large, deliverable employment sites with good access to the motorway network;

165

Site could support approximately 3,500 jobs;

Development could commence within 12 months of Local Plan adoption with completion within 5 years of start;

There are significant doubts regarding the deliverability of site 441 (Bentley Moor Lane);

There is a lack of deliverable opportunities for footloose occupiers seeking large site with easy access;

166

Minerals Sites

Representation Representation Representation Summary DMBC Response Reference No Name 0737 Bawtry Town 005 - only able to support the proposed site subject to Comments noted. Issues would be addressed and mitigated at Council suitable and adequate environmental impact and traffic application stage impact controls being in place

0338 Finningley 1011 - Bank End Quarry, Finningley - PC have a number of Comments noted. Issues would be addressed and mitigated at Parish Council local issues with this site should it be developed. Would like application stage access to site be via A614 and Blaxton Roundabout rather than via Wroot Road. Problems with Wroot Road route: School access; Bus service; Residential access. PC on behalf of residents and school already has agreements in place with Green Group, Aggregates R Us, and Lafarge Quarry that vehicles do not use stretch of Wroot Road near school. PC would require an HGV routing agreement or S106 agreement before they could support such a project that would affect village and residents adversely. 01546 Yorkshire Comments on 035 & 1011 Comments noted. 035 Finningley quarry has planning permission Wildlife Trust and is a working site, which will soon be exhausted and restored. 1011 - it has been noted that candidate local wildlife site is adjacent to 1011 and this will be considered further at planning application stage.

03782 Will Bedford 1011 – Bank End Quarry, Finningley - If this Minerals site is Comments noted. Issues would be addressed and mitigated at selected Finningley Village would request a Routing application stage Agreement (such as a Section 106 Agreement) to restrict the use of Wroot Road between B1396 and A614 for HGVs.

167

03133 Sibelco UK Ltd 236 - Warmsworth Quarry - Site selection methodology (part) Comment noted. Please also refer to housing and employment conclusions - Isolated from what ? comments

235 - Extension to Warmsworth Quarry - Conclusion is not suitable and isolated however site is proposed as an area of search and for mineral safeguarding. 04645 Mr & Mrs Strongly object to Area 5 West of Bawtry. Access and Comments noted. Issues would be addressed and mitigated at Cotgreave (1 infrastructure not capable of supporting any increase of application stage, should one come forward. and 2) traffic. Data in traffic movement incorrect not comparable to Barnby Moor. Green Belt. Loss of land and impacts on general amenity and character of area. 0271 Blaxton Parish Site 1011 - Bank End Quarry, Finningley - Concerns that Comments noted. Issues would be addressed and mitigated at Council proper consideration of the impact of increasing traffic application stage. volumes resulting from previous and proposed developments has not been given. Conditional the establishment of a community liaison group, engagement and action taken regarding impact of increasing traffic, consult regarding reduction in speed limits, determine and establish baseline traffic data, assess width of roads.

03423 Wardell Objection to non-allocation of site 102 Holme Hall Quarry. Comments noted. The current land bank of permissions is Armstrong (on Reasons why we consider that site 102, adjacent to Cockhill significantly more than the required ten years. As noted in NPPF behalf of East and West, should be allocated as mineral sites in the paragraph 207 f. Breedon emerging Local Plan: Southern) - Ten-year historic sales take into account the recession years, whereas demand for crushed rock has now increased significantly. Therefore, the risk exists for reserves to decrease significantly more than the ten-year sales average currently suggests.

- The vast majority of Doncaster and Rotherham’s sales

168

output comes from Holme Hall Quarry due the quality of the crushed rock produced compared to the other consented sites, therefore any interruption to its operational continuity will have a sudden and very adverse impact on Doncaster’s ability to meet local demand for crushed rock.

- Economic and environmental benefits to extending an existing site over working an entirely new greenfield site.

- Potential for mineral sterilisation – the five-year review of the Local Plan may not occur in time for the Local Plan to be formally updated and for an application (including seasonal ecology surveys) to be carried out, submitted and considered by DMBC prior to the existing quarry’s extraction end date (2025).

- Decreasing competition and reliance on Derbyshire’s mineral reserve.

- Maximising the use of the resource at Holme Hall. 04442 Lichfields (on The inclusion of ‘Land at Grange Farm Finningley as a new Comment Noted. behalf of North mineral site proposal (preferred Lincs Property Limited) Area) is supported. 03820 Natural Minerals - 1011 / 035 close to Misson Training Areas SSSI. Comment noted. The HRA has considered hydrological impacts. England Sustainability Appraisal should consider hydrological impacts on SSSI from these proposed sites.

023 Armthorpe Quarry is close to Thorne & Hatfield Moors SPA, Thorne Moors SAC and Hatfield Moors SAC. Hydrological impacts should be considered in HRA. Woodland mitigation should be considered.

169

04013 The Joint Rural Endorse no homes near potential minerals sites. Should Comment noted. NPPF paragraph 182 states ' Where the operation Parishes assess mineral value prior to extraction, including impact on of an existing business or community facility could have a significant environment and landscape and settlements. adverse effect on new development (including changes of use) in its vicinity, the applicant (or ‘agent of change’) should be required to provide suitable mitigation before the development has been completed'.

05200 George F We support the proposal to identify the mineral allocation Comment noted. White (on site 47 as an Area of Search. behalf of R and G Parker) Mineral Allocation – Site 65 suggest that the part of the site adjacent to Lings Quarry should be identified as an Area of Search. No map provided

Evidence Base

Development Limits – Identification Methodology Q13 – Do you agree with the proposed methodology?

Representation Representation Summary of Response DMBC Response Reference No Name

03067 Mr Joseph Do not agree with methodology. Noted – no further details or reasons given as to why? Blackham 04513 Mr Samuel The ‘call for sites representations’ included within this document did not With regards to the 'Identifying Development Limits' Foster include Barnby Dun, despite a number of proposed locations being included. methodology which was consulted on, Barnby Dun is In consideration that any proposals are likely to affect individuals living in the mentioned on pp. 5. The Call for sites forms did not area, we would anticipate that this be open to scrutiny and transparency from mention any settlements specifically and were an the outset. open invitation to submit land in the borough for consideration to be allocated.

170

04579 Carol Wileman No Noted 0515 Paul Believe there are some designations where cross overs and links to other areas Concern noted, however the purpose of this exercise Whitehurst of Development Limits cause limits to become inaccurately portrayed. is to aim to define the settlement limit as it is, i.e. Example: Toll Bar is a ‘Defined Village’ and Carcroft & Skellow is designated as where does the built form end. There is a clear gap ‘Service Town and Large Village'. Two areas would be connected by between Toll Bar and Carcroft Skellow, which would in employment site and should be considered the same entity. part be covered by the allocation of Site 441, however as noted on pp. 3 of the document 'Identifying Development Limits', allocations would be identified as such, bit would normally be excluded from the development limit. Disagree they are the same entity, there is a clear separation between the two.

0739 Cadeby Parish No concerns regarding the proposal for the green belt to 'wash over' Cadeby Support noted. Meeting and supports the plan.

04548 Sabir Ali Not agree - same situation for all consultations (for site 379) It is unclear what this refers to in respect to development limits. Site 379 is a proposed urban housing allocation in the heart of Mexborough. 05128 Peacock and Objects to the restriction of housing growth within the 12 Defined Villages to Concerns noted, since the consultation the Local Plan Smith (on development within defined Development Limits. This provides no certainty as now identifies a potential housing growth limit for the behalf of Jason to the future level of housing growth that these settlements will provide for 10 non-Green Belt larger villages as part of Policies Barnsdale) local housing needs. 2/3 with indicative numbers and criteria for such applications to be supported. 01937 Lichfields (on Continuation of existing limits. Development limits should include 436. The limits by definition should remain relatively behalf of Safeguarding land will have implications on development limits and requires similar to the existing (currently defined by the extent Theakston further explanation. of the Green Belt and Countryside). Were site 436 to Estates Ltd) be allocated it would be removed from the Green Belt, however it would therefore be an allocation, which would be represented as such, but not be within the defined settlement limit.

171

0746 Marr Parish Marr Parish supports the re-categorising of the village to ‘Smaller Greenbelt’ Support noted. The council cannot 'remove' the call Council village as along as the Council only permits infill development in the small for sites sites, these are reflective of what has been villages and hamlets in line with the stated policy. Urge DMBC to remove any submitted for consideration. However, Marr is not and all proposed development sites identified and included within the previous being considered to have any allocations. call for Sites for our village and these are now inappropriate and unsupported by both Marr Parish and DMBC. 04041 Kath Johnson Approve of Green Belt status for High Melton. Support noted

04042 George Approve of Green Belt status for High Melton. Support noted Johnson 0759 High Melton Support the re-designation of High Melton as the Green Belt as there is no Support noted. Parish Council capacity for further development.

01394/ 01404 Cllr Cynthia On face of it, Green Belt seems better protected, but there can be unintended Very special circumstances would need to be weighed Ransome & Cllr consequences. Infill should not be restricted or it will lead to pressure on larger up against any planning application for development Jonathan areas of Green Belt. Very special circumstances should be "very special". in the Green Belt, should it come in. Wood Recent development proposals in the Green Belt have been approved when they seem to be contrary to this.

05178 Rhonwyn Where is the neighbourhood development plan? It is unclear what this Representation is referring to. Dobbing 04710 Howard J Site at Clayton, north of Churchfield Lane should be in the development limit This site is Green Belt and would require exceptional Wroot (on (adjacent post office). Site is a small infill plot, only 0.1 ha and ideal for 2 circumstances to justify amending the Green Belt behalf of Roy dwellings, no physical constraints, adequate visibility splays. Flood Zone 1 area, around this site. Whether this is justified will be Marshall) acceptable in flood risk terms. Single ownership, no development constraints. assessed in the Green Belt Topic Paper / Settlement MAFF Land Classification map for Yorkshire and Humber shows this to be Class Boundary Review. 3 and moderate quality. Not best grade of agricultural land. Would be supported by NPPF para 78 - promoting sustainable development in rural areas. Adjacent to post office and village shop, would support these and help maintain community vitality.

172

03578 DLP (on behalf Settlement boundary for Hatfield Woodhouse should extend around site 061 / This will be considered when the settlement limits are of Dantom 333/ 417 and two neighbouring parcels of land. Logical extension and will drawn, which are proposed to utilise the Homes) contribute to housing land need. Sustainable location. methodology. No comments on proposed methodology. 05186 John Handley Strikes Garden Centre / Stringers Nurseries, Crookhill Road, Conisbrough - This is Green Belt and it would require exceptional Associates (on Garden centre should be removed from the Green Belt and identified as part circumstances to remove the site from the Green Belt. behalf of of the built up area of Conisbrough. Does not conform with Green Belt policy This will be assessed in the Green Belt Topic Paper. Klondyke and is a long established intensive built development of a large scale. It meets The methodology states that garden centres / plant Group) local needs and should be within development limits. nurseries would be excluded from development limits. Such sites are often located in urban / rural fringe areas but are rural in nature. 04888 Graham Agree with methodology Support noted. Dobson 04889 Vanessa Agree with methodology Support noted. Dobson 04902 Heidi Exley Disagree with methodology (no specifics) Noted.

173

04950 Town- The approach to excluding ‘Large residential curtilages (where there is We believe that playing fields and similar uses on the Planning.co.uk potential to significantly extend the built form of the settlement and their edge of settlements constitute non - urban uses and (on behalf of inclusion would free up opportunities for inappropriate and unsustainable back should be defined as countryside, irrespective of other BBS land or infill development)’ is inappropriate. Limits need to follow clearly policy protection. Wherever possible, development (Doncaster) defined and easily identifiable boundaries. Other policies can resist back land limits will conform to clearly defined limits, however Ltd) development and other forms that do not follow the settlement form. Playing some gardens can extend a long way into open fields, recreation grounds and outdoor sport facilities and amenity buildings countryside, and therefore in such cases to protect should not be excluded and should be protected by other polices. the countryside from unwanted incursion, limits will be drawn to exclude these.

174

05191 & 05192 DCH To consider the opportunity to establish a new settlement boundary to Land will be considered when development limits are Consulting (on Hatfield Woodhouse in favour of Site Representation supporting Site A ‘land drawn, however the methodology notes that behalf of J opposite Slated House Farm’, and Site B is ‘land adjacent to Slated House Farm, farmsteads / agricultural land will usually be excluded. Middleton and Hatfield Woodhouse’. Provides detail on nature and location of Hatfield Since the consultation, the Local Plan now identifies a Sons) Woodhouse (including access to Thorne and Armthorpe, airport context, and potential housing growth limit for the 10 non-Green growth of small scale tourism. Quotes paragraph 66 of NPPF ‘allowing for an Belt larger villages (which includes Hatfield- alternative approach on the basis of reflecting market signals as justification’ Woodhouse) as part of Policies 2/3 with indicative and paragraph 68 ‘small and medium sized sites can make an important numbers and criteria for such applications to be contribution to meeting the housing requirements’. Discusses emerging local supported. plan, Hatfield Woodhouse as a defined village and locations for growth within the development limits and infilling and the need to redefine new development limits in-line with the settlement hierarchy to establish new settlement boundaries. The alteration and extension of the development limits will be required to enable some growth within Hatfield Woodhouse and proposes amendments with justification. Paragraph 78 of the NPPF promotes sustainable development in rural areas. The development site is not isolated but is located within a rural settlement. The sites are low grade agricultural land and as such does not make effective use of the land as stated in Paragraph 117 of the NPPF and paragraph 170 of the NPPF.

03527/ 03528/ Fisher German Object to Hooton Pagnell being a washed over village in the Green Belt. NPPF Noted. The justification for this would be included 03529/ 03530/ LLP (on behalf says that housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the within the Green Belt Topic Paper, rather than the 03531/ 03532/ of the trustees vitality of rural communities and planning policies should identify Green Belt Review. However, comments are noted

175

03533/ 03534/ of the MWA opportunities for villages to grow and thrive and support local services. Current and the approach has not been considered fully 03535/ 03536/ Wards Norbury policy (RPA) allows development within the village limits, thus supporting the justified and has not therefore been carried forward 03537/ 03538/ Settlement) village. The Green Belt review does not justify why existing villages inset within through the Regulation 19 Publication version. 03539 & 03540 the Green Belt are proposed to be washed over. Boundaries should only be altered where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified. Lack of evidence to support this. Serious implications for the continued support of local services. Limits will impact opportunities to maintain and enhance viability. Incompatible with NPPF para 78. Existing redundant farm buildings and farmyards could be redeveloped when farming activities are relocated to a more suitable location, which will benefit the conservation area. Hooton Pagnell should be considered to be inset within the Green Belt and allow new residential development within it.

Economic Forecasts & Housing Needs Assessment Q14 - Do you have any comments on the Report?

Representation Representation Summary of Response DMBC Response Reference No Name

03067 Mr Joseph Not been subject to political scrutiny. Developers charter and not in best The report was commissioned by the council and Blackham interests of residents. undertaken by Peter Brett Associates to agreed parameters, investigating the housing and employment requirements for the borough in line with both local and city region ambitions. It has not been subject to developer input.

04513 Mr Samuel The policy-led scenario of job increase is unrealistic of the likely increase in The policy led scenario is in line with Sheffield City Foster employment within the borough. The baseline data utilises information Region economic ambitions. The baseline data reflects provided by Experian and represents the most likely outcome – it is therefore what would happen without policy intervention,

176

questionable why Doncaster Council believe that any policy-led increase is whereas the policy led shows what the outcome likely to come to fruition, over and above the expertise of Experian. would be with policy intervention to reflect the aims of the borough and region. The borough is economically ambitious and wishes to see economic growth within Doncaster.

04579 Carol Wileman Other than to say the vision is marvellous the reality fantasy. Please remove The comment is noted. The purpose of this report is to your rose tinted glasses and look at Doncaster properly. assess the requirement for economic and population growth in the borough.

04297 ELG Planning Seek greater recognition of the high level of sustainability and the significant Rossington is a 'Main Town' in the settlement (On behalf of opportunities for further improvements in the future in the settlement hierarchy and as such is earmarked to receive Rossington Hall hierarchy in a manner similar to that adopted in the Core Strategy 2012 which economic growth on top of its local needs housing. Investments) identified Rossington as a ‘Growth Town’. As a result consider that Rossington Whilst the top of Rossington's range is not as high as it should be identified as a location for meeting more than just ‘local needs was in the Core Strategy, it should be noted that the housing growth’ ‘on a pro-rata basis’ together with a limited amount of overall borough requirement is also lower. employment-led housing growth.

01263 Barnby Dun Report appears to be based on consultants setting targets rather than The assessment has been independently undertaken. with Kirk meeting community needs. The results reflect the brief whereby the council asked Sandall Parish PBA to assess what a 1% economic uplift (in line with Council the Sheffield City Region's ambitions) would result in in terms of amount of housing and employment land. These were not set by consultants.

0003 Rotherham Housing need and Green Belt - Supports objective to meet OAHN. Support noted. MBC

177

05008 Savills (on Local Plan should plan for additional growth. The local plan is planning for additional growth, with behalf of Philip an uplift applied to baseline housing and employment Lodge) figures.

0951 Barbara Hartley Plan over allocates land for employment use. The Employment Land Review Noted. See updated Employment Land Needs shows the uptake of employment land is dropping. This is accounted for as Assessment evidence base. Brexit and austerity, but ignore oversupply of land and units, discresionary consumer spending patterns have changed and manufacturers may be sending products straight from the factory to the consumer. Land at Capital and Nimbus Park, Thorne, has still not been fully developed - this indicates low demand.

04548 Sabir Ali The loss of site 379 is an economic disaster for Mexborough Comment noted. This is a matter for the site selection methodology. However, following consultation, this site is no longer a proposed allocation.

05089 Thorne and Challenges housing needs assessment evidence in relation to Thorne and Comment noted. Moorends Moorends. Intends to conduct own HNA and may seek to allocate within the Neighbourhood Parish via the Neighbourhood Plan. Plan Working Group

05114 Margaret Agree with statement In Executive Summary that Doncaster infrastructure is Noted – Policy 13 identifies Hickleton-Marr bypass as Marsh already under significant pressure. Hickleton is witnessing significant pressure one of the strategic projects daily. Relentless increase in traffic volumes, particularly HGV, through village has resulted in it becoming virtually impossible, and dangerous, to join traffic flow and impossible to cross the road on foot.

178

01937 Lichfields (on Unclear why the council are deviating from 1073 dpa in this report, which is 1073 was the calculated housing requirement under behalf of ambitious. Completions data shows the council are achieving this and if the 2012 NPPF, however the plan will be submitted Theakston anything the council could aim higher. under the revised 2018 NPPF, and so the assessed Estates Ltd) housing figure has been revised to 920 dpa. This is explained further on pp. 41 - 42 of the report.

179

0746 Marr Parish Through previous consultations Marr Parish raised concerns over the targeted The 27,100 jobs is in line with Sheffield City Region Council increase of new dwellings within the draft Local Plan. We understand the economic targets for 1% growth. Both housing and rationale behind the target but our concerns are that it constitutes an employment permissions are monitored annually in increase of +10% on the total available housing stock across the borough, a both the Residential Land Assessment (RLA) and borough which has one of the worst performing housing markets in the UK. Employment Land Assessment (ELA). The borough is Agree that new homes and jobs should be evaluated and measured annually. economically ambitious and eager to see economic Economic Growth - note that the new job target has increased from 20,000 to growth, so although there may be uncertainty at 27,100. This is a significant increase and represents an uplift of 35% in new present with regards to a number of external factors, jobs projected against a background of economic uncertainty. This is it is also not known what the outcome (be it positive, optimistic and agree that an annual review should be carried out, to ensure negative or neutral) will be. National policy says that that the borough’s new job creation meets with its new homes targets. Local Plans must be positively prepared, and, informed by the Economic Forecasts and Housing Need Assessment, the borough has planned for growth in line with the ambitions of the Sheffield City Region.

180

05132 Helen Slade Council are already ahead of new house quota so no need for new The governments standard methodology indicates developments. that the council should plan for a minimum of 585 dwellings per annum, and the council are planning for housing growth above this. In both cases this would mean that the council can demonstrate a five year supply of land, however, as per the NPPF paragraph 67, Local Planning Authorities must be able to demonstrate "specific deliverable sites for years one to five of the plan period; and specific, developable sites or broad locations for growth, for years 6 - 10, and where possible, for years 11 - 15 of the plan". The council must therefore make allocations to comply with the requirements of national planning policy.

181

04659 Christopher Don't understand with all of the other proposed developments the need for The governments standard methodology indicates Farmer all the current proposed housing. that the council should plan for a minimum of 585 dwellings per annum, and the council are planning for housing growth above this. In both cases this would mean that the council can demonstrate a five year supply of land, however, as per the NPPF paragraph 67, Local Planning Authorities must be able to demonstrate "specific deliverable sites for years one to five of the plan period; and specific, developable sites or broad locations for growth, for years 6 - 10, and where possible, for years 11 - 15 of the plan". The council must therefore make allocations to comply with the requirements of national planning policy.

182

05098 Anton Fix Report appears to be based on setting and meeting aspirational Borough wide The aim of the report is to inform the council of how targets rather than what specific communities need much housing and how much employment land is required to meet the both baseline growth forecasts and aspirational growth forecasts in line with Sheffield City Region ambitions. It does not break the figures down to local levels, this has been done through the Homes and Settlements Strategy, and elaborated on in the Settlement Background Paper, which explains how housing has been split between the various settlements in the borough, as well as the proposed employment strategy, and how housing, employment and retail link together.

183

04673 Anne Nicklin Job growth and housing demands may not materialise so the lower number of The governments standard methodology requires the 562 should be preferred. Employment areas identified are not expressed as council to plan for a minimum of 585 dwellings per being on the A1 corridor, how can it therefore be justified to develop on annum, and given this plan is to be submitted after greenbelt on the west side of Doncaster? 24/01/19, this is the minimum that must be planned for. The 562 figure is derived from 2014-based official household projections but is related to calculating need under the previous system. This was necessary to publish as at the time there was a transition period. There is an ambition for greater economic growth and the PBA report demonstrates how much housing and employment land would be required to meet these ambitions. The council has decided to plan for 1% housing and employment growth which would result in 920 dwellings per annum. It is acknowledged that this is ambitious, but the Planning Practice Guidance confirms that Local Planning Authorities can plan for growth above the standard methodology figure, and this in turn is in line with the governments commitment to ensuring more homes are built. Planning Practice Guidance notes that the government are supportive of local authorities who are ambitious and who want to plan for growth.

184

04013 The Joint Rural 20,000 jobs projected in line with SCR has now gone up to 27,100 jobs - 35% The 27,100 jobs is in line with Sheffield City Region Parishes increase through economic growth. Jobs and homes linked to accommodate economic targets for 1% growth. The information is this growth. Targets inconsistent and would like a clearer evidence based included within the Economic Forecasts and Housing understanding of new calculations. Agree with milestone review to assess Need Assessment, with a summary also included in delivery against targets for new jobs and homes. Annual review of new job the Settlement Background Paper, which explains how creation is needed. Contest whether targets set are achievable and these figures fit in with the spatial strategy more deliverable. Insufficient allowance made for non delivery of major regional / generally. Both housing and employment permissions national infrastructure projects and the impact (brexit, HS2 non-delivery / are monitored annually in both the Residential Land South Yorks bypassed, uncertainty of Doncaster's place in cross country / Assessment (RLA) and Employment Land Assessment trans Pennine rail proposals. Non or reduced delivery of Northern (ELA). The figures do not consider the likely impact of Powerhouse productivity targets would mean job targets cannot be met. Plan Brexit as it remains unknown, and the impact of other should take this into account. Recommend the Local Plan includes a 'best case schemes mentioned are also hard to assess at this / average case and worst case scenario' due to economic uncertainty. stage. However, plans must be positively prepared and can be subject to review in time where any updates to the local / national situation and infrastructure changes could be taken into account.

185

05178 Rhonwyn It is difficult to find the evidence for the plans to increase the numbers of The report aims to evidence the housing need and Dobbing houses across document. Population statistics themselves do not provide does analyse population statistics amongst other evidence without analysis. How has the figure of 920 new homes required to things in Section 2, which feeds into the projections. be built each year over 17 years been calculated and should it read 920 new How this fits in with wider settlement work is homes over the next 17years. The total includes 255 affordable homes and explained in the Settlement Background Paper. We 190 social houses but again I do not understand how you reached that figure. calculated the requirement as 920 over 17 years (2015 What exactly is affordable housing and social housing and does it vary from - 2032 in the consultation), with allocations to cover area to area the first 15 years as per national policy, and the remaining years being made up of oversupply in settlements compared to their target. Affordable housing is defined in Annex 2 of the NPPF (pp. 64). Social housing comes under 'affordable housing', and will be dealt with through the policy "Delivering the necessary range of housing", which includes a requirement for either 15% or 25% affordable housing on sites.

04902 Heidi Exley Should consider empty / unused properties - why can't more be done with Bringing empty properties back into use is an aim for these? the council, and is an important aim of the boroughs housing strategy 2015 - 2025.

186

05201/ 05202 Turley (on Decision to publish an updated assessment is welcomed. The methodology The 1,073 dpa figure is what the housing requirement behalf of the adopted to consider a reasonable scale of economic growth and this on would be under the 2012 NPPF. This was published as Peel Group) housing need is appropriate and reasonable. Despite the new release of ONS when the assessment was undertaken it was unclear 2016 sub-national population projections caution should be given to inferring whether the Local Plan would be assessed under the from this dataset that there is a lower level of housing need in Doncaster than 2012 or 2018 NPPF. It is now the known case that the previously thought. In accordance with the NPPF, a more flexible approach to plan will be assessed under the 2018 NPPF, and calculate needs would be advantageous. There is strong reason to suggest it is therefore the assessed housing requirement in line reasonable to assume a higher level of job growth than the current 1% with this is the 912 dpa, which has been slightly lifted forecast. This is due to: annual job growth since 2013 far exceeding the 1% to 920dpa. In choosing a requirement of 920dpa, the long-term average; additional job growth by the DSA and iPort will have a council is being positive, as this requirement is in line catalyst effect on other parts of the economy, boosting employment growth with Sheffield City Region ambitions and is above the further; identified scale of job growth within the airport does not take into government’s standard methodology figure by account the anticipated growth of employment generated by proposed 335dpa. With regards to a sub-regional study, this is developments, passenger and cargo increases; in validating the forecasts the what Peter Bretts suggest (para. 2.52) if the council assessment comparison is only made to the lower of the two scenarios wanted to quantify demand for strategic warehousing presented in the airport masterplan, it is not an unrealistic prospect that over and above the scenario, as this type of considerably higher employment growth could be realised; the caveat in employment is more footloose. concluding on policy-led reasonableness states a requirement for regional or sub-regional study. From this the Council should adopt a positive approach, even when policy-led growth is used the modelling concludes a need for 1,073 homes per annum. This figure should be used over the 912 figure, this is because: 912 is only based on projection to 2026 - this is no longer the period covered by the standard method which should run from current year so therefore looks to 2028 and; the PPG does not suggest in considering a higher figure than the standard method it should constrain the assessment to the ten year period, policies drawing upon evidence base present need to 2032 and modelled need over this period should be preferred. Do not think it is reasonable to plan for the lower figure of 912.

187

05207 Tangent Economic Forecasts & Housing Needs Assessment – proposed growth agenda The proposed amount of housing growth is 920 dpa, Properties (on (1,073 dwellings) insufficiently ambitious and fails to incorporate the which is deemed to be suitably ambitious, as it plans behalf of ION contribution which HS2/NPR. Doncaster with its unique road, rail and air for 1% growth in line with the Sheffield City Regions Property connections will be further enhanced by HS2/NPR. ambitious. 920 dwellings per annum is above the Developments governments standard methodology figure of 585 by Ltd and The 335 dwellings per annum (57% increase), which is Frickley Estate) 5,025 more houses that the standard methodology over 15 years. At present the impact of HS2 on Doncaster, especially as the preferred route bypasses the borough, is uncertain, and the Pan Northern Route remains an ambition. The importance of the Pan Northern Route is recognised in the table accompanying Policy 13 on the Strategic Road Network, and the plan also recognises the importance of the airport and supports growth through an Airport Policy.

188

0518703259/ JVH Town Housing requirement of 920 dwellings per annum is not explained in the Draft The 920 dpa housing requirement is explained in both 03453/ 02343 Planning Plan and needs updating in line with NPPF changes and should include the Economic Forecasts and Housing Need Consultants (on aspirational targets to support economic growth. Do not consider that the Assessment and the Settlement Background Paper, behalf of land supply is based on an up to date assessment taking account of what is and for detailed information these should be read in Crowe, Platts, actually deliverable. Housing land Supply Statement dates from 1st April 2017 conjunction with the local plan. There is also an Lodge, Hanson and is out of date to inform the making of the Plan. The 2017 document update in the Housing Background Paper. It should and Youdan & identified that the 5 year requirement was either 4443 dwellings [with 5% also be noted that the consultation draft was GB Turnbull & buffer ] or 5133 [with a 20% buffer ]. The Council claim that at 31st March published without any accompanying text. The Mr 2017 the supply was some 8,300 units. We do not consider this to be a proposed 920 dpa is reflective of the aspirational Waddington) credible reflection of the 5 year land supply. Clear evidence required that growth target. With regards to the five year supply sites with outline consent, allocated sites or brownfield register identified will statement, this will be brought up to date where deliver housing completions in the next five years. We are therefore satisfied necessary. With regards to the 2017 statement, this that this is an accurate reflection of the boroughs five year supply. was subject to robust scrutiny at a planning appeal for Mere Lane in 2017 / 2018, and it was found that our assessment of sites and their projected delivery was accurate, including those with outline permission etc.

189

05195/ 05196 Banks Property The local plan must be aspirational, positive and demonstrate housing need is Agree housing target is a minimum rather than a Ltd a minimum not a limit. Soundness questioned. Strategic approach to new maximum/ceiling. 920dpa is considered aspirational. homes is questioned – 920 is not high enough and should be increased to 1073 figure from the report was based on the 2012 1,073 homes. Council have delivered more than this since 2004. State ONS NPPF. Disagree that DMBC has been delivering higher producing variant projects including information for younger adults, and than this since 2004 (but has done so in the past few increasing housing numbers will ensure supply will meet demand and provide years). The housing need has been independently flexibility. Provides an appendix of housing need evidence appraisal which derived by leading consultants in the field in respect concludes economic aspirations should be planned for to facilitate the to this matter. aspirational growth becoming a reality. Provides a summary of new demographic and housing market indicator data and housing projections and summarises that other factors such as affordability and economic aspirations are required for successful sustainable communities. Employment Trends Doncaster – summarises a positive trajectory since 1998 and job numbers have increased over the three discussed timeframes.

190

04444/ 04960/ Johnson Mowat Figure should be 1,073. Dismissing this undermines the growth focussed The figure of 1,073 is based on the previous NPPF, 05204/05205 (on behalf of ambitions of the local plan which accord with SCR growth aspirations. whereas the plan will be examined under the new Strategic Land Contrary to 81(a). PBA note requirement should be reviewed in light of 2016 NPPF. The figure, in line with the updated national Group, Mr & based projections. Projections are lower and there are concerns with the policy is therefore 920dpa. This is in excess of the Mrs S Hall, and, implications. ONS and government ministers have acknowledged that figures projected standard methodology figure. Planning Harworth do not account for pent up demand, or mean that fewer houses are needed. Practice Guidance states that "Where a strategic Group PLC) This has delayed the new standard methodology. policy-making authority can demonstrate an alternative approach identifies a need higher than that identified using the standard method for assessing local housing need, the approach should be considered sound as it will have exceeded the minimum starting point." The council is therefore satisfied that by planning above this target, the approach is sound.

1017 Peter Is a forecast, deals with guesstimates. Considerable ambiguity throughout There will always be a degree of uncertainty when Pennington (para 0.1; 0.6; 0.7; 0.10; 0.11; 3.23; 2.52; 3.22; 3.9) forecasting, however the projections are educated predictions of needs, informed by local economic forecasting. The paragraphs referred to relate to matters which are expanded upon within the ELNA and the Settlement Background Paper, which elaborate on the councils approach to floor space calculations. These use the forecasting and apply local circumstances to calculate how much floor space will be required. The report acknowledges that there are decisions the council should make, see paras. 3.15 - 3.24.

191

0308/ 02003/ J10 Planning With employment, para 3.22 confirms that there needs to be an oversupply of The jobs forecast was converted into a land 03599/ 03600/ (on behalf of employment land by approx. 30% to generate sufficient demand. It requirement using an accepted methodology, 03601/ 03602/ Brodsworth acknowledges that excessive over supply should be avoided to ensure there is including elements to account for employee density; 03603/ 03752/ Estate) demand. The latest ELR and ELA found demand is 31ha p/a - over 17 years this churn; net take up; a percentage for other uses; a 03753/ 03754/ equates to a demand of 527ha. It follows therefore that a 30% uplift to this choice factor. This methodology should provide the 03755 & 03756 would be at least 685 ha, yet the plan target is 407ha. Supply and demand right amount of land to meet the forecast change in (see comments on ELA) would illustrate that if there is no existing supply of jobs numbers. Sites have undergone rigorous land and the potential allocations are undeliverable then there is a risk of no assessment to ensure the sites are marketable, job creation whatsoever. deliverable and in the right locations. The Employment Lane Needs Assessment (2015) assessed the employment requirement as 474ha, however following the Economic Forecast and Housing Needs Assessment, the jobs numbers projected in this were converted into a total of 407ha, including taking into account the methodology above. This has been amended in the Local Plan Publication version, with the shift in years from 2032 to 2035 end date.

03507/ 03506/ Spawforths (on Considers Local Plan unsound. Requires update to reflect NPPF 2018. Update 05176/ 05215/ behalf of H evidence base. Include housing trajectory and 5yls and include supporting text 05213/ 05208/ Burtwistle and to the policies. Commissioned Regeneris Consulting to review the OAN and 05210 Son & the Economic Forecasts and Housing Needs Assessment (2018). Report Framecourt attached in full response. Regeneris conclude that the target delivers the Homes Ltd & minimum level of housing need for Doncaster based on the standard method Fisure & Priority (585 dpa) and makes an upward adjustment to support economic growth. Space Ltd & However, PBA have made unjustified and unrealistic assumptions. Avant Homes Ltd)

192

05178 Rhonwyn Volume of material means it is hard to understand, should be in one Comments are noted. Some of these matters are Dobbing overarching document. Policies are statements and the evidence base is not wider than the Local Plan remit. The Plan needs to clear . Little analysis of the information so hard to understand how decisions ensure all Planning matters are included in order to be made. How has 920 dpa been calculated. Should it be 920 homes over the able to determine future planning applications against next 17 years? Total includes 255 affordable homes and 190 social, unclear which leads partly to its length. The SA Report and where figures come from or what 'social' and 'affordable' mean? Does this previous consultation summaries set pout how carry from area to area? No info on homelessness or waiting lists so cannot decisions have been taken throughout the process. judge if plans are adequate. Plan should be amended in light of govt. 920 new homes is an annual target and not the plan announcement to allow councils to build properties again. Almost impossible period target. The latest Housing Needs Survey to engage due to dense info published. Need to focus on neighbourhood identifies a need for 209 affordable homes per year. development These include both intermediate and social rented properties. The Council has a House Build programme and Housing Strategy but these are separate to the Local Plan.

193

Employment Land Needs Assessment Q15 - Do you have any comments on the Assessment?

Representation Representation Summary of Representation DMBC Response Reference No Name 03067 Mr Joseph Garbage. Noted Blackham 04579 Carol Wileman Accept that new businesses require land but this is being driven by the airport The iPort and airport are major employment schemes and rail port in the borough which have increased confidence in the area and the economy. Work has been carried out into assessing how much employment land is required over the plan period and this will result in new sites being required. This is line with Sheffield City Region's ambition for 1% growth in the economy. 04297 ELG Planning RHI consider that "one size fits all" approach to the economic led housing Noted (On behalf of growth element of the calculations and fails to recognise specific growth of Rossington Hall Rossington. Investments) 05008 Savills (on The ELNA does not make any specific commentary on the provision and Noted - the ELNA breaks information down into Use behalf of Philip delivery of land for small and medium enterprises. Class rather than the size of business. The importance Lodge) of SMEs on the economy is something that could be mentioned in an updated ELNA. 04548 Sabir Ali Site 379 - wrong assessment Noted - however there is no further detail to explain why the assessment is wrong.

194

0308/ 02003/ J10 Planning Comments on DMBC interpretation of SCR jobs target and states that DMBC Peter Brett Associates undertook work to reassess the 03599/ 03600/ (on behalf of has got this wrong. Surprised that land requirement is now 407Ha rather than borough's housing and employment forecasts. The 03601/ 03602/ Brodsworth previous higher figures (Core Strategy/ELNA). Concerned over lack of ambition employment figure was then converted by the Council 03603/ 03752/ Estate) and commitment to re-balance the economy in terms of the North of the using its own methodology from jobs into floor space. 03753/ 03754/ Borough. Provides analysis of existing supply in Adwick/Carcroft. Most of the This is where 407ha is derived from. This figure does 03755 & 03756 ‘supply’ is undeliverable. There is a serious lack of current supply in this part take flexibility and ambition into account. Existing and of the Borough. updated evidence is considered at each stage of the Employment Land Review (Colliers report) has not followed or applied its own Local Plan preparation process including site selection. qualitative assessment methodology. Author strays into areas that they are The Employment Land Review undertaken by Colliers not qualified in which undermines many of its finding and recommendations. is an important document in independently assessing If take up rate as per table in Colliers were used the employment land employment sites in terms of their deliverability. The allocation should be 535.5 Ha. None of existing employment permission report's remit did not include setting an employment making up the supply are in Adwick/Carcroft which suggests an urgent need land allocation figure. That figure is solely derived for land in that area. There is a lack of land supply in the A1 corridor despite it from an average take up rate and has not used the being a key route. Despite providing technical assessments and a Council's own ELNA methodology. It is recognised that Regeneration Prospectus this does not seem to have been considered by the A1(M) is a key route however there are currently Colliers. Concerned as to why Brodsworth Estates site have been constraints in terms of capacity and highway safety subsequently removed despite the additional deliverability work undertaken. and the fact that it is within the Green Belt. Currently there are no exceptional circumstances to justify the release of Green Belt sites for employment use. The capacity issues with the A1(M) are recognised by Highways England who are currently looking into improvements such as the widening of the road and junction re-alignments. 05197 Peacock and The assessment of West Moor Park East (Site 937) should be updated to Noted - any relevant new information will be used to Smith (on reflect the information provided in the submitted Vision Statement. further assess/update site information in relevant behalf of Blue evidence base documents as the Local Plan process Anchor Leisure progresses. Limited)

195

05177 RPS Group (on Over-allocation of land is unsustainable in the long term. DMBC should Peter Brett Associates undertook work to reassess the behalf of Troy approach Employment Land supply through a rational and sustainable borough's housing and employment forecasts. The Verdion) approach employment figure was then converted by the Council using its own methodology from jobs into floor space. This is where 407ha is derived from. This figure takes flexibility and ambition into account and supports 1% growth in line with Sheffield City Region aspirations for economic growth. It would not be acceptable to constrain growth as it would negatively impact on the borough's economy. The approach taken is in line with national guidance. 04013 The Joint Rural 20,000 jobs projected in line with SCR has now gone up to 27,100 jobs - 35% The Council has based the housing and job Parishes increase through economic growth. Jobs and homes linked to accommodate requirement on national and regional evidence which this growth. Targets inconsistent and would like a clearer evidence based reflects aspirations for growth and is in line with understanding of new calculations. Agree with milestone review to assess Sheffield City Region's aspiration for 1% economic delivery against targets for new jobs and homes. Annual review of new job growth. The Council has and continues to work closely creation is needed. with the SCR on strategic matters including housing and jobs need. The Local Plan will be monitored annually and a Review undertaken as and when necessary. Further explanation of how the job figure is calculated will be included in the updated Employment Land Need Assessment (ELNA). 04888 Graham Dobson Agree with 407ha Noted - support welcomed 04889 Vanessa Agree with 407ha Noted - support welcomed Dobson 04901 John Exley Should be lower, town cannot handle population of people as is. Noted - however the Council's calculations, based on national and regional evidence, demonstrate there is a need for housing and employment growth. This is based on Doncaster's aspirations for growth in line with Sheffield City Region's aspiration for 1% economic growth.

196

05207 Tangent 474 Ha of employment land is a better guide than 407 Ha but the figure does Work has been carried out into assessing how much Properties (on not account for the potential of HS2/NPR as a generator of employment land. employment land is required over the plan period and behalf of ION this will result in new sites being required. This is line Property with Sheffield City Region's ambition for 1% growth in Developments the economy. The Council does not support HS2 and if Ltd and The the project does go ahead the impact of the scheme Frickley Estate) on employment and housing land would be a matter for a Local Plan Review. 1017 Peter Colliers: Offers little by way of new hard evidence. Much of the text is the Noted - The Employment Land Review is an important Pennington landowners and developer estimates. Access to SRN pales in comparison to document in independently assessing the importance of countryside here. Not an "available, skilled and mobile employment sites in terms of their deliverability. workforce" as Colliers states. Access to the Strategic Road Network is an important factor when allocating sites for employment use so that both workers and goods vehicles can access the sites. This should also ensure that sites are close to an available, skilled and mobile workforce. 01716 Waystone Ltd Do not think the figure of 407ha should be used but that the 2015 figure of Peter Brett Associates undertook work to reassess the 474ha is more ambitious in line with the Vision for Doncaster and gives more borough's housing and employment forecasts. The flexibility. employment figure was then converted by the Council using its own methodology from jobs into floor space. This is where 407ha is derived from. This figure takes flexibility and ambition into account and supports 1% growth in line with Sheffield City Region aspirations for economic growth. The housing and job figures are also dependant upon one another and linked to one another and therefore 407ha is considered to be the most appropriate figure.

197

Green Belt Review Q16 - Do you agree with the Green Belt Review methodology and results? (Please quote reference number(s) if commenting on individual sites).

Representation Representation Representation Summary DMBC Response Reference No Name

03067 Mr Joseph Do not agree with methodology and result. Noted, no further detail as to issues. Blackham

198

04543 David Holland Why is site 929 preferred over 872, 252 and 788 - who decided this? Have The Green Belt Review has assessed the 4 potential read the review and at a loss to understand how site 929 can be deemed to sites in Sprotbrough. The Review is both comprehensive have the least impact on the Green Belt as opposed to site adjacent to the and independent, was carried out by consultants Arup, motorway in Sprotbrough. Site 929 extends the village towards High Melton and the findings have fed into the site selection work. and Cadeby - adjacent to the motorway does not have this issue. The allocated sites were chosen by the council. This report finds that, against a localised interpretation of the five Green Belt purposes and taking into account existing and proposed boundaries (which are all things stipulated in national guidance to take into account), that site 929 has less impact on the Green Belt and it's purposes than the other three sites in this settlement, scoring moderate, as opposed to moderately weak in case strength (which other sites scored).

There are a few notable reasons for this, particularly regarding boundaries:

- Site 252 - Green Belt here has a well defined and durable boundary already that would become weakly defined and unlikely to be durable.

- Site 788 has a strong existing boundary and amending it would lead to a weakly defined Green Belt boundary, and an angular, poorly related site stretching northwards along the A1(M). The current Green Belt boundary here is Melton Road, which is a very strong and defensible one. Additionally, the Green Belt Review highlights that this site would not have a functional relationship to Sprotbrough.

- Site 872 currently has a mixed boundary and would remain mixed if amended, however Sprotbrough would protrude irregularly westward if allocated.

199

- Site 929 - the Green Belt boundary is currently indented and angular, the proposed amended boundary would be mixed - having strong defensible boundaries to the north and south, but a weaker one to the west. The site is also better related in size to Sprotbrough, and would protrude westwards less than 872.

- All of the sites in the area would lead to Sprotbrough extending in one direction or another. However, site 929 would be the most modest expansion to the settlement of the four, could deliver the required level of housing for the settlement, and is the most in keeping site with the settlement. The settlement has already expanded westwards slightly north of Melton Road. 788 by way of comparison would extend Sprotbrough north along the A1(M) and in doing so make the Green Belt boundary angular in this location; 872 would extend the settlement further west than site 929; and 252 would extend the settlement north and west in its location. With regard to Green Belt purposes, 252; 788 and 929 all score moderately, where as 872 is strong, i.e. it would have greater impact against the purposes of Green Belt. It is therefore deemed that exceptional circumstances exist that justify the release of site 929 from the Green Belt.

200

04579 Carol Wileman No because you will redefine green belt as and when it suits your purposes The NPPF is clear that the Green Belt can only be amended through the preparation and updating of plans. Any amendment to Green Belt will be subject to serious scrutiny and must be justified with exceptional circumstances. As such, a Green Belt review has been undertaken by an independent consultant on behalf of the council, with the findings helping inform decision making. The council has produced a comprehensive Green Belt Review which explains the decision making process in detail. 0515 Paul Whitehurst Believe Call for Sites - Site 124* Green Belt designation as part of Bentley This appears to be a misunderstanding based on the 3** is incorrect. The entire Village of Toll Bar is located in Bentley 4 – all map provided in the Green Belt Review Stage 1. Bentley except Site 124. Site 124 is clearly part of the village and should not be part 4 does not stretch to the North Western side of Toll Bar, of Bentley 3. Site 124 is surrounded on three sides by Bentley 4***, and as between Toll Bar and Adwick le Street there is no shares its fourth, a physical western boundary line, with the physical Green Belt. As such, site 124 is correctly identified as western boundary of sites to the north (Adwick Avenue) and south (Manor being part of the larger land parcel of Bentley 3, which Estate). is the Green Belt parcel to the west of Toll Bar.

01402 Cllr Austin The Green Belt requires amending in a couple of areas. In Norton we have There must be exceptional circumstances to amend White areas where parts of domestic gardens are included within the green belt Green Belt boundaries. The respective requests are rather than the village envelope. This irregular boundary should be noted and have been assessed in the Green Belt Topic realigned along the natural boundaries of hedges and dykes, not through Paper. the middle of garden areas. In Askern, the line of the green belt boundary is along Manor Way; a much better location for the boundary would be to have Stream Dyke, a natural feature giving a clear and unambiguous boundary

201

03525 Simon Slatford Site 281 within Green Belt and review concludes it as Moderate case for The Proposed Green Belt site boundaries comprise the (on behalf of D J inclusion within further Site Selection work: Weak Boundary Strength well-defined and likely to be permanent Worksop Road Silk) Boundary but Weakly Performing’. The boundary could be improve with in the west, a tree-boundary in the south and to the planting or by including site 930 alongside it to create a strong boundary east by an irregularly drawn boundary linked to no utilising roads. This would lead to the conclusion that this is a strong case natural or infrastructure features. Using the features for release. defined within the Stage 1 Methodology, Table 4 of the Stage 3 Assessment (p23) concludes that ‘where there is a single boundary that is not defined using any visible infrastructure or natural feature on the ground’ the boundary should be considered to be weak. Unless, as Table 4 states, all other boundaries are considered to be very strong. Given the southern boundary of Site 281 is defined by a tree-boundary, which is also defined as weak feature, it can be conclude that not all boundaries are considered to be strong.

Each site has been appraised individually against the proposed methodology. It does not review potential policy-on design considerations, such as whether a strong boundary could indeed be created, nor whether sites should be combined. The option has been considered but there remain reservations about accessing sites in this location. 04297 ELG Planning Seek site 306 removal of Green belt and its allocation as Safeguarded land The approach to safeguarded land is explained with in (On behalf of for potential housing development beyond the current plan period. the Green Belt Topic Paper. Rossington Hall Investments) 04609 Westwood Park Strongly believe that the site (141) continues to support the five purposes of The independent assessment of the Green Belt sites by Management Green Belt. Arup assesses the site against a localised interpretation Company Ltd of the Green Belt, and finds that it does not score strongly against the five Green Belt purposes and in the case of checking unrestricted sprawl, preventing neighbouring towns from merging and assisting in

202

urban regeneration especially, the site has a negligable contribution to the purposes of the Green Belt. 0750 Stainforth Town With the health of the residents in mind and the opportunity to improve the Land in Stainforth is not Green Belt, rather the Council Green Belt in the area we are looking to convert the site of the soil heaps settlement is surrounded by countryside and different and colliery into a Country Park. policy protections. 0586 Brodsworth Supports washing over of Pickburn and Brodsworth. Support noted. This approach has been revisited Parish Council following consultation and the settlements are no longer proposed to be covered by Green Belt designation. This is explained in the Green Belt Topic Paper. 0744 Hickleton Parish Supports proposal to remove defined boundary status and place smaller Support noted. This approach has been revisited Council (2) & (3) villages in the GB. following consultation and the settlements are no longer proposed to be covered by Green Belt designation. This is explained in the Green Belt Topic Paper. 0745 Loversall Parish Supports proposal to include village within Greenbelt. Support noted. This approach has been revisited Council following consultation and the settlements are no longer proposed to be covered by Green Belt designation. This is explained in the Green Belt Topic Paper.

203

0756 Warmsworth GB not being protected as it should be. GB should not be lost. However - Green Belt can only be amended in exceptional Parish Council Green Belt to South of borough is more suitable for development, and circumstances. All the Green Belt in the borough has would have less impact on settlements such as Warmsworth. Road been assessed in parcels in the Stage 1 report, and then infrastructure has been improved in Green Belt to the south of the borough this has formed part of the Stage 3 report which looks so it would be less impactful to build on the edge of Green Belt in the south at the impacts of individual sites. It is therefore two- than Green Belt in settlements such as Warmsworth. fold, sites must be promoted in areas of Green Belt and be deemed suitable to be considered; and then as the council is not proposing a new settlement, the sites must be well related to settlements where growth is proposed - like the Main Urban Area, which Warmsworth forms part of. Wider site selection work must consider where the most sustainable places for growth are, this may not necessarily be in the least impactful general areas of Green Belt, but sites may be less impactful in isolation, which has been assessed at Stage 3. 01546 Yorkshire Would encourage retention and extension of GB with Policies incorporated Green Belt land will only be allocated in exceptional Wildlife Trust to support it's enhancement to achieve an ecologically coherent network circumstances, the general extent of the Green Belt will across Doncaster. be retained. As the plan is to be read as a whole, ecological policies will cover ecological enhancements. The creation of a country park at Rossington on land which is to be brought into the Green Belt will both help with ecological enhancement and will help offset harm to the wider Green Belt from allocations. 04544 David Nicklin Review is haphazard. Relies only on landowners putting forward land. All sites considered in the plan (Green Belt or Review is a smokescreen to push through otherwise low value sites. Site otherwise) have generally been promoted by owners have no ties to the area. Why are employment and housing landowners or interested parties. The review is not a locations in the Green Belt being treated differently? smokescreen to push through low value sites, it is an attempt to assess which available sites are the least impactful on the Green Belt. Arup did not assess or factor in land values when undertaking the review. Housing and employment sites have been assessed in the same way in the Green Belt Review, however the

204

Settlement Strategy aims to spread housing around the borough, meaning Green Belt land is needed, whereas for employment, there is no settlement specific requirement, and therefore Green Belt is not required as there are employment opportunities in suitable locations outside the Green Belt (such as the M18 corridor) which allow the strategy and the employment requirement to be met. We cannot and do not discriminate based on where landowners live. 04557 Stephen GB should remain wherever possible. Should only be used for 'critical' Green Belt can only be amended in exceptional Tomlinson development. circumstances, and this has been explored in the Green Belt Topic Paper. The borough has adopted a Green Belt last approach to site allocations. 04548 Sabir Ali Site 379 - trees will be removed and greenery reduced This site is not Green Belt.

205

04560 Anthony Carnall There is inconsistency in the documentation. Under the detailed appraisal On the site assessment for site 186, both the detailed for the Sites against local Interpretation of the five NPPF Green Belt assessment on pp. 52 - 54 of Appendix, and the Purposes; summary table on pp. 7 of Appendix 1 are consistent. 3a scores 3, 3b scores 4 and 5 scores 3. With regards to • Purpose 3a scores 3 yet on the summary assessment the score is 4. the scoring, 3b scores as suggested; and all three suggestions have been consistently scored in the • 3b scores 4 on the detailed assessment yet on the summary is listed as 2. assessment. The summary does not need to review every point - it is just a quick conclusion, and the detail • Purpose 5 scores 3 on the detailed assessment but 4 on the summary. on protecting the countryside from encroachment is already dealt with in detail in the site proforma. With Both Purpose 3a and 3b should score 4 and Purpose 5 should score 4 and regards to the purposes, the site is scored against every should be listed as such in the summary. individual purpose, and then an overall view is taken. Sites tend to score better against some purposes Summary for 186, the final paragraph omits the words ‘and the Site is compared to others, however an overall view must be considered to have a moderate-strong role in safeguarding the countryside taken with all scores weighed up. from encroachment’. This is a strong reason for not releasing these sites. We have no confidence in the accuracy of the methodology.

206

02311 Lichfields (on Why reject sustainable none GB sites and propose GB site? Roughly half of the borough lies in the Green Belt, and behalf of Hallam therefore in order to achieve the settlement strategy land (which is the preferred strategy following consultation) Management) that proposed to spread development across the borough and amongst the most sustainable settlements, Green Belt may need to be considered in certain areas, subject to exceptional circumstances being proven. If the plan only considered non-Green Belt and non-flood risk sites, then there would be a very different pattern of development and growth to what was preferred during consultation on the spatial strategy, and it would be unlikely to achieve the desired spatial spread. Some areas would see large amounts of growth at the expense of other sustainable Green Belt settlements, which would risk creating a lop sided development pattern in the borough. The Settlement Audit has shown how sustainable the boroughs settlements are, and a number of these are within the Green Belt. It is considered that some small well planned incursions into the Green Belt aid sustainable development, and would be more sustainable than simply directing development to the areas of the borough that are simply unconstrained - thereby increasing pressure on services and communities in these places. 05128 Peacock and The Green Belt review should consider housing opportunities in Defined The Green Belt Review only assessed sites in areas Smith (on behalf Villages. where housing growth was proposed, and where Green of Jason Belt land may be required due to a lack of alternative Barnsdale) site options. There is no housing growth proposed in the Defined Villages and so it was not felt prudent to assess sites in these areas, as irrespective of the outcome of a Green Belt Review, no sites will be allocated in these locations.

207

01970/ 02999 Cllr Kevin The scoring in the assessment on Purpose 2 of NPPF on Green Belt makes Purpose 2 relates to preventing neighbouring towns Rodgers & Cllr direct reference to the small urban infill at Town View Avenue as a nearby merging. Town View Avenue is mentioned as the next Pat Haith urban point to measure the acceptability of the allocation, as in the view of settlement heading away from this site, however as this the report it represents the next urban settlement. This particular area is settlement is washed over with Green Belt, there is not very far away from Broad Axe Field, and does not make any real sense as a separate settlement for the urban area to potentially this end of Scawthorpe is not, part of the Metropolitan Urban Sprawl in merge with, which is reflected in a score of '0'. If it were character, and is essentially a tail end of the former Scawthorpe Hall Estate. not mentioned by name in the report, the score would The Community of Scawthorpe would largely be recognised by residents as still be '0'. Furthermore, as the site is surrounded by the Pit Estate which follows Amersall Road. The low scoring on the report development but does not extend beyond this, seems to us to be a false measurement and needs to be reviewed. therefore the site would not lead to any further The low scoring on the sites suitability to stop ‘ribbon development’ fails to merging than already exists due to the built form, and take into account the connectivity of the neighbouring communities in this as such a score of '0' for 2b is also accurate. The site is part of the Northern Metropolitan Core – for example the Sunnyfields on the edge of the main urban area and Scawthorpe is Community make use of the Sunnyfields Primary School which is located in contiguous with the main urban sprawl of central Scawthorpe proper. Additional housing will reinforce the ‘ribbon Doncaster. This has been established through the development’ effect, and the low scoring on this particular issue needs to be Settlement Strategy, and the report and its revisited. methodology reflects this and was agreed with the Against Purpose 4 (heritage) "2" is a low score considering 234 is next to an council prior to the work being undertaken. ancient scheduled listed monument. Roman Ridge and environs should be protected. The assessment notes that as development has already extended the urban area to the north in this location, the perception of separation has already been impacted and the site will not contribute further to this. The assessment does not take account of things such as travel patterns and these are not relevant to assessment of the Green Belt.

The assessment has been carried out using an agreement and consistent methodology and based on the ‘extent to which the Proposed Green Belt Site has a role in supporting the character of the Historic Town or Place within the Borough’. The Green Belt Review has noted that further work is required to understand the

208 heritage impact. Such matters are relevant to site allocation work, developer requirements and design, rather than the Green Belt Review.

209

01937 Lichfields (on Re appraisal of site 436: Score of 22 should be revised to 17. Of the 10 All sites in the Green Belt Review have been behalf of allocated GB sites, the scores range from 10 to 26, this site falls within that. approached in the same manner and consistently Theakston scored. Estates Ltd) Purpose 1: score of 3 should be 2. existing boundary to east is not particularly robust, proposals would make it strong and defensible. With regards to purpose 1: the existing boundary is Community parkland would remain Green Belt. defined by a linear and recognisable area of residential built form. The Proposed Green Belt site is therefore 2a: agree considered to be connected to and in close proximity with the ‘Large Built up Area of Doncaster’. The 2b: 3 should be 2 - site a logical sustainable urban extension and would not resultant boundary is assessed seperately to the result in ribbon development. Existing development to south means site purposes. does not perform this purpose. With regards to purpose 2b: The Proposed Green Belt 3a: 4 should be 3 masterplan provides evidence on the archaeological Site is bordered to the south by the A635 Barnsley Road impact. and to the west by Scawsby Lane. Given development exists to the southern side of the A635 which has 3b: agree changed since the designation of the Green Belt and built form already exists along Scawsby Lane, the 4a: agree existing Green Belt boundary has only resisted ribbon development in part. The score is therefore accurate in 4b: 3 should be 1: site 3 miles from conservation area and assessment line with the methodology. recognises indivisibility between the two. With regards to purpose 3: The Proposed Green Belt 5: agree Site is therefore considered to be in a fair and maintained condition: land in the central portion with a Proposed parkland in line with NPPF para 138 re: green belt improvements. limited tolerance to change in the central portion and Safeguarding land is also required. No info on this. an increasingly limited tolerance to change in the south along Barnsley Road and adjacent to the Roman Ridge. The Proposed Green Belt Site is considered to contain features which have a moderate-high sensitivity to encroachment.

With regards to purpose 4b: this reflects the fact that

210 the historic core is visible from the site, as per the methodology.

Therefore, the scoring is correct and consistent with the methodology. The improvements that have been proposed to the Green Belt via the proposed parkland are noted have been considered when assessing the site following the consultation. The council's approach to safeguarding land is published in the Green Belt Topic Paper.

211

0746 Marr Parish Marr parish are still unclear which sites/if any are to be proposed for new Support noted. This approach which was consulted on Council homes are being considered for development. More clarity is needed. has been reviewed in the Green Belt Topic Paper, as has the approach to safeguarding Green Belt land. It should Affordable housing is needed and must delivered but do not believe that the be highlighted that no safeguarded land is proposed in rural communities can deliver the supporting services that are needed. the borough, however the proposal to not formally Affordable housing can only be realistically met in urban locations and not define this settlement has been reviewed and Marr will rural areas. Development in small villages and hamlets must be now not be covered by Green Belt designation as was proportionate, sympathetic and in keeping with their character to maintain proposed in 2018 - please see the Green Belt Topic their identity. Paper for further justification. The Council has adopted a Green Belt last approach to land allocations, and only Strongly supports and welcomes proposed planning policies where growth allocated land in the Green Belt when absolutely is directed to larger and more sustainable settlements and seek to protect necessary and robustly justified. rural communities and identities. Supports being designated as a ‘Smaller Greenbelt Village’ with ‘no Identified Development Limits’.

Green Belt and agricultural land are a precious resource which must be protected. Marr Parish object to proposals for additional Greenbelt land to be ‘safeguarded’. No more land should be taken out of Greenbelt than is vital. Strongly object to Greenbelt land being safeguarded and insist that it should remain Green Belt land within the Local Plan.

Unanimously support the view that “The borough’s overall housing and employment needs should be met outside the Green Belt as far as possible so as to help protect the Green Belt.” Also support the use of brownfield sites in preference to Green Belt sites. This is also our opinion, the green belt should not be eroded.

04673 Anne Nicklin Do not agree with the Review. Review being used a smoke screen by land All sites considered in the plan (green belt or otherwise) owners to push through sites that would otherwise be low value land, or not have generally been promoted by landowners or deliverable due to greenbelt constraints. interested parties. The review is not a smokescreen to

212

push through low value sites, it is an attempt to assess which sites are the least impactful on the Green Belt. Arup did not assess land value as for the purposes of Green Belt and this review, they is irrelevant. Paragraph 136 of the NPPF confirms that preparing a Local Plan is a time at which Green Belt boundaries can be reviewed and amended where fully justified and in exceptional circumstances. 04417 Sandstone Has the correct hedgerow been described in site 929 assessment (should it The description was correct at the time that the Technology be western side). The hedgerow boundary to the west would define part of assessment was undertaken by Arup. A tree line of any the revised Green Belt boundary to the west of the village more description is considered a feature lacking in durability strong/defensible. in the Green Belt Methodology (Stage 1 Review, Table 5, page 33) and therefore would not result in a change of conclusion. The exact nature of the tree line, whether gappy or not would not result in a change to the conclusion that the Resultant Boundary is mixed in strength. 04653 Richard Nicklin Greenbelt should only be used as a last resort Green Belt can only be amended in exceptional circumstances, or developed on in very special circumstances (NPPF para. 136 & 144 of the NPPF). It is therefore strongly protected. The borough have adopted a Green Belt last approach to allocations and this approach is expanded on in the Green Belt Topic Paper. 04973 Jeanette Allam Reject the council’s assertion this is the ‘least sensitive in green belt terms’, The Green Belt Review Stage 3 assesses Site 929 as if anything, this is the most sensitive. Believe 788 would be far more having less impact on the Green Belt site in suitable in terms of access and impact. Sprotbrough in Green Belt terms. Disagree on impact, believe 788 would have a greater impact on the Green Belt and this is backed up in the findings of the Green Belt Review which find 788 has a moderately weak "strength of case" and 929 a "moderate". From an access point of view, both sites have been assessed as

213

being capable of achieving suitable access on to the sites.

0308/ 02003/ J10 Planning (on It is unclear why the Green Belt Stage 2 report has not been published, and Stage 2 refers to work undertaken by the Council in 03599/ 03600/ behalf of why the release of the Green Belt Stage 3 report was delayed for release by selecting sites to be assessed at Stage 3. The Stage 3 03601/ 03602/ Brodsworth 18 months. report was published to the Council in May 2017, 03603/ 03752/ Estate) however this then had to be factored in to decision 03753/ 03754/ The Green Belt Review does not effectively address the 5 purposes of the making on sites, and as such informed part of the 03755 & 03756 Green Belt. It does not consider sustainable patters of development. There evidence to explain decision making which was released is an error in not safeguarding land. Certain settlements and boundaries with a range of other documentation in the 2018 need to be identified for infill and rural exceptions need to be addressed. consultation. There are no policies to enhance the retained Green Belt. The Green Belt Review specifically assesses each site It is odd that there are not deemed to be any exceptional circumstances for against a localised interpretation of the Green Belt. It is 513 when Brodsworth Colliery is not deliverable and developable. At worst not the job of the Review to consider sustainable there could be provision to safeguard land. development patterns, this is part of other local plan evidence base. The justification for not safeguarding With regards to the Stage 1 review: Adwick 1 and Bentley 3 should score land is part of the Green Belt Topic Paper. The Council low for preventing sprawl. With regards to merging, the railway means has reviewed the approach to smaller settlements and settlements cannot merge and therefore releasing sites adjacent would not rural locations in the Local Plan. The Local Plan has lead to merging of towns. The proposed sites protect the countryside from numerous environmental improvement policies that encroachment by virtue of their strong boundaries and therefore release would apply to land in the Green Belt, and the Topic would not affect the purpose of safeguarding the countryside from Paper explores how the remaining Green Belt will be encroachment. The sites would enhance character, rather than impact on enhanced, and this is enshrined in national policy. the special character of Adwick and Carcroft. Scores should be revised. Brodsworth Colliery is delivering housing and therefore With regards to the Stage 3 Review: Alternative scoring is provided for a contributing strongly to the housing delivery in Adwick range of sites: – Woodlands, this in turn reduces the necessity of releasing Green Belt land in this location to meet their

214

Site 458 – 2a should be 3; 3a should be 2; 5 should be 3. Case should be settlement requirement. This is also elaborated on in moderate. the Green Belt Topic Paper.

Site 459 – 2a should be 3. The boundary should be mixed. Case should be 458 (2a): The assessment of the extent to which the moderate. Proposed Green Belt Site performs against the five purposes has been assessed based on the site boundary Site 461 – 2b should be 4. Case should be moderate. provided by DMBC, and by virtue, from the developer. It does not review potential policy-on design Site 462 – boundary should score as “mixed”. Case should be moderate. considerations, such as whether a strong boundary could indeed be created or whether a portion of the site should be excluded from development. Secondly, as set out in Figure 3 of the Stage 1 Green Belt Review Methodology, the land to the north of the railway line is considered to form part of Carcroft and Skellow, not Adwick Le Street. On this basis, the current score is appropriate and in line with the agreed methodology. It is appropriate for the Proposed Green Belt Site to score a total of 5, on the basis that it protects and Essential Land Gap between two distinct places.

458 (3): The assessment of Purpose 3a is based on Table 11 within the Stage 1 Green Belt Review Methodology. Indeed, Table 11 sets out the features which are considered to be more sensitive, that are then assessed for the extent to which these have been encroached upon. Listed Features within the Conservation Area are considered to be features which have a higher level of sensitivity to Green Belt development. This is reflected in the Stage 3a assessment, which states that the Proposed Green Belt contains components that are not easily replaced or substituted. On this basis, the current score is

215 appropriate in line with the agreed methodology.

458 (5): Site 458 is considered to be contiguous to Adwick le Street, whereas the General Area as a whole was considered to be connected to. On this basis, the current score is appropriate in line with the agreed methodology.

459 (2a): The assessment of the extent to which the Proposed Green Belt Site performs against the five purposes has been assessed based on the site boundary provided by DMBC, and by virtue, from the developer. It does not review potential policy-on design considerations, such as whether a strong boundary could indeed be created or whether a portion of the site should be excluded from development. Secondly, as set out in Figure 3 of the Stage 1 Green Belt Review Methodology, the land to the north of the railway line is considered to form part of Carcroft and Skellow, not Adwick Le Street. On this basis, the current score is appropriate and in line with the agreed methodology. It is appropriate for the Proposed Green Belt Site to score a total of 5, on the basis that it protects and Essential Land Gap between two distinct places.

459 (boundary): The assessment has been carried out on the site boundary provided, which is not formed along the railway line and is therefore not a durable boundary.

461: 2b: Sites are assessed on an individual basis. Therefore, the consideration of the combined effect of two sites has not affected the score directly. Based on a

216 consistent approach, the Proposed Site scores a 5.

512 (boundary): The assessment has been carried out on the site boundary provided, which is not formed along the railway line and is therefore not a durable boundary.

All general areas have been scored consistently in the Green Belt Review, the findings of the review inform site selection but do not make decisions. Adwick 1 and Bentley 3 both score moderately for preventing sprawl, indicating that they moderately fulfil this purposes. Were both sides of the railway line built up to there could be no denial that the settlements of Carcroft and Adwick would have merged in this location – both physically and visually. This is backed up by a score of ‘4’ for Adwick 1, indicating the purpose is strongly fulfilled. The general areas are reported as having a moderate sensitivity to encroachment, strong boundaries do not mean development of this site has protected the countryside from encroachment. On historic purposes, the Green Belt does not assess how character may be improved, just possible impact.

All sites in the Stage 3 report have been scored consistently, the Council are confident in the work carried out and the outcomes of this report and its consistency. Boundaries have been assessed according to the site submitted, however whether a better boundary could be formed would be considered by the council through Green Belt work.

217

05177 RPS Group (on iPort should be removed from Green Belt as it now does not contribute The approach to sites in the Green Belt which have behalf of Troy toward openness and purpose of green belt planning permission, and whether or not these should Verdion) or should not be Green Belt is expanded on in the Green Belt Topic Paper. It is noted that there has been some development and change on the site, however the permission has yet to be fully built out and completed. The very special circumstances case for this site was weighed up through the planning application process. It is considered that amending the Green Belt will make no difference to the permitted scheme or its delivery in any eventuality, which can be developed as per the permission regardless of the site being Green Belt. 4956 Barton Wilmore Issues with Greenbelt review, assessment flawed as only 64 parcels were The site has been assessed in isolation. The borough (on behalf of assessed and site 146 is dismissed because it is in a much wider parcel. Not was divided into 64 parcels for the Stage 1 work, Barratt and a fair and reasonable way to undertake a GB review. Outcome of review meaning all of the boroughs Green Belt (including South David Wilson different when considered in isolation. Includes an illustrative site layout 6, where Site 146 sits within) was assessed. Site 146 Homes) was then assessed in the Stage 3 report in its own right, and has not been dismissed in the way claimed. The Stage 3 work has been published, and found that site 146 had a 'moderately weak' case for continuing in the site selection process. The impact on the general Green Belt area forms a part of this assessment, and this is a consistent approach across the borough. The assessment summary notes that the site scores in a similar manner to the wider Green Belt area, this does not mean it is dismissed outright based on the area scores.

218

04013 The Joint Rural Green Belt land should be identified by the council solely, not developers. The Green Belt Review was deemed necessary as the Parishes Concern this and local plan is biased in developers favours. preferred settlement strategy (a result of public consultation) for the borough included a number of Perplexed and reason and timing for the review - scr say exceptional locations which were in the Green Belt, and where the circumstances must be required to justify a green belt review. DMBC have availability of land was known to be limited withint the not assessed vacant properties and there is a high amount of available settlement. It was therefore not premature to employment land as per the ELA. Review undertaken before a strategic undertake the review at the point it was, it was justified option had been decided on. What were the exceptional circumstances for and prudnet to do so, and has formed part of the this? Doing it at stage it was done was premature, deceptive and background documents which help inform the local unfounded. plan. No employment land has been proposed in the Green Belt in part because of the availability of non - Green Belt sites, however this is not the case for housing. Sites in the Green Belt, and the majority of sites in the plan, have been submitted by 3rd parties, but the decision as to whether to allocate them or not rests with the Local Planning Authority. Do not believe this makes the plan biased in the favour of developers, rather helps show land availability, and the Local Plan relies on sites being promoted to the Council through Call for Sites. All land allocated will be need developers to build on it. 04888 Graham Dobson Agree with methodology and results Support noted. 04889 Vanessa Dobson Agree with methodology and results Support noted. 04902 Heidi Exley Disagree - Green Belt should be left as Green Belt Noted. Green Belt can only be altered in exceptional circumstances, however there is a need to explore options for Green Belt release. 04900 Richard Jones Green Belt should be reviewed before any development proposals are Green Belt has been reviewed in both general terms deemed acceptable. (Stage 1) and site specific terms (Stage 3).

219

05184 ID Planning (on Evidence base – Green Belt; methodology does not provide clear evidence It is not the job of the Green Belt to do this, the Green behalf of Harron to justify the exceptional circumstances of the release of sites from the Belt Review provides a independent assessment of the Homes Ltd) Green Belt when there are a large number of alternative sites in sustainable Green Belt and Green Belt sites in the borough. This locations across the Borough feeds into, but does not in itself define, an exceptional circumstances argument. Green Belt is needed in order to deliver the spatial strategy and spread of sites which was the preferred outcome of the Issues and Options stage, as well as individual settlement housing requirements and the borough wider housing requirement. The exceptional circumstance case is demonstrated in the Green Belt Topic Paper and explores the issue highlighted. 05207 Tangent Support Green Belt Review as it is not prescriptive in determining whether Support noted, although disagree that it has limited Properties (on proposed sites should be allocated for development, as such it has limited value in determining sites, it plays and important part in behalf of ION value in determining sites (large parcels of land are analysed). Does not take decision making. The proposed HS2 route cannot be Property account of preferred and agreed HS2 route. Object to stage 3 of the Green taken into account as in this as the review assesses the Developments Belt Review. Site 203 at Clayton has not been considered which undermines situation on the ground at the point it was undertaken. Ltd and The the status and robustness of the review; located adjacent to the preferred Sites at Clayton were not assessed as Clayton is a Frickley Estate) route of HS2 the site offers a sustainable option for future growth. Defined Village and not a settlement which is proposed to take on any housing growth, Therefore no site would be required or allocated in this settlement regardless of whether it is Green Belt land or not. Not clear why being next to a railway line (proposed or otherwise) in itself makes land a sustainable option for future growth unless the land is adjacent to an operational passenger station - which this site is not.

05195/ 05196 Banks Property Disagrees with green belt methodology - sites being promoted in Although lack of non-Green Belt sites in a settlement Ltd Sprotbrough and Tickhill are suitable for further consideration through the may be part of the reasons exceptional circumstances site selection process. confirms exceptional circumstances exist. Support exist, that does not in itself mean that a site which, if that it is necessary and justified to review the Green Belt boundary at the removed from the Green Belt, would be harmful to the

220

settlement of Sprotbrough. Site Promotion document provides a Green Belt (or may have other issues), should landscape character review and includes using the existing woodland necessarily be removed and allocated. That decision belt to define a new Green Belt boundary and enhanced green must be weighed up, and the process is elaborated on infrastructure. Site should not be ruled out and is suitable for further in the Green Belt Topic Paper. Green Belt sites will be consideration through the site selection process. 929 is not more allocated in both Sprotbrough and Tickhill, informed by favourable, but no reasons given as to why. the Green Belt Review. 04444 Johnson Mowat No mention of approach to safeguarded land. Explanation required. The approach to safeguarded land is expanded on in the (on behalf of Green Belt Topic Paper. Strategic Land Group)

221

04960 Johnson Mowat No mention of approach to safeguarded land. Explanation required. All sites in the Green Belt Review have been (on behalf of Mr Concerns about scoring of site 252 (moderate weak). Site actually performs approached in the same manner and consistently and Mrs S Hall) better than 929. Disagree with weak score for boundary. No consideration scored in an independent assessment. It provides an "as for potential mitigation that could include a strong landscaped boundary to is" assessment which does not consider if a strong the north and west which could be durable. Should score differently to 929 boundary could be formed, however the assessment on score 2a) (largely essential gap). Site 252 lies to NW Sprotbrough and also takes account of. All 4 site options in Sprotbrough therefore does not encroach any further west, whereas 929 lies to the result in encroachment into the countryside beyond the western edge and undoubtedly encroach further west than the existing existing settlement limits and would result in extensions settlement edge. There are exceptional circumstances for removing this site to the settlement edges - this has been weighed in the from the Green Belt and the benefits outweigh the Phase 3 findings. The balance through the assessment. Both sites are report makes it clear that it is up to the council to decide what should be assessed as being part of a largely essential gap allocated, and the council have allocated 418 units on a "weak" site showing between Sprotbrough and High Melton. The Green Belt the Green Belt review is not relied on in all cases. Sprotbrough is Review is one piece of evidence that has helped inform sustainable, close to the MUA and not in a flood risk area. There is a case for the allocation of sites but it does not in itself draw any identifying housing. conclusions on what sites to allocate, other matters are considered as explored in the Site Selection Methodology. Ultimately it is felt that 929 will have the least impact on the Green Belt and can deliver the level of housing Sprotbrough needs, which has been determined through the Settlement Audit and Homes and Settlements work, and it is preferable to other sites at Sprotbrough. Safeguarded land is dealt with in the Green Belt Topic Paper.

05204/ 05205 Johnson Mowat No mention of safeguarded land. Not mentioned in the Settlement The approach to safeguarded land will be expanded on (on behalf of Background Paper. Further info is required, not clear what sites are being in the Green Belt Topic Paper. No safeguarded land is considered. Should be information regarding release mechanisms for proposed in the borough.

222

Harworth Group safeguarded land. Could be linked to the housing delivery test and action PLC) plans should delivery fall below 95%. 05172 Pegasus Group - Support that it is necessary to review the Green Belt in this location. 873 has Support for 873 noted, the revised site boundary has (on behalf of a weak case, and is said to perform strongly against the Green Belt been assessed in the Stage 3 Addendum and the site Wilson and purposes. Site promo document (attached to rep) provides a landscape continues to have a weak case for inclusion within McKay Families) character review of the site and a landscape-led development framework further site selection work. The boundary is only one with woodland planting to strengthen the Green Belt boundary and thing the Green Belt Review highlighted, it also enhance green infrastructure links. Site should not be ruled out as suitable highlighted that the site scores strongly against a and should be considered for allocation or safeguarding. Para 1.17 of the localised interpretation of the Green Belt purposes. Phase 3 report confirms that weak or strong does not necessarily rule sites in or out.

223

05173 Pegasus Group Support that it is necessary to review the Green Belt in this location. Strong Support for site 186 noted. (on behalf of justification for removing the site from the Green Belt. Site is suitable for Metacre Ltd) further consideration through the site selection process and we strongly support its inclusion as Proposed Housing Site. The existing settlement and highway influence upon the site and the erosion of positive characteristics which remain within the site, mean that its removal provide opportunities to facilitate a strategy through which landscape character could be restored and provide a new Green Belt edge.

224

05203 Johnson Mowat No mention of approach to safeguarded land. Explanation required. Not The approach to safeguarded land is expanded on in the (on behalf of clear on the employment maps if "potential site NOT proposed for Green Belt Topic Paper, however no land is proposed to Harworth Group allocation" means the sites are considered as safeguarded sites. Are 'reserve be safeguarded. 'Potential site not proposed for Plc - 1035) development sites' safeguarded? There should be info on the release allocation' does not indicate a safeguarded site, nor mechanisms for safeguarded land within the plan period, which could be does 'reserve development site'. The Green Belt Review linked to the housing delivery test and action plans required if delivery falls does not indicate what sites should be allocated and beneath 95%. Regarding site 251, site is moderate and the council have therefore, just because a site scores strongly or weakly allocated 4 moderate sites for allocation, and one weak site. The council overall does not in itself mean it will be allocated, each believe boundaries can be amended, this should also apply to 251. site is considered in turn and so it is incorrect to assume Exceptional circumstances are considered to exist. Benefits outweigh Green that similar scoring Green Belt sites should all be Belt. allocated, and this is a decision making matter for the Local Planning Authority which must weigh up a number of factors. Aside from the sites mentioned, a number of other sites scored moderately, if the argument is followed then every site at this level should also be released from the Green Belt, which would not be a sensible approach to Green Belt release. In the instance of 251, aside from the Green Belt, there were concerns noted about potential access (see settlement summaries). Amended boundaries have been considered and the site has been re-evaluated in the Stage 3 Addendum (Site 1035), but still scores moderately. 05174 Pegasus Group Support that it is necessary to review the Green Belt in this location. 185 has Aside from Green Belt, part of the site is within Flood (on behalf of a weak case, and is said to perform strongly against the Green Belt Risk Zone 2/3 so allocation of the site would lead to Metacre Ltd) purposes. Site promo document (attached to rep) provides a landscape inappropriate development in a high flood risk area – character review of the site and a landscape-led development framework the site fails the flood risk sequential test therefore. See with woodland planting to strengthen the Green Belt boundary and Site Selection Methodology. enhance green infrastructure links. Site should not be ruled out as suitable and should be considered for allocation or safeguarding. Para 1.17 of the Phase 3 report confirms that weak or strong does not necessarily rule sites in or out.

225

05171 Airedon Objects that site is being proposed to remain in the Green Belt as per the This site has been reassessed as part of the Green Belt Planning and Small Sites/Settlement Boundary Review and Green Belt Review. Significant Topic Paper and in light of the evidence submitted. Design (on difference in opinion between these 2 pieces of evidence base. It is Officers agree that this site should be removed from the behalf of Mr considered that the site should be excluded from the Green Belt and the Green Belt and the land is allocated as Residential and Mrs Green Belt boundary be amended to follow the line of the existing mature Policy Area in the Local Plan, with the Green Belt Morrell) hedgerow to the north and west. boundary now following the mature hedge line to the north, which is considered to be a strong and durable boundary. See Green Belt Topic Paper for more info. 04331 Oxalis Planning Disagrees with how the site has been assessed through the Review. Its The Green Belt Review Stage 3 has assessed the current (on behalf of development would not change the structural form of the settlement as a boundary in this location as being mixed in strength, MerryVale whole, rather it would reinforce it, whilst at the same time providing an however the proposed boundary of this site is weak and Developments) opportunity to define a strong Green Belt boundary through a careful would lead to an isolated area of Green Belt within it. arrangement of built form and strong landscaping. There has been no information submitted to indicate how this is isolated area of Green Belt proposed to mitigated and so the issue still remains. The review can only assess the information that has been proposed and submitted. In Conisbrough & Denaby it is considered that there are other more suitable sites for allocation, including a Green Belt site (040). 04520 Kamila Avoid building in the Greenbelt. Noted. Green Belt will only be allocated in exceptional Noworycka circumstances. The Council believe these exist and justify the release of Green Belt land in some locations in the borough.

Local Green Space Selection Methodology Q17 - Do you agree with the Methodology and proposed sites?

Representation Representation Representation Summary DMBC Response Reference No Name

226

03067 Mr Joseph Do not agree with methodology and proposed sites. Comment noted Blackham 04532 JH Pickup and Site 1015 proposed Local Green Space site. Client strongly objects to the The site has been allocated for 20 years for housing but Co (on behalf of proposal. Site previously allocated for housing in the UDP no intrinsic value this has not come forward. The site is not in a location John Cooper) to the community, rather people do not wish to see it developed. No access proposed for housing in the emerging local plan. There and client would not grant rights. This should be a housing allocation, or at does not have to necessarily be access to the space for the very least available for the client to construct agricultural buildings on it. it to be allocated, especially as the criteria for allocating this space is to do with its historic value, which is aiming to be preserved through the Local Green Space designation. 0515 Paul Whitehurst The methodology used in determining the eastern boundary with the village The settlement of Toll Bar is fully inset in to the of Toll Bar does not take into some of the items of the Proposed Greenbelt. No changes are proposed to the greenbelt Methodology for Assessment. boundary, which in turn will contribute toward identifying the development limit of the defined village. 04597 Neal Beard 162 – Warmsworth - Supports proposal. Support noted

04598 Helen Heard 162 – Warmsworth - Supports proposal. Support noted 04556 John and Marie 162 – Warmsworth – Supports proposal. Support noted Wardle 04548 Sabir Ali Site 379 - not agree This site is not a proposed Local Green Space

01837 John Waggitt Adequate area for the general public to go and relax and enjoy the provision Comments noted of somewhere to take a leisurely walk, have a picnic WITHOUT having to travel miles some people either have to travel by bus or train to find a quite peaceful spot, a lot of people in the area cannot afford such a luxury because they rely on foodbanks to survive. 05117 Graham, Jane support for this proposal for local greenspace on the meadow land between Support noted and Paul Cardwell Court, High Street and Micklebring Lane, Braithwell Matthews

227

04772 Johnson Mowat Site 489 – Campsall - Objects to proposed allocation as a Local Green Space Local Green Space allocation of this site would not (on behalf of H Site. Is considering submission of a planning application for the re- prevent the submission of a planning application on the & H Agricultural development of Poplar Farm only. NPPF carries a presumption of sustainable adjacent farm site (land previously developed), as this Contractors) development. Site is within a Conservation Area – is therefore protected. falls outside of the proposed site boundary. Although part of a conservation area, Planning Practice Guidance states that it is possible for sites to be covered by a Local Green Space designation, and another protective designation such as a Conservation Area. As per the Local Green Space Methodology, it is believed that there is an additional benefit to this designation in this location. 04888 Graham Dobson Disagree with methodology and proposed sites - 147 should remain a green This site is not a proposed Local Green Space. It is space. currently countryside, not open space.

04889 Vanessa Disagree with methodology and proposed sites - 147 should remain a green This site is not a proposed Local Green Space. It is Dobson space. currently countryside, not open space.

04902 Heidi Exley Disagree - Green Belt should be left as Green Belt This site is not a proposed Local Green Space. It is currently countryside, not open space.

05188 JVH Town Do not agree with the deletion of the housing site in Braithwell and its The Local Green Space allocation will not prevent the Planning proposed allocation as greenspace. Local Green Space paper sets out local submission of a planning application in the future, it will Consultants (on tests for the designation of Green space, which are not compatible with the identify the importance of the heritage area. As per the behalf of NPPF tests. Do not consider that this site meets the required tests of either Local Green Space Methodology, it is believed that Messrs Cooper - the NPPF or the Local tests set out in the paper. Information in the response there is a local community benefit to this designation in 1027) to rebut the local greenspace claim which needs careful consideration and this location. The wording of the policy states response. applications on Local Greenspace Sites will considered against national policy and guidance.

228

04706 Savills (on 162 - Land should either be left as it is in the UDP proposed (half POS/half Noted – the Policies Map identifies the site to be the behalf of Warde residential policy area), or is wholly allocated for residential development. same as the UDP i.e. Residential Policy Area to the - Aldam Estates) Would deliver 10 - 20 units to help meet housing targets. No site constraints north and Green space to the south. and single ownership. Strongly contest that the eastern part of the site should be allocated as Local Green Space. Conservation Area and Listed Buildings are not a strong enough justification for this site. These issues do not create a blanket ban on development. Similarly, the rural past of the site is not a strong enough reason for to preclude development in what is currently identified as residential policy area. Development could occur whilst protecting the limestone walls around the site, the western part could be retained as open space and this would provide a visual break in the conservation area whilst enabling the western half to be effectively used. Trees to the north would remain. Land in private ownership, not public, no PROW on the site. Allocating this as Local Green Space would hinder ability to bring adjacent farm buildings back into use as desired in the Local Green Space justification. Proposals could be in keeping with the conservation area. Request land remains as per UDP or identified as housing for a sensitively designed scheme. Do not support Local Green Space allocation here.

Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) Q18 - Do you have any comments on the HELAA?

Representation Representation Representation Summary DMBC Response Reference No Name

229

03067 Mr Joseph HELAA as changed substantially and is the worse for it. Noted - no further details provided as to why the Blackham Representation feels the evidence base is 'substantially worse'. HELAA has been updated on an annual basis in line with the Stakeholder Group methodology. 03525 Simon Slatford Site 281 is a deliverable site. Agree with findings in HELAA suitable site with Noted (on behalf of D J no overriding constraints. Silk) 04297 ELG Planning Site No 306 in the Council’s Site Assessment Report, would represent a Noted (On behalf of sustainable urban extension. Rossington Hall Investments) 01263 Barnby Dun Housing targets and divided up village allocations regardless of whether HELAA does not set housing targets or allocations - this with Kirk Sandall there are adequate facilities to accommodate the new influx. Appears to be is a matter for the emerging local plan settlement Parish Council based on a consultant’s report rather than local knowledge strategy and allocations which are informed by other pieces of evidence (e.g. Housing Needs Assessment/ Settlement Audit/ Site Selection Methodology etc). The HELAA has been prepared in house by DMBC using a stakeholder group in line with the guidance and not prepared by Consultants.

05008 Savills (on Site 149 is available but not marketable due to a national policy constraint is Noted - all sites in the December 2016 HELAA where behalf of Philip wholeheartedly incorrect and unjustified and strongly question the councils assessed for marketability using a stakeholder group Lodge) evidence. Full response indicates occupier demand. who specialised in employment/commercial sites and used information available at that time. The site was considered as being difficult to access and dependant on site 227. Any relevant new information will be used to further assess/update site information in relevant evidence base documents as the Local Plan process progresses. 3100 The Planning Site 037 Support. Deliverable within 5 years to include affordable housing. Noted – these are matters for the site selection and Does not encroach on FRZ requiring ET. Would not represent a material methodology and selection process. Environment extension into open countryside. No significant visual or settlement forms.

230

Studios Ltd (on No landscape or ecological value. Increase natural surveillance. No PROW behalf of Barry affected. DN7 has unreasonably disadvantaged selection of other Smith and Peter sustainable allocation choices. Kelson) 02311 Lichfields (on Supports conclusions of HELAA Noted - support welcomed behalf of Hallam land Management) 01937 Lichfields (on Support HELAA assessment of site 436. Noted - support welcomed behalf of Theakston Estates Ltd) 03442 Savills (on Site 101. Considers Site 101 to be dependent on Site 001 to its north which Noted - further consideration of the site through the behalf of is not proposed for allocation. There are no known unresolved ransom or site selection process and methodology document Boulter, tenancy issues that would prevent such an eventuality. Request Site 101 is considered the site to be dependant on site 001 as it is Hackett, Hill and reassessed and considering points given for policy updates and amendments relatively small and isolated from Thorne. Holford) considered suitable.

04164 Peacock and It is considered that the Council’s methodology to reject all sites in Thorne- Noted – these are matters relating to the site selection Smith (on behalf Moorends, which are located in Flood Zone 3, based solely on a lack of methodology and will be considered as part of updating of Gleeson evidence base, is wholly inappropriate. as part of the Publication version of the Local Plan. Regeneration Limited) Site Ref 795 and its capacity of 13 dwellings should be removed from the Councils baseline completions and existing permissions figure of 523 dwellings.

Site Ref: 994 and its capacity of 72 dwellings should be removed from the Council’s baseline ‘Completions and Existing Planning Permissions’ figure of 523 dwellings.

231

Site Ref: 510 and its potential capacity of 25 dwellings should be removed from the Council’s ‘Total new homes proposed to be supported’ figure of 102 and removed as a potential allocation from the Council’s Local Plan (unless further assessments are provided).

Site Ref: 060 and its potential capacity of 180 dwellings should allocated for housing development, as per the reasons set out above, and therefore be added to the Council’s ‘Total new homes proposed to be supported’ figure, amended to 77 with Site Ref: 510 removed, giving a total proposed of 257 new dwellings.

The above will result in the Council’s ‘Total Housing Identified’ figure to be 695 new homes across the plan period and therefore back within a suitable range of the 510-1,075 figures sought by the Council. Even if the Council is minded to continue with its current ‘Total Homes Identified’ figure of 625, the addition of an allocation at Wike Gate Road for 180 dwellings, will increase this figure to 805 total homes - this is still within the Council’s assessed requirement of between 510-1,075 figure. 04888 Graham Dobson 147 should not be developed Noted - the Representation is objecting to the proposed housing site ref 147 at Barnby Dun rather than making any specific comments to the HELAA evidence base. These objections have been considered as part of wider response made by the Representation. 04889 Vanessa Dobson 147 should not be developed Noted - the Representation is objecting to the proposed housing site ref 147 at Barnby Dun rather than making any specific comments to the HELAA evidence base. These objections have been considered as part of wider response made by the Representation.

232

04950 Town- Based on 4 year old call for sites, may have been added to ad-hoc, should be As the Representation notes, the call for sites was Planning.co.uk based on an up to date call for sites taking into account the 2018 NPPF and undertaken in late 2014 but sites have continued to be (on behalf of obligation to allocate 10% of housing on small sites. accepted since then including those submitted as part BBS (Doncaster) of the Draft Policies & Proposed Sites consultation Ltd) September 2018 which post dated revisions to NPPF published in July 2018. It is not the role of HELAA to allocate sites but merely identify a larger pool of potentially suitable and available/achievable sites from which the Local Plan can allocate sufficient sites in line with the housing requirement and in compliance with all other parts of NPPF including the need for 10% of housing requirement on small sites up to 1 hectare either allocated in the plan or on BF Land Register unless it can be demonstrated that this is not possible. 05190 Carter Jonas (on The September 2018 consultation documents clearly supersede the Noted -this is correct. The September 2018 documents behalf of published HELAA and associated update and Economic Development Map take all the evidence base into account and are the Harworth most recent documents in the Local Plan process. Group) 05195 Banks Property Site 872 Sprotbrough is assessed as being suitable (but with national policy Noted - The lead-in times reflect the agreed Ltd constraints), available and deliverable within a 6-10 year period. The only stakeholder group methodology for sites currently national policy constraint is that site is located within the Green Belt. designated as Green Belt and allow for the necessary However, the detailed representations appended to this response timescales for the local plan to be examined, adopted, demonstrate that exceptional circumstances exist to justify changes to planning application worked-up and Green Belt boundaries and that the national policy constraint can be submitted/determined and then a start on site before addressed. Banks Property also believe that the site can be delivered in 0-5 any assumptions for completions being delivered. years rather than 6-10 years. These are averages and there are no phasing policies in the local plan so sites can deliver sooner than this.

233

1017 Peter Cannot rely on Call for sites as it is a developer wish list and not evidence The Call for Sites process was the first stage of the Local Pennington based. 2016 based on 2014 Call For Sites and not reliable. Caveated with Plan preparation process where the Council asked "identification of potential sites…does not imply that the council would landowners and developers to put forward potential necessarily grant permission for development…". 7.2.4. states it was not sites which could be considered for allocation in the possible to be definitive about strategic suitability of sites, some that may Local Plan. It was important to be clear as to the status be considered unsuitable may be in the suitable category. Bradholme is of the document hence why the disclaimer was "suitable with national policy constraints". Comments in Appendix 17 that included. The statement in the HELAA conclusions there are "good transport links. Junction is poor for access. Do we need this which states that there is sufficient land is based on the much land. See south and west comments for site 001...motorway junction findings of the HELAA demonstrating that there are is difficult to access - cannot come of to head west. Needs highway suitable and deliverable/developable sites which have improvements which could be costly". HELAA 17 states there is a sufficient come forward through the Call for Sites process which supply of land to meet employment needs. Why then use agricultural land? can then be considered through the Local Plan process. 05196 Banks Property Site 824 Tickhill is assessed as being suitable (but with national policy Noted - The lead-in times reflect the agreed Ltd constraints), available and deliverable within a 6-10 year period. The only stakeholder group methodology for sites currently national policy constraint is that site is located within the Green Belt. designated as Green Belt and allow for the necessary However, the detailed representations appended to this response timescales for the local plan to be examined, adopted, demonstrate that exceptional circumstances exist to justify changes to planning application worked-up and Green Belt boundaries and that the national policy constraint can be submitted/determined and then a start on site before addressed. Banks Property also believe that the site can be delivered in 0-5 any assumptions for completions being delivered. years rather than 6-10 years. These are averages and there are no phasing policies in the local plan so sites can deliver sooner than this.

Infrastructure Plan Q19 - Do you have any comments on the Infrastructure Plan?

Representation Representation Representation Summary DMBC Response Reference No Name

234

04579 Carol Wileman Doncaster is a good place to live in terms of accessibility. Transport & accessibility are key components in having not only a Some plans have under estimated usage causing mobility successful local economy but also for quality of life. All future growth and issues. development will need to ensure adequate provision of the necessary infrastructure (roads/public transport etc.). The assessment of potential new sites for development includes looking at access and accessibility. 01263 Barnby Dun Little public consultation opportunities. The Local Plan is The 'Sustainability Appraisal' (SA) of the Local Plan includes objectives that with Kirk Sandall not area specific enough in respect of public service include reference to access to services. The relevant objectives are Parish Council requirements (schools, shops, doctors, dentist, highways) numbers 3, 9 and 10. 3 includes 'accessibility to services', 9 focuses on 'Health and well Being' and 10 is about 'Education'. Development proposals (including policies and site allocations) should be sustainable in meeting the objectives of the SA. As part of the consultation we published the outcomes of the Sustainability Appraisal of the proposals undertaken by independent consultant Wood. It is difficult for individual services (schools/healthcare etc.) to respond to increased demand until it is clear that any given scheme is actually going to happen (e.g. new houses). Plus the site proposals in the Local Plan cover a 17 year time frame. Major schemes that having planning permission (e.g. Unity) have additional services (school/retail) factored into the scheme to meets the needs of the increase in population. 04124 Beryl Smith Regarding the proposed Hickleton - Marr bypass. Current The Hickleton/Marr Bypass is identified in the Local Plan not only to proposal is not an adequate solution. improve connectivity and move traffic away from the villages of Hickleton and Marr but also to improve air quality (particularly in Hickleton which has been declared an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA). The Local Plan Policy 13 (draft) states that proposals will be supported which "Improve key routes and connections to the Strategic Road Network and effectively manage traffic and relieve congestion, in particular at the following locations:" , the list of schemes includes (3) Hickleton/Marr Bypass. It is envisaged that this route (along with the A1-A19 Link Road) could form part of the proposed Pan Northern Route between Manchester and the Humber Ports. Further detail on the Hickleton & Marr Bypass can be found in the Doncaster Infrastructure Strategy Annex (1.33). As with all

235

major highways schemes obtaining funding is key. The Council will explore all funding opportunities available.

0744 Hickleton Parish Hickleton & Marr Bypass - The Local Plan does not NOX reduction - Policy 55: Pollution, in the draft Local Plan deals with the Council (2) & (3) identify how and when a bypass will be achieved and potential impacts of pollution from any new development. The impact on completely ignores the fact that Hickleton has been air quality will be considered when determining any planning application. designated an AQMA and now has the worst NOx levels in the whole of Yorkshire. The proposed local plan is Sustainable Travel - The assessment of potential new sites in Local Plan is unsound. Why are there no specific pollution reduction based around sustainability, i.e. sites should not only be suitable for strategies for Hickleton the most heavily polluted site in development but they should be accessible (preferably) by means other Doncaster? than car. The aim being to reduce travel that contributes to pollution wherever possible as NO2 comes primarily from car exhausts. The SCR has Nox reduction - DMBC has signed up to the SCR published (January 2019) its new Transport strategy Consultation Draft. Transport Strategy which requires DMBC to reduce Nox Section 2.3.1 'Air Quality and De-Carbonisation' details the issues regarding below UK statutory levels. What are DMBC’s plans - we Air Quality and proposed initiatives to make improvements (see: can find no specific actions in the Local Plan that will https://sheffieldcityregion.org.uk/explore/transport-strategy-consultation) address this for Hickleton (AQMA) by 2021? one of the targeted outcomes by 2040 is to "Eliminate AQMA's in our City Region" . Coordinated Strategy - In connection with the Dearne Valley regeneration plans we can see very little Pressure on the transport network - Any new development is likely to have recognition from DMBC about a coordinated strategy impacts on the transport network. Highways England are modelling to across administrative boundaries. measure the potential impacts of the proposed new housing and employment sites on the strategic road network are understood as well as Barnsley MBC have built a major new link road between spate modelling of the local highways network being done. M1 Junction 36 which re-joins the A635 at the BMBC and DMBC boundary. This has resulted in an increase in traffic

236

volumes through Hickleton and Marr. The DMBC traffic HS2 - The HS2 route (2b) is passing very close to Hickleton to the East. Also calming measures have achieved very little. The shown on the map are 2 'Main Construction Compounds'(see: continuous traffic noise, damage to properties and https://www.hs2.org.uk/building-hs2/building-the-line/phase-2b/) The chronic impact on peoples quality of life and health Local Plan acknowledges the proposed route and will feature it as land associated with traffic are not addressed in the Local safeguarded for the development on the policies map as directed to do so Plan. by the Secretary of State. The Council submitted an official response to the HS2 consultation in 2017, full details can be found here: Pressure on transport network - The waste transfer http://www.doncaster.gov.uk/services/business-investment/hs2- station and the iPort will be increased pressure on the consultation-our-response. transport network including the A635. Coordinated Strategy - As a member of the Sheffield City Region (SCR) What are DMBC plans in connection with HS2 impact on Doncaster plays an active role in shaping the development and Hickleton - linked to the intention to build several major regeneration of the Region as a whole. Additionally, the Government construction compounds on the Hickleton boundaries. places a legal duty on local planning authorities to cooperate with neighbouring authorities. The 'duty to cooperate' is set out in government The Tour de Yorkshire has come through Hickleton twice legislation. Complying with the regulations is an integral part of the Local and we would like to expand the cycle ways and Plan process and is subject to examination. Doncaster Council is complying footpaths around the village to encourage greater public fully with this requirement and has carried out extensive engagement with participation and tourists. neighbouring authorities. Records of the engagement will form part of the Hickleton & Marr Bypass - Reference to Hickleton By Pass local plan evidence base. On submission to Government of the final Local in Infrastructure plan exec summary but no mention in Plan a 'Duty to Cooperate Statement/ Statement of Common Ground' will Delivery Schedule Main Report - is this an error or be produced. omission ? Plan fails to set out any timescale for development. Should be a priority scheme.

Plan does not factor in impact of Barnsley Local Plan development in the Dearne Valley. 0756 Warmsworth Future growth in infrastructure must be managed Agree. It is important that any development is undertaken in a sustainable Parish Council carefully so local residents are not inconvenienced and manner so as to mange and mitigate any potential negative effects. It may pollution impacts are managed accordingly. be the case that there could be some short term inconveniences caused as development is implemented but it should be the aspiration that whatever the scheme the overriding impacts and effects should be positive for Doncaster.

237

0031 Anglian Water No amendments suggested, information provided in Response is noted. The information provided will be used to inform the Services Ltd respect to the relevant section of the Infrastructure revision of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan. Delivery Plan. 04544 David Nicklin Pp. 15 - what land will be opened up and how will it be The A1-A19 link remains an aspiration in the Local Plan as well as the achieved? Bentley Moor Lane is in a flood zone. Will Sheffield City region Integrated Infrastructure Plan. It is envisaged that the housing and employment areas be implemented around route will improve connectivity and open up the Bentley Moor Lane this, and how will it pass a sequential test. proposed employment site for development. The Local Plan Policy 13 states that proposals will be supported which "Improve key routes and connections to the Strategic Road Network and effectively manage traffic and relieve congestion, in particular at the following locations:" , the list of schemes includes (2) North Doncaster A1-A19 Link. It is envisaged that this route (along with the Hickleton Marr Bypass) will form part of the proposed Pan Northern Route between Manchester and the Humber Ports. Further detail on the scheme can be found in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan main report Appendix 1. Delivery of the scheme will be as a result of partnership between DMBC, Highways England and private sector developers. As at January 2019 funding has yet to be secured. DMBC is currently actively pursuing funding opportunities. Site 441 Bentley Moor Lane - It is concluded (based on the Colliers study) that 25% of the total site area could be delivered within the plan period. This is approximately 12 hectares which equates to approximately 3% of the total employment land requirement. The Draft Infrastructure Plan (published as part of the consultation) has been revised and the reference to '45 Hectares of Employment land' (P15 main Report) refers to Bentley Moor Lane. The reference to Housing Land and '1,200 units' is to be removed as being inaccurate. 03089 Canal and River Generally supportive. Possible amendments to text The Council acknowledges the aspirations of the C&RT that "improvements Trust required to strengthen some text. could be undertaken to improve access to and along our waterways" and provide improved access to the wider green infrastructure network. Any initiatives and schemes that would improve access, connectivity and in turn have health benefits are welcomed. Section 3.7 of the Infrastructure Strategy Annex lists long term investment priorities including 'creating new routes where appropriate and where opportunities arise'. The Council does

238

encourage walking access (see: http://www.doncaster.gov.uk/maps/walking-map) and many of the waterways in Doncaster feature on the interactive 'walking map'. Improvements and better access are always desirable therefore the Council will always seek to liaise with the appropriate bodies (such as the C&RT) to make this happen. 05114 Margaret Marsh Proposal of a bypass to divert traffic and congestion away The Hickleton/Marr Bypass remains an aspiration in the Local Plan not only from Hickleton and Marr but it contains little detail of to improve connectivity and move traffic away from the villages of how and when this will happen. No mention of local Hickleton and Marr but also to improve air quality (particularly in Hickleton walks footpaths or cycle paths or improving access to which has been declared an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA). The existing outdoor facilities in promoting healthy lifestyles. Local Plan Policy 13 (draft) states that proposals will be supported which No mention of provisions to improve air quality. "Improve key routes and connections to the Strategic Road Network and effectively manage traffic and relieve congestion, in particular at the following locations:" , the list of schemes includes (3) Hickleton/Marr Bypass. It is envisaged that this route (along with the A1-A19 Link Road) could form part of the proposed Pan Northern Route between Manchester and the Humber Ports. Further detail on the Hickleton & Marr Bypass can be found in the Doncaster Infrastructure Strategy Annex (1.33). As with all major highways schemes obtaining funding is key. The Council will explore all funding opportunities available. Healthy Lifestyles - see Policy 51 'Health'. Pollution - see Policy 55 'Pollution' - All new development must strike a balance in terms of sustainability. Any negative effects must be quantified and mitigated against. 04121 Roger Picton Volumes of traffic significantly increased over years. The Hickleton/Marr Bypass remains an aspiration in the Local Plan not only Pollution levels/air quality impacts. Noise impacts. to improve connectivity and move traffic away from the villages of Condition of road surfaces deteriorates. (Hickleton) Hickleton and Marr but also to improve air quality (particularly in Hickleton which has been declared an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA). The Local Plan Policy 13 states that proposals will be supported which "Improve key routes and connections to the Strategic Road Network and effectively manage traffic and relieve congestion, in particular at the following locations:" , the list of schemes includes (3) Hickleton/Marr Bypass. It is envisaged that this route (along with the A1-A19 Link Road) could form part of the proposed Pan Northern Route between Manchester

239

and the Humber Ports. Further detail on the Hickleton & Marr Bypass can be found in the Doncaster Infrastructure Strategy Annex (1.33). As with all major highways schemes obtaining funding is key. The Council will explore all funding opportunities available.

03818 Rodney and The Local Plan should preserve Red Hills, Hickleton The Hickleton/Marr Bypass remains an aspiration in the Local Plan not Margaret bypass should be in the Local Plan, how can HS2 be only to improve connectivity and move traffic away from the villages of Goddard imposed and supersede such a detailed enquiry. Hickleton and Marr but also to improve air quality (particularly in Hickleton which has been declared an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA). The Local Plan Policy 13 states that proposals will be supported which "Improve key routes and connections to the Strategic Road Network and effectively manage traffic and relieve congestion, in particular at the following locations:" , the list of schemes includes (3) Hickleton/Marr Bypass. It is envisaged that this route (along with the A1-A19 Link Road) could form part of the proposed Pan Northern Route between Manchester and the Humber Ports. Further detail on the Hickleton & Marr Bypass can be found in the Doncaster Infrastructure Strategy Annex (1.33). As with all major highways schemes obtaining funding is key. The Council will explore all funding opportunities available. HS2 is Government scheme. The Council submitted an official response to the HS2 consultation in 2017, full details can be found here: http://www.doncaster.gov.uk/services/business-investment/hs2- consultation-our-response. The Local Plan acknowledges the proposed route and will feature it as land safeguarded for the development on the policies map as directed to do so by the Secretary of State.

240

03987 Gordon Although a bypass for Hickleton is included in the Local Pollution Levels - Policy 55: Pollution, in the draft Local Plan deals with the Wordsworth Plan. It fails to address costs, feasibility of project, potential impacts of pollution from any new development. The impact on detailed plan for reducing pollution levels, traffic flows or air quality will be considered when determining any planning application. take account of Barnsley Local Plan developments. Sustainable Travel - The assessment of potential new sites in Local Plan is based around sustainability, i.e. sites should not only be suitable for development but they should be accessible (preferably) by means other than car. The aim being to reduce travel that contributes to pollution wherever possible as NO2 comes primarily from car exhausts. The SCR has published (January 2019) its new Transport strategy Consultation Draft. Section 2.3.1 'Air Quality and De-Carbonisation' details the issues regarding Air Quality and proposed initiatives to make improvements (see: https://sheffieldcityregion.org.uk/explore/transport-strategy-consultation) one of the targeted outcomes by 2040 is to "Eliminate AQMA's in our City Region" . 04673 Anne Nicklin Section detailing the A1/A19 link road, route will be The A1-A19 link remains an aspiration in the Local Plan as well as the directed through greenfield areas and terminate within a Sheffield City region Integrated Infrastructure Plan. The Local Plan Policy flood zone. 13 (draft) states that proposals will be supported which "Improve key routes and connections to the Strategic Road Network and effectively manage traffic and relieve congestion, in particular at the following locations:" , the list of schemes includes (2) North Doncaster A1-A19 Link. It is envisaged that this route (along with the Hickleton Marr Bypass) will form part of the proposed Pan Northern Route between Manchester and the Humber Ports. Further detail on the scheme can be found in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (draft) main report Appendix 1. Delivery of the scheme will be as a result of partnership between DMBC, Highways England and private sector developers. As at January 2019 funding has yet to be secured. DMBC is currently actively pursuing funding opportunities.

241

04361 Department for There is a need to ensure that education contributions The 'Sustainability Appraisal' (SA) of the Local Plan includes objectives that Education made by developers are sufficient to deliver additional include reference to access to services. The relevant objectives are school paces. It is noted that Doncaster does not numbers 3, 9 and 10. 3 includes 'accessibility to services', 9 focuses on currently have CIL in place. DfE are interested in 'Health and well Being' and 10 is about 'Education'. Development responding to any update to the IDP or review of proposals (including policies and site allocations) should be sustainable in infrastructure requirements. Please add DfE to the meeting the objectives of the SA. As part of the consultation we published database for future CIL consultations. the outcomes of the Sustainability Appraisal of the proposals that were undertaken by independent consultant Wood. Please see the published documents for greater detail regarding the objectives and the results of the SA appraisal (Link: http://www.doncaster.gov.uk/services/planning/sustainability-appraisal). It is difficult for individual services (schools/healthcare etc.) to respond to increased demand until it is clear that any given scheme is actually going to happen (e.g. new houses). Plus the site proposals in the Local Plan cover a 17 year time frame. Major schemes that have planning permission (e.g. Unity) have additional services (school/retail) factored into the scheme to meets the needs of the increase in population. Policy 66 provides for contributions to be made to education. 05127 Paula Fenton Hickleton and Marr by Pass - Supports aspiration for by The Hickleton/Marr Bypass remains an aspiration in the Local Plan not only pass. Safety - currently dangerous for pedestrians, large to improve connectivity and move traffic away from the villages of vehicles coming through village. Improve health and well- Hickleton and Marr but also to improve air quality (particularly in Hickleton being both physical and emotional which has been declared an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA). The Local Plan Policy 13 states that proposals will be supported which "Improve key routes and connections to the Strategic Road Network and effectively manage traffic and relieve congestion, in particular at the following locations:" , the list of schemes includes (3) Hickleton/Marr Bypass. It is envisaged that this route (along with the A1-A19 Link Road) could form part of the proposed Pan Northern Route between Manchester and the Humber Ports. Further detail on the Hickleton & Marr Bypass can be found in the Doncaster Infrastructure Strategy Annex (1.33). As with all major highways schemes obtaining funding is key. The Council will explore all funding opportunities available.

242

04973 Jeanette Allam Doncaster’s Infrastructure Strategy at 1.5 developing the Proposed Housing Site 929 – site found to perform well through strategy has been prepared to ‘offer greater reassurance Sustainability Appraisal and mitigation identified for any negative effects. to the public that new development will not have an Any new Housing development requires assessment of how it would unreasonable impact on services and facilities’ – reasons impact on local services. Consultation regarding the proposed allocation of put forward for the objection show site 929 would have a new sites includes authorities for education/healthcare/transport. An reasonable impact on services and facilities. audit has also been taken at settlement level to gauge the level of existing services and to help decide if new development can be supported. 0308/ 02003/ J10 Planning (on Infrastructure Strategy - The A1-A19 link should be a The A1-A19 link remains an aspiration in the Local Plan as well as the 03599/ 03600/ behalf of priority it could unlock a lot more new homes and Sheffield City region Integrated Infrastructure Plan. The Local Plan Policy 03601/ 03602/ Brodsworth employment land than stated. Would urge Authority to 13 (draft) states that proposals will be supported which "Improve key 03603/ 03752/ Estate) re-consider its position on delaying the A1-A19 link routes and connections to the Strategic Road Network and effectively 03753/ 03754/ scheme in favour of a post 2032 Pan Northern scheme. manage traffic and relieve congestion, in particular at the following 03755/ 03756/ locations:" , the list of schemes includes (2) North Doncaster A1-A19 Link. 03756 It is envisaged that this route (along with the Hickleton Marr Bypass) will form part of the proposed Pan Northern Route between Manchester and the Humber Ports. Further detail on the scheme can be found in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (draft) main report Appendix 1. Delivery of the scheme will be as a result of partnership between DMBC, Highways England and private sector developers. As at January 2019 funding has yet to be secured. DMBC is currently actively pursuing funding opportunities. 04863 Colin Airey There is no mention of how thought has been given to Roads - Studies are currently being undertaken to 'model' and evaluate the how local roads, schools and medical facilities of Cantley, potential impacts of proposed developments on the road network. This Bessacarr and Branton are going to cope with the includes the more strategic impact i.e. on the Motorway network and additional demand of 500 – 1000 residents. secondly at a more local level highway network. This modelling will identify areas of concern and therefore possible solutions can be identified. Services - The 'Sustainability Appraisal' (SA) of the Local Plan includes objectives that include reference to access to services. The relevant objectives are numbers 3, 9 and 10. 3 includes 'accessibility to services', 9 focuses on 'Health and well Being' and 10 is about 'Education'. Development proposals (including policies and site allocations) should be sustainable and meet the objectives of the SA. As part of the consultation we published the outcomes of the Sustainability Appraisal of the proposals undertaken by independent consultant Wood. Please see the published

243

documents for greater detail regarding the objectives and the results of the SA appraisal (Link: http://www.doncaster.gov.uk/services/planning/sustainability-appraisal). Policy 66 provides for contributions to be made towards infrastructure as a result of pressures from new development, including highways, schools etc 03351 (DMBC) Public Annex 4 - Health and social care - 4.1. needs revising as Comments noted – health chapter of the Infrastructure Plan will be Health data is out of date; health section - borough should be revisited and updated accordingly before being republished at Publication designed to improve health and wellbeing, not just stage. focussing on when people are ill, but preventing illness in the first place. Should encourage active travel. Should support public transport shift - should be safe, affordable and accessible. Needs to be more focus on how spatial planning can influence health and wellbeing. More focus on preventing illness, i.e. through open space etc. Public health should run through all polices. 03672 Doncaster Impact on existing health services needs to be borne in The 'Sustainability Appraisal' (SA) of the Local Plan includes objectives that Clinical mind. Unity project does not mention potential impact include reference to access to services. The relevant objectives are Commissioning on primary medical services already under extreme numbers 3, 9 and 10. 3 includes 'accessibility to services', 9 focuses on Group pressure. A practice in Dunsville has had to close to new 'Health and well Being' and 10 is about 'Education'. In theory development applications to due pressure of new patients. Thorne also proposals (including policies and site allocations) should be sustainable and under pressure. Rossington also an area of development, head in right direction in meeting the objectives of the SA. As part of the but a feasibility study of primary care is being undertaken consultation we published the outcomes of the Sustainability Appraisal of here. In Mexborough, GPs are looking to 3rd parties to the proposals that were undertaken by independent consultant Wood. improve premises. Please see the published documents for greater detail regarding the objectives and the results of the SA appraisal (Link: http://www.doncaster.gov.uk/services/planning/sustainability-appraisal). Of course it must be remembered that it is difficult for individual services (schools/healthcare etc.) to respond to increased demand until it is clear that any given scheme is actually going to happen (e.g. new houses). Plus the site proposals in the Local Plan cover a 17 year time frame. Major schemes that have planning permission (e.g. Unity) have additional services (school/retail) factored into the scheme to meets the needs of the increase in population.

244

04013 The Joint Rural Do not believe the Local Plan has adequately addressed The 'Sustainability Appraisal' (SA) of the Local Plan includes objectives that Parishes the impact of all new population proposed on services. include reference to access to services. The relevant objectives are Need to confidently show how this will be dealt with to numbers 3, 9 and 10. 3 includes 'accessibility to services', 9 focuses on be 'robust'. 'Health and well Being' and 10 is about 'Education'. Development proposals (including policies and site allocations) should be sustainable and head in right direction in meeting the objectives of the SA. As part of the consultation we published the outcomes of the Sustainability Appraisal of the proposals that were undertaken by independent consultant Wood. Please see the published documents for greater detail regarding the objectives and the results of the SA appraisal (Link: http://www.doncaster.gov.uk/services/planning/sustainability-appraisal). Of course it must be remembered that it is difficult for individual services (schools/healthcare etc.) to respond to increased demand until it is clear that any given scheme is actually going to happen (e.g. new houses). Plus the site proposals in the Local Plan cover a 17 year time frame. Major schemes that having planning permission (e.g. Unity) have additional services (school/retail) factored into the scheme to meets the needs of the increase in population.

245

04496 Severn Trent Figure 19: indicates that Severn Trent water supply Response includes several comments and suggested changes required to potable water to an area east of the Doncaster Robin update the Infrastructure Delivery Plan. These are acknowledged and the Hood Airport. This is not correct, Severn Trent only IDP will be updated in accordance with the latest information supplied. provide water to a small area of the District, this area covers the area to the west of Bawtry including approximately 50% of Bawtry’s build up area.

Paragraph 8.16 refers to Severn Trent published Water Resource Management Plan (WRMP) 14, this has now been superseded by our WRMP 19.

https://www.severntrent.com/about-us/future- plans/water-resource-management/wrmp-19-

documents/ - key issue of some water supplied in WRMP19 is environmental sustainability of some supplies. Severn Trent are looking for alternative supplies and trying to reduce abstraction of unsustainable sources and work towards Water Framework Objectives.

Para 8.18 - states that Anglian Water Serve the Parishes of Auckley, Austerfield, Finningley and Blaxton. However Seven Trent have assets within these parishes. Anglian do undertake some sewerage utility services within these area, but they do not cover the whole area, it is important that Severn Trent are still consulted to determine the impact on our network within these areas. 04888 Graham Dobson 147 should not be developed Noted – this is a matter for the site selection methodology 04889 Vanessa Dobson 147 should not be developed Noted – this is a matter for the site selection methodology

246

04979 Hickleton The Local Plan does not identify how and when a bypass NOX reduction - Policy 55: Pollution, in the draft Local Plan deals with the Bypass Action will be achieved and completely ignores the fact that potential impacts of pollution from any new development. The impact on Group Hickleton has been designated an AQMA and now has air quality will be considered when determining any planning application. the worst NOx levels in the whole of Yorkshire. The Sustainable Travel - The assessment of potential new sites in Local Plan is proposed local plan is unsound. Why are there no specific based around sustainability, i.e. sites should not only be suitable for pollution reduction strategies for Hickleton the most development but they should be accessible (preferably) by means other heavily polluted site in Doncaster? than car. The aim being to reduce travel that contributes to pollution wherever possible as NO2 comes primarily from car exhausts. The SCR has DMBC has signed up to the SCR Transport Strategy which published (January 2019) its new Transport strategy Consultation Draft. requires DMBC to reduce Nox below UK statutory levels. Section 2.3.1 'Air Quality and De-Carbonisation' details the issues regarding What are DMBC plans - we can find no specific actions in Air Quality and proposed initiatives to make improvements (see: the Local Plan that will address this for Hickleton (AQMA) https://sheffieldcityregion.org.uk/explore/transport-strategy-consultation) by 2021? In connection with the Dearne Valley one of the targeted outcomes by 2040 is to "Eliminate AQMA's in our City regeneration plans we can see very little recognition from Region" . DMBC about a coordinated strategy across administrative Pressure on the transport network - Any new development is likely to boundaries. have impacts on the transport network. Studies are currently being undertaken to 'model' and evaluate the potential impacts of proposed Barnsley MBC have built a major new link road between developments on the road network. This includes the more strategic M1 Junction 36 which re-joins the A635 at the BMBC and impact i.e. on the Motorway network and secondly at a more local level DMBC boundary. This has resulted in an increase in traffic highway network. It is intended that this modelling will identify areas of volumes through Hickleton and Marr. The DMBC traffic concern and therefore possible solutions can be identified calming measures have achieved very little. The HS2 - The HS2 route (2b) is passing very close to Hickleton to the East. Also continuous traffic noise, damage to properties and shown on the map are 2 'Main Construction Compounds'(see: chronic impact on peoples quality of life and health https://www.hs2.org.uk/building-hs2/building-the-line/phase-2b/) The associated with traffic are not addressed in the Local Local Plan acknowledges the proposed route and will feature it as land Plan. safeguarded for the development on the policies map as directed by the Secretary of State. The Council submitted an official response to the HS2 The waste transfer station and the iPort will be increased consultation in 2017, full details can be found here: pressure on the transport network including the A635. http://www.doncaster.gov.uk/services/business-investment/hs2- consultation-our-response. What are DMBC plans in connection with HS2 impact on Coordinated Strategy - As a member of the Sheffield City Region (SCR) Hickleton - linked to the intention to build several major Doncaster plays an active role in shaping the development and construction compounds on the Hickleton boundaries. regeneration of the Region as a whole. Additionally, the Government

247

places a legal duty on local planning authorities to cooperate with The Tour de Yorkshire has come through Hickleton twice neighbouring authorities. The 'duty to cooperate' is set out in government and we would like to expand the cycle ways and legislation. Complying with the regulations is an integral part of the Local footpaths around the village to encourage greater public Plan process and is subject to examination. Doncaster Council is complying participation and tourists. fully with this requirement and has carried out extensive engagement with neighbouring authorities. Records of the engagement will form part of the local plan evidence base. On submission to Government of the final Local Plan a 'Duty to Cooperate Statement/Statement of Common Ground' will be produced. 05190 Carter Jonas (on The Doncaster Transport Strategy proposes a Agree that site 160 is well placed for connectivity to the Motorway behalf of comprehensive suite of significant highway interventions. network. The Great Yorkshire Way may benefit connectivity to this site as Harworth The intervention works to the M18 include measures at suggested but overall without doubt it has significantly improved the Group) Junction 5 which is the primary route between the site connectivity of the SE of the Borough including major sites at Iport, DSA and the wider SRN. Traffic forecasts suggest that the M18 and Balby Carr. may carry around 90-100% of goods vehicles between the site and their destinations. The connectivity of the site has been enhanced by the recent completion of the Great Yorkshire Way Ref Name of Additional Comment Officer Response contributor

04521 Suzanne Are there going to be more schools and doctors surgeries Impact on services: A growing population undoubtedly means increased Allinson to accommodate growing population associated to pressure on resources. Service providers (Education, Health etc.) have Housing numbers. been included as part of the consultation regarding new proposed site allocations and we will look very carefully at those responses to ensure that any development proposals (e.g. new houses) have the required level of access to services. The 'Sustainability Appraisal' (SA) of the Local Plan includes objectives that include reference to access to services. The relevant objectives are numbers 3, 9 and 10. 3 includes 'accessibility to services', 9 focuses on 'Health and well Being' and 10 is about 'Education'.

248

In theory development proposals (including policies and site allocations) should be sustainable and meet the objectives of the SA. As part of the consultation the we published the outcomes of the Sustainability Appraisal of the proposals undertaken by independent consultant Wood. Please see the published documents for greater detail regarding the objectives and the results of the SA appraisal (Link: http://www.doncaster.gov.uk/services/planning/sustainability-appraisal). It is difficult for individual services (schools/healthcare etc.) to respond to increased demand until it is clear that any given scheme in a particular area is actually going to happen (e.g. new houses). Plus the site proposals in the Local Plan cover a 17 year time frame. Major schemes that have planning permission (e.g. Unity) have additional services (school/retail) factored into the scheme to meets the needs of the increase in population. 0739 Cadeby Parish There are concerns about the increase of traffic resulting Roads - Studies are currently being undertaken to 'model' and evaluate the Meeting from local developments, the impacts need to be potential impacts of proposed developments on the road network. This mitigated includes the more strategic impact i.e. on the Motorway network and secondly at a more local level highway network. It is intended that this modelling will identify areas on concern and therefore possible solutions can be identified. 05162 Martin Pick Accept need for housing but should not at the expense of Roads - Studies are currently being undertaken to 'model' and evaluate the established rural communities. High Melton will have to potential impacts of proposed developments on the road network. This carry the cost of unregulated traffic usage. Support includes the more strategic impact i.e. on the Motorway network and bypass and costs should be included in Local Plan. secondly at a more local level highway network. It is intended that this modelling will identify areas on concern and therefore possible solutions can be identified. Have assumed that references to a 'bypass' refer to: The Hickleton/Marr Bypass remains an aspiration in the Local Plan not only to improve connectivity and move traffic away from the villages of Hickleton and Marr but also to improve air quality (particularly in Hickleton which has been declared an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA). The Local Plan Policy 13 (draft) states that proposals will be supported which "Improve key routes and connections to the Strategic Road Network and effectively manage traffic and relieve congestion, in particular at the following locations:" , the list of schemes includes (3) Hickleton/Marr

249

Bypass. It is envisaged that this route (along with the A1-A19 Link Road) could form part of the proposed Pan Northern Route between Manchester and the Humber Ports. Further detail on the Hickleton & Marr Bypass can be found in the Doncaster Infrastructure Strategy Annex (1.33). As with all major highways schemes obtaining funding is key. The Council will explore all funding opportunities available. 04957 Rachel Brooke- Would like to see new sporting facilities, such as a new Thank you for your suggestions regarding a new swimming pool, ice rink James swimming pool to replace St James, a proper ice rink to and climbing wall. The Council is committed to improving the health and prevent people having to go to Sheffield and an indoor well being of Doncaster residents and access to sporting facilities can play climbing wall. a key role. St James swimming pool: Information regarding the status of the building can be found here: https://wearedoncaster.co.uk/news/structural-investigation-to-take-place- on-former-st-james-baths/. Cycle Track - a new cycle track is proposed near to The Dome. Cycling is recognised as an excellent way of improving fitness for people of all ages. 33% of Doncaster residents get less than 30 minutes exercise a week. That inactivity is estimated to have cost the NHS in Doncaster £5 million a year. Therefore the benefits of a new cycle track are clear. 04489 Doncaster and The issue for DBTH is not one of location but one of It is important at this stage to make everyone aware of the forecast level Bassetlaw capacity and funding. Significant increases in population of population growth and what that means in terms of new homes and Hospitals (1) can move the Trust from dealing with small step costs to their distribution across Doncaster. The assessment of potential new sites full cost which in some cases could require increased in the Local Plan when looking at 'services' (schools, health etc) deals staffing demands which are hard to meet in the short primarily with access. I.e. will any new development (e.g. house/people) term as we only receive income when the patients arrive have adequate access to services. It is important to realise that the which makes building up to what's needed difficult. i.e. forecast growth is for a 17 year period. Service provider requirements paediatrics and maternity teams. needed to meeting the new demand can be put in place in tandem with new development. 05129 IGas Energy PLC Provides a number of policy based technical comments. The comments are all Policy based. No comments regarding the Infrastructure Delivery Plan.

250

01378 Councillor There is no detail of consideration for additional facilities Impact on services: A growing population Undoubtedly means increased Richard Jones to support the community (Auckley/Blaxton) – Housing, pressure on resources. It is important at this stage to make everyone Doctors, and Social services. aware of the forecast level of population growth and what that means in terms of new homes and their distribution across Doncaster. Service providers (Education, Health etc.) have been included as part of the consultation regarding new proposed site allocations and we will look very carefully at those responses to ensure that any development proposals (e.g. new houses) have the required level of access to services. The 'Sustainability Appraisal' (SA) of the Local Plan includes objectives that include reference to access to services. The relevant objectives are numbers 3, 9 and 10. 3 includes 'accessibility to services', 9 focuses on 'Health and well Being' and 10 is about 'Education'. In theory development proposals (including policies and site allocations) will be sustainable and meet the objectives of the SA. As part of the consultation we published the outcomes of the Sustainability Appraisal of the proposals undertaken by independent consultant Wood. Please see the published documents for greater detail regarding the objectives and the results of the SA (Link: http://www.doncaster.gov.uk/services/planning/sustainability-appraisal). Of course it must be remembered that it is difficult for individual services (schools/healthcare etc.) to respond to increased demand until it is clear that any given scheme in a particular area is actually going to happen (e.g. new houses). Plus, the site proposals in the Local Plan cover a 17 year time frame. Major schemes that have planning permission (e.g. Unity) have additional services (school/retail) factored into the scheme to meets the needs of the increase in population. 04826 Lynnet Howard Issues with increased traffic and pressure on The Hickleton/Marr Bypass remains an aspiration in the Local Plan not only infrastructure comments relating to the area around to improve connectivity and move traffic away from the villages of Hickleton and Marr. The Local Plan does not include or Hickleton and Marr but also to improve air quality (particularly in Hickleton identify how and when a bypass will be achieved and which has been declared an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA). The ignores that Hickleton, is a conservation village, has been Local Plan Policy 13 (draft) states that proposals will be supported which designated an AQMA. Traffic calming hasn’t worked. "Improve key routes and connections to the Strategic Road Network and DMBC as a partner in the Sheffield City Region has signed effectively manage traffic and relieve congestion, in particular at the up to reduce Nox to below statutory levels in the shortest following locations:" , the list of schemes includes (3) Hickleton/Marr

251 possible time. Bypass. It is envisaged that this route (along with the A1-A19 Link Road) DMBC (in Joint Waste Plan) indicated an intention to could form part of the proposed Pan Northern Route between Manchester build a waste transfer station at Kirk Sandal and send and the Humber Ports. Further detail on the Hickleton & Marr Bypass can recycling to Manver Rd. This will increase HGV traffic. be found in the Doncaster Infrastructure Strategy Annex (1.33). As with all HS2 will build several major construction compounds on major highways schemes obtaining funding is key. The Council will the Hickleton boundaries increasing construction traffic. explore all funding opportunities available. Pollution Levels - Policy 55: What are DMBC plans in connection with HS2 impact on Pollution, in the draft Local Plan deals with the potential impacts of Hickleton? pollution from any new development. The impact on air quality will be Suggests a weight restriction during the hours of 20:00 – considered when determining any planning application. Sustainable 06:30 (to aid sleep and help reduce pollution levels). A Travel. The assessment of potential new sites in Local Plan is based around complete ban on HGV’s using the A635 through Hickleton sustainability, i.e. sites should not only be suitable for development but forcing them to use the A6195 or A6201? These roads they should be accessible (preferably) by means other than car. The aim were built to link all the developments to the M1 and A1. being to reduce travel that contributes to pollution wherever possible as Speed cameras be erected enforcing the 30 MPH speed NO2 comes primarily from car exhausts. The SCR has published (January limit (the income generated could finance the bypass). 2019) its new Transport strategy Consultation Draft. Section 2.3.1 'Air Resurface the road to a non-slip motorway standard Quality and De-Carbonisation' details the issues regarding Air Quality and instead of the patched up uneven surface it is at present. proposed initiatives to make improvements (see: https://sheffieldcityregion.org.uk/explore/transport-strategy-consultation) one of the targeted outcomes by 2040 is to "Eliminate AQMA's in our City Region" . Increased traffic - Studies are currently being undertaken to 'model' and evaluate the potential impacts of proposed developments on the road network. This includes the more strategic impact i.e. on the Motorway network and secondly at a more local level highway network. It is intended that this modelling will identify areas on concern and therefore possible solutions can be identified. HS2 - The HS2 route (2b) is (as currently drawn) passing very close to Hickleton to the East. Also shown on the map are 2 'Main Construction Compounds'(see: https://www.hs2.org.uk/building-hs2/building-the-line/phase-2b/) The Local Plan acknowledges the proposed route and will feature it as land safeguarded for the development on the proposals map. The Council submitted an official response to the HS2 consultation in 2017, full details can be found here: http://www.doncaster.gov.uk/services/business- investment/hs2-consultation-our-response.

252

04665 Primary Care New large residential developments (at planning Impact on services: A growing population Undoubtedly means increased Doncaster Ltd application stage) should be required to provide pressure on resources. It is important at this stage to make everyone additional medical centres and community facilities to aware of the forecast level of population growth and what that means in address increased demand. This requirement should also terms of new homes and their distribution across Doncaster. Service be added in to policy, including a requirement to link to providers (Education, Health etc.) have been included as part of the local health care commissioners to allow for full impact consultation regarding new proposed site allocations and we will look very assessments to be done before sites being developed. carefully at those responses to ensure that any development proposals (e.g. new houses) have the required level of access to services. The 'Sustainability Appraisal' (SA) of the Local Plan includes objectives that include reference to access to services. The relevant objectives are numbers 3, 9 and 10. 3 includes 'accessibility to services', 9 focuses on 'Health and well Being' and 10 is about 'Education'. In theory development proposals (including policies and site allocations)will be sustainable and meet the objectives of the SA. As part of the consultation we published the outcomes of the Sustainability Appraisal of the proposals undertaken by independent consultant Wood. Please see the published documents for greater detail regarding the objectives and the results of the SA appraisal (Link: http://www.doncaster.gov.uk/services/planning/sustainability- appraisal). Of course it must be remembered that it is difficult for individual services (schools/healthcare etc.) to respond to increased demand until it is clear that any given scheme in a particular area is actually going to happen (e.g. new houses). Plus, the site proposals in the Local Plan cover a 17 year time frame. Major schemes that having planning permission (e.g. Unity) have additional services (school/retail) factored into the scheme to meets the needs of the increase in population. 04913 Gillian Johnson Acknowledgment that more houses means more council Roads - Studies are currently being undertaken to 'model' and evaluate the tax but this is not reflected with investment to potential impacts of proposed developments on the road network. This services/infrastructure/amenities. includes the more strategic impact i.e. on the Motorway network and secondly at a more local level highway network. It is intended that this modelling will identify areas on concern and therefore possible solutions can be identified. Impact on services: A growing population Undoubtedly means increased pressure on resources. It is important at this stage to make everyone aware of the forecast level of population growth and what

253 that means in terms of new homes and their distribution across Doncaster. Service providers (Education, Health etc.) have been included as part of the consultation regarding new proposed site allocations and we will look very carefully at those responses to ensure that any development proposals (e.g. new houses) have the required level of access to services. The 'Sustainability Appraisal' (SA) of the Local Plan includes objectives that include reference to access to services. The relevant objectives are numbers 3, 9 and 10. 3 includes 'accessibility to services', 9 focuses on 'Health and well Being' and 10 is about 'Education'. In theory development proposals (including policies and site allocations)will be sustainable and meet the objectives of the SA. As part of the consultation we published the outcomes of the Sustainability Appraisal of the proposals undertaken by independent consultant Wood. Please see the published documents for greater detail regarding the objectives and the results of the SA appraisal (Link: http://www.doncaster.gov.uk/services/planning/sustainability- appraisal). Of course it must be remembered that it is difficult for individual services (schools/healthcare etc.) to respond to increased demand until it is clear that any given scheme in a particular area is actually going to happen (e.g. new houses). Plus, the site proposals in the Local Plan cover a 17 year time frame. Major schemes that having planning permission (e.g. Unity) have additional services (school/retail) factored into the scheme to meets the needs of the increase in population. Brown Field sites. Ideally all new development would be on BF sites. Wherever possible we would prioritise BF sites for new development. However, due to the forecast level of growth it has not been possible to identify solely BF sites in the right locations for the required distribution of new development across the borough. The distribution of growth across the Borough as carefully considered and the various options were previously consulted on. The current form of distribution focussing on the main urban area and larger settlements was the favoured option arising from that consultation. Quality of life: A key theme of the 'Vision' of the Local Plan is that Doncaster should be "a thriving place to learn, work, live and care". The ultimate goal must be to improve peoples quality of life.

254

05039 Martin Elliot Comments about need for bypass for Hickleton and Marr. The Hickleton/Marr Bypass remains an aspiration in the Local Plan not only to improve connectivity and move traffic away from the villages of Hickleton and Marr but also to improve air quality (particularly in Hickleton which has been declared an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA). The Local Plan Policy 13 (draft) states that proposals will be supported which "Improve key routes and connections to the Strategic Road Network and effectively manage traffic and relieve congestion, in particular at the following locations:" , the list of schemes includes (3) Hickleton/Marr Bypass. It is envisaged that this route (along with the A1-A19 Link Road) could form part of the proposed Pan Northern Route between Manchester and the Humber Ports. Further detail on the Hickleton & Marr Bypass can be found in the Doncaster Infrastructure Strategy Annex (1.33). As with all major highways schemes obtaining funding is key. The Council will explore all funding opportunities available.

255

Local Plan Viability Testing Q20 – Do you have any comments on the Local Plan Viability Testing Report?

Representation Representation Representation Summary DMBC Response Reference Name

03067 Mr Joseph Garbage. Noted - the evidence base has been prepared by the Blackham District Valuer in line with the best practice guidance and informed by a stakeholder group. Further work has been undertaken to update the evidence in line with changes to national policy/guidance in 2018 and to consider market changes since the study was prepared in 2016. 04579 Carol Wileman You will make the viability test fit your requirements. Noted - the evidence base has been prepared by the District Valuer in line with the best practice guidance and informed by a stakeholder group. Further work has been undertaken to update the evidence in line with changes to national policy/guidance in 2018 and to consider market changes since the study was prepared in 2016. 01263 Barnby Dun More public consultation should have been done. Noted - the Draft Policies & Proposed Sites with Kirk consultation was the first opportunity for comments Sandall Parish to be provided on this part of the evidence base. The Council evidence base has been prepared by the District Valuer in line with the best practice guidance and informed by a stakeholder group. Further work has been undertaken to update the evidence in line with changes to national policy/guidance in 2018 and to consider market changes since the study was prepared in 2016. This also allows for any changes to be considered that have stemmed from the recent consultation.

256

04544 David Nicklin High quality apartments would lead to the delivery of the most amounts of Noted - the local plan will need to ensure an affordable housing. appropriate mix of housing sites and house types are provided/delivered as well as ensuring our affordable housing needs are addressed. Not all sites will be suitable for higher density apartment schemes however. 03782 Will Bedford Viability testing does not include services (schools, doctors etc.) The local plan allows for contributions towards all infrastructure required that is necessary and as a direct result of new development including for example schools; the evidence assumed a contribution towards new school places for all housing schemes above 50+ dwellings. Further work has been undertaken to update the evidence in line with changes to national policy/guidance in 2018 and to consider market changes since the study was prepared in 2016.

05201/ 05202 Turley (on Concerns that the DLPVT is outdated and inappropriate for use for a plan Noted – these comments have been sent directly to behalf of the expected to be adopted in 2019. Plan is timetabled to be submitted after 24 Jan the Council’s consultants for consideration as part of Peel Group) 2019 and will therefore fall under the 2018 NPPF remit. Paragraphs referenced the updated viability testing evidence base – see the are: 2019 CP Viability report for a more detailed response to these comments. Para 31 – “using relevant and up-to-date evidence… taking into account relevant market signals.”

Para 34 – “Such policies should not undermine the deliverability of the plan.”

PPG Para 002 – “Drafting of plan policies should be iterative and informed by engagement with developers, landowners, and infrastructure and affordable

257 housing providers.”

Use of viability to determine policies are realistic.

PPG Para 005 – “Important to consider the specific circumstances of strategic sites. Can undertake site specific viability assessment for sites that are critical (large sites, significant proportion of planned supply, priority regeneration areas).”

Because of this, the DLPVT evidence falls substantially short of the requirements for viability within the 2018 NPPF. Deficiencies in DLPVT risk compromising the deliverability of emerging Local Plan. Reasons for this are listed below.

Transparency and Accountability

Concerns with the underpinning evidence informing the appraisal results are not transparently presented for stakeholder consultation - reflecting a 'black box' methodology which the LGA confirm should be avoided and is inconsistent with transparency set out in 2018 NPPF and PPG. Result of lack of detailed appraisal outputs within the DLPVT is that conclusions by DVS cannot be interrogated by stakeholders.

Technical Deficiencies

Site types adopted in DLPVT do not include a 200 unit scheme, doing so would be appropriate to reflect a national house builder site.

No site specific strategic testing is provided – in line with 2018 NPPF and PPG is essential that the viability of proposed strategic site allocations are viability tested.

Gross to net Ratio - There is also no site specific strategic testing - it is essential that the viability of proposed strategic sites be viability tested. A gross: net site

258 ratio of 75% is proposed for sites greater than 5 hectares - a greater deduction will be required for strategic site assessments.

Site density - An average unit size of 92.9 sq. m is adopted within DLPVT, any policies impacting upon unit sizes should be taken into account.

Sales Values - Average residential sales values have increased by 2.9% since the DLPVT highlighting it does not meet current market conditions.

Affordable Housing Transfer Values - Values adopted are higher than Peel’s understanding of achievable levels. DVS' assessment of affordable housing values must be supported by evidence by Registered providers active in local market to be consistent with 2018 PPG.

Assumptions based on draft policies - Draft policies have evolved since the DLPVT so the results are not consistent with current policies. Not clear if DLPVT incorporates various policy costs on a consistent basis to incorporate updated policy costs on viability.

Basic Build Costs - Use of published RICS BCIS data is regarded as appropriate. However, lack of clarity in respect of the RICS BCIS basis utilised by DVS that is inappropriate. DVS regard lower quartile figures as more appropriate due to info received by DPP2; larger developments must be clarified by DVS, through feedback, Homes England did not consider DVS had clearance to use DPP2 data for purpose in DLPVT given that it would not form an appropriate dataset or publicly available. Further research required by DVS and DMBC to establish the appropriateness of use of RICS BCIS lower Quartile data.

Construction costs have increased by 14.65% since viability report. When considering the lower uplift in residential sales values it would be rational to conclude that an update to DLPVT will produce lower levels of viability.

Externals/Infrastructure - No costs appear to be included for the provision of

259

garages within residential appraisals. Larger strategic sites would be expected to incur significant costs associated with the delivery of enabling infrastructure works, this would site outside standard costs associated with plot externals – these costs are not presented within the DLPVT.

Professional fees - The 6% allowance adopted for incurring of pre/post professional fees on residential developments of 20+ dwellings should be increased to 8% for the purposes of viability testing. For larger, more complex sites, viability testing should be conducted with a 10% rate of professional fees.

Profit - The profit equating to 18.5% proposed for market value/starter homes should be increase to 20%. This is consistent with PPG 2018.

Threshold land values - The threshold land values used are well below minimum reasonable land owner expectations. Rational conclusion that a significantly higher land value will be generated by the higher achievable sales values when compared to lower achievable sales values. DLPVT fails to recognise this.

No local land transaction evidence provided, meaning DLPVT fails to take account of market signals. This would be essential to ensure compliance with PPG 2018.

Phasing and build out rates - Site specific delivery trajectory modelling will be required to support the main assumptions of strategic sites within an update of the DLPVT.

Non residential - No evidence is provided within the DLPVT to support main assumptions in respect to a wide-range off non-residential developments. Currently not possible to scrutinise or assess the results of non-residential viability testing. 05190 Carter Jonas No comments and reserves its position Noted (on behalf of

260

Harworth Group) 05195/ 05196 Banks Property The report was completed in 2016 and predates the updated National Planning Noted - the evidence base has been prepared by the Ltd Policy Framework and therefore doesn’t reflect recently updated national District Valuer in line with the best practice guidance planning policy. and informed by a stakeholder group. Further work has been undertaken to update the evidence in line Viability testing at a local plan level has to use a number of assumptions and can with changes to national policy/guidance in 2018 only provide an overview. It is only at the planning application stage that details and to consider market changes since the study was regarding number of units, housing mix and developer contributions are known prepared in 2016. Changes to national that a full comprehensive assessment of viability can be undertaken. policy/guidance in 2018 make clear that viability should be tested at plan-making stage and once policies have been tested should be assumed to be viable for the majority of proposals at planning application stage with site specific appraisals being the exception rather than the norm.

261

Mineral Requirements

Q21 - Do you have any comments on the Minerals requirements evidence?

Representation Representation Representation Summary DMBC Response Reference No Name

04579 Carol Wileman Have we got any left thought they had all been sold off. comment noted 0003 Rotherham Mineral Safeguarding. Supports consistent cross boundary approach comment noted MBC between 2 authorities. 03133 Sibelco UK Ltd Minerals Requirements Methodology report (May 2018). See Comment noted. Regarding HELAA methodology. The comments in response to Q5 site is isolated from the adjacent settlement as does not abut the settlement. However site 237 (the whole site) is not deemed to be isolated. 0746 Marr Parish It is vital to assess the value of minerals before any development takes Comment noted. With regard to homes being developed Council place and the impact on environment, landscape and local near potential mineral sites. Proposed housing communities. No homes should be developed near potential Mineral allocations will be removed from the mineral sites which may hamper or prevent extraction. safeguarding areas in the Local Plan and the 2018 NPPF (para. 182) states developers will be required to have Extremely concerned that the local plan process seems to prioritise the regard to the 'agent of change principle' and provide demands and requirements of Developers and Landowners resulting in suitable mitigation prior to development completion. a plan driven by the commercial aspirations of private organisations and not by the residents of Doncaster. We further believe, if the right balance is not achieved, then the resulting Plan cannot be considered robust nor in the best interest of the Borough nor its residents. 05124 Cuadrilla We consider that aspects of Draft Policy 65 are not consistent with the Comment noted. Amendments made and the policy now hydrocarbons evidence base document (particularly with respect to states applications will be determined in line with Section 10 – Planning Implications and Mitigation and Section 11 – national policy, guidance and policies within the Local Summary/Conclusion); the hydrocarbons evidence base document Plan. could be used more effectively to better inform the content of Draft Policy 65.

262

05170 North There are no mineral or waste sites proposed near the North Yorkshire comment noted. Yorkshire County Council boundary and so therefore we have no comments to County Council make in relation to sites. - Strategic Policy and Economic Growth 05058 Felsham Extraction of CBM and shale gas will be incremental and involve more Comment noted. Policy amended and the policy now Planning and than one exploration and production site. Due to advanced drilling states applications will be determined in line with Development techniques, these sites can be up to 1km apart. Exploration and national policy, guidance and policies within the Local (on behalf of development rights granted through a PEDL create land use rights Plan. NPPF 2018 (para 180) requires cumulative impacts INEOS across the licence area, subject to obtaining necessary site specific to be considered. If impacts are unavoidable or cannot Upstream consents. Safeguarding is important because rights create a land use be addressed, the number of wells within a PEDL will Limited) (1) consideration that may be a material factor in assessing other have to be limited. and (2) land use proposals in the area.

04682 Iain Hill Opposed to plans to identify areas for test drilling for shale gas Comments noted. The issues in relation to test drilling resources. raised in this response are outside the remit of the Local Plan. The Local Plan contains policies supporting 1 - Extracting harmful fossil fuels when the IPCC have announced 12 sustainable energy production. With regard to material years to attenuate our contribution to climate change; 2 - Alternatives planning considerations such as traffic issues, noise and available including solar and wind farms; 3 - Sustainable energy sources air pollution. These will be considered at application have a greater contribution to long term employment; 4 - Evidence level. from USA suggests this leads to earth tremors and water table pollution; 5 - Private income generated for companies with little wider public benefit; 6 - Brexit confusion and unclear how leaving the EU regs will be changed upon leaving; 7 - When finished, the wells will be left and concerns they will fail. This will lead to high pressure fluids leaking. No one will want to sign up to maintain the integrity of the capped

263 wells, future generations will be impacted; 8 - house prices will be impacted / houses hard to sell / insurance up; 9 - Risk of subsidence; 10 - Several EU countries have an outright ban on fracking; 11 - Current geophysical technology cannot map underground with high enough resolution to ascertain whether fractures link with one another providing a path for fluids to flow - they do not know what will happen; 12 - Fracking is all about money, but this does not filter down to the communities impacted.

Specific Bawtry area concerns: increase in traffic caused by 3 potential drilling / fracking sites will push the local infrastructure beyond its limits, traffic cannot be handled on Doncaster Road and Tickhill Road / Station Road. This has already been impacted by the new homes at Harworth. Air and noise pollution increase. Traffic will build up adjacent to education sites - red balloons nursery and Mayflower primary. Horizontal fracking can be achieved up to 1 mile from initial entry point, could lead to horizontal fracking under Bawtry. Bawtry is a protected area. Traffic pollution increase will impact on the flood plain where rare plants can be found. There could be accidents at the drilling site. The proximity of fracking sites will discourage investors from investing in Doncaster.

264

Settlement Background Paper Q22 - Is the proposed spatial strategy sufficiently clear and coherently explained?

Q23 - Do you agree that we should use the figure of 407 hectares for the amount of employment land rather than the 2015 figure which was 474 hectares?

Q24 - Do you agree with the proposed means of deciding broadly where new housing and employment sites should be located?

Q25 - Do you have any alternative proposals for how housing and employment sites could be distributed?

Q26 - Do you agree with the approach to retail provision?

Q27 - Are you satisfied that this approach will see the borough grow in the correct way over the plan period?

Q28 - Do you agree with the revised approach to Defined Villages?

Representation Representation Representation Summary DMBC Response Reference No Name

03067 Mr Joseph Do not agree Noted. Blackham 04513 Mr Samuel The Settlement Profile included within your consultation wrongly suggests The Barnby Dun Surgery is open 8am - 5pm (shut for lunch) Foster that Barnby Dun has an existing doctors practise. This is not the case – the three days a week; and 8am - 12pm twice per week. There doctors building is a satellite to the Stainforth practise and is struggling to is therefore notable GP provision in the settlement. With meet existing requirement. Page 52 of the Settlement Profile identifies that regards to open space, site 147 is not open space, it is Barnby Dun is already lacking in open space provision – something which currently a field in the countryside. will become much worse if these proposals are agreed.

265

04533 Ian Beck Far too complex for laypeople to understand. Disagree with retail approach, The council has strived to make the reports as accessible as Carcroft has adequate provision. possible, but there has to be a necessary amount of detail, and sometimes this may be complex or result in lengthier documents which aim to more clearly explain matters. The point will be taken on board when reviewing the paper and opportunities will be sought to simplify this wherever possible. 04579 Carol Wileman As clear as you want it to be. Your statement indicative of political speak The council has aimed to make this process as accessible to and nonsensical. You really are trying to put people off participating in this people as possible, and the aim has not been to put people process. Would prefer a lesser figure of 407 ha. Much could be done to off participating, rather provide enough information as redevelop land already in use and improve existing housing stock. Some possible to explain how decisions have been made. It is a employment sites have been developed but are not in use. Noting appears fine line, as if the council were to publish less information, to be happening regarding town centre living. Attention is needed on we could be accused of obscuring the facts. The level of making the town centre pleasant and presentable. Make the town a place consultation response shows that the public have been people want to come to. Do not redefine them loses their individuality. meaningfully engaged. Some of these comments in relation to the town centre are beyond the remit of the local plan. 0515 Paul Believe that some Defined Villages can play a part – especially those that The approach to defined villages has been updated and Whitehurst have derelict land which could be put to use for housing and employment now includes opportunities for some very limited without affecting the green belt purposes. If a ‘Defined Village’ is development. categorised as a Regeneration Area and is also Physically Connected to an ‘Urban Area’ that is designated as a ‘Renewal Town’ or a ‘Regeneration Priority’ then, because of this actual physical connection, the ‘Defined Village’ should become a sub area of the adjoining Urban Area’s Regeneration to enjoy the advantages that this may provide. Because of the small number of designated Renewal Towns, and the small number of Defined Villages that border them, this could be added to benefit these communities. 03525 Simon Slatford Tickhill is a service town and an important settlement to serve local centres Noted. This point has also been picked up in the (on behalf of D with sustainable level of provision to support themselves and other small Settlement Profile work. J Silk) settlements. 04297 ELG Planning Audit fails to acknowledge the existence of an Asda supermarket in The supermarket is part of the 'shopping' category, which (On behalf of Rossington. Rossington scored for.

266

Rossington Hall Investments) 01263 Barnby Dun Spatial Strategy not coherently explained. Housing and Employment sites Comments noted. The aim of the Settlement Background with Kirk should ideally be located adjacently and correct infrastructure needs to be Paper was to try and coherently explain the settlement Sandall Parish in place. work. Comments will be taken into account when revisiting Council this to try and explain the strategy more clearly. The strategy was based on earlier consultation feedback which was that there should be housing to meet local needs, and that it was acceptable that jobs weren't necessarily located next to housing so long as jobs were in accessible locations. The strategy reflects this. Infrastructure has been considered through the Infrastructure Delivery Plan. It is not always possible for infrastructure to come forward first, it may be required in tandem with any future development, in which case it would form part of the developer requirements to inform developers seeking to develop this site. 05008 Savills (on Employment land requirement is in a state of flux. The Local Plan should The Local Plan includes land in employment policy area behalf of Philip include provision and delivery of land for small and medium enterprises as which could facilitate small and medium businesses. Lodge) they play an important role in the employment sector. Encouraged to revisit the allocations and should focus on sites which are deliverable. 05046 Georgia Harlington is a village and not a town should research individual needs of It is acknowledged that Barnburgh - Harlington is a village Hepworth each place not just based on statistics. rather than a town, albeit a sustainable one for some local housing growth, based on settlement work. 05044 Simon Villages should not have more housing than a town. Harlington is not a Barnburgh - Harlington has a relatively modest housing Hepworth town. target of 60 houses in the plan period. This is the second smallest target in the borough, and smaller than any of the boroughs towns. References in the Local Plan and other evidence refers to the settlement as a village,

267

04544 David Nicklin Disconnect between employment being located away from A1(M) corridor Housing sites are proposed across the borough. With and in the east, and housing sites coming forward in the west. This will just regards to the location of employment, a number of increase commuting. Paper says there is no justification on the A1(M) for factors have to be taken into account, including employment in the Green Belt, so why not the same for housing. Paper says accessibility, marketability and demand. Sites must also be no employment here until A1 upgraded, should therefore apply to housing. of a size suitable for the proposed use. This means that Pp. 92: how will the A1/A19 link affect Marr and Hickleton - they are not land along the M18 corridor, as well as Bentley Moor Lane, part of this and will be unaffected. are proposed for employment uses. No Green Belt is required to be release for employment sites as there are a number of potential options outside of the Green Belt. With regards to housing, the settlement strategy (which is a result of local consultation) aims to distribute housing across the borough, and this may mean some of the boroughs settlements may require Green Belt release if exceptional circumstances are deemed to exist for doing so. The employment strategy does not require the spatial distribution of sites in the same manner. The impact of developments on the strategic road network has been modelled by Highways England. Whereas employment would likely be immediately off the A1(M), housing would be less likely to be located here, and so whereas there may be some increase on traffic on the A1(M), it is less certain. 05128 Peacock and Specific housing opportunities ought to be identified in Defined Villages. Opportunities for housing are now provided in the Defined Smith (on Villages, however these are not on specific sites. behalf of Jason Barnsdale) 01837 John Waggitt Unclear. We require far more affordable or Council built home to rent, Policy 8 deals with the housing types and mixes required. instead of spending vast amount of money on Council pet projects

0746 Marr Parish Marr Parish acknowledges that DMBC has undertaken a review of all The site at Mexborough is no longer proposed in the Local Council Settlements and local Services. It does not consider service availability or Plan. The developer requirements notes what will be accessibility. Services in the villages are at capacity, with bus routes and needed when the sites come forward, and further details

268 local roads congested and oversubscribed schools. Development could be can be refined through the planning application process. considered sustainable. Do not agree with the proposed development sites The Housing Needs Survey looks more in depth at and scale of development identified within the Proposed Local Plan for affordable housing and where it is needed. Policy 8 deals these two Defined Villages. The proposed development at Mexborough and with the required housing types and mixes. This includes along the Dearne Valley parkway will increase traffic around the villages. housing for older people, and there are additional Strongly object to the inclusion of these new developments within the local evidence base documents now published which relate to plan, as they cannot be considered reasonable or sustainable. these needs.

Although a Settlement review has been undertaken we remain unconvinced that the Local Plan has assessed or has made robust plans for, how it will adequately address the impact of housing on services. Services are critical to sustainability and should be scrutinised.

Social and affordable housing - There is no in-depth assessment or evidence to support the true need for Social housing. Instead it is just “lumped in” within the annual projected target of 338 new homes required by the planned economic growth. Affordable housing does not seem to have been provided for nor has it been prioritised within the Local Plan. This must be clarified and specific targets must be set.

Elderly and ageing population - The Council has omitted to include the elderly population within the Homes and Settlement Draft Proposal as it concentrates on “how” the number of homes has been determined and “where and what quantity”. This demographic group has been completely been over-looked by the plan. DMBC needs to deliver private residential retirement developments. This would release existing housing stock across the borough. The new dwellings target is based on future needs of families and younger people even though the report states: ‘…younger age groups are predicted to slightly decrease…’ the subsequent number of new houses apportioned to this age group appears skewed. The future housing needs of the borough should be revised to reflect the future changes in demographic age profiles.

269

The Draft Local Plan is not sufficiently robust and is not “Fit for Purpose” as it does not meet the identified “Future Needs” of the Borough. 05098 Anton Fix Does not agree we should use the figure of 407 hectares for the amount of The employment figure has been amended to account for employment land rather than the 2015 figure which was 474 hectares. the fact that the Local Plan period has been extended to Manufacturing jobs required, not storage and distribution. 2035. The 407ha is calculated using the up to date Peter Bretts work, and as such superseded the 474ha previously Does not agree with where new housing and employment sites should be promoted. located. Allocation of new housing for villages such as Barnby Dun is based on Borough needs/ aspirations, not on what is required/ desired at a local level. Develop Brownfield sites. Alternative development proposals should include Harworth, Finningley and Rossington 04673 Anne Nicklin Paper states there is no exceptional circumstance for employment use The settlement strategy, which is a result of public along the A1 corridor (para 4.5.8) so why is this any different for housing? consultation, distributes the housing requirement around the borough to existing settlements, whereas the outcome for employment was that it did not need to be located in the same manner, as long as it was in accessible locations. Therefore, whilst some settlements may require Green Belt release - if exceptional circumstances exist - for housing, there is ample land outside of the Green Belt to deliver the housing requirement, and this is not as locationally specific as the housing locations are.

270

0759 High Melton There is no guarantee of economic growth for Doncaster. Huge Work is always ongoing to attract more business to the Parish Council improvements are needed to encourage new businesses and residents. borough, and the sites in the plan will help do this, with Concerned that proposed development constitutes a 10% rise in the total housing to attract employees to locate here also. Ageing available housing stock and this needs to be measured against the fact that population is covered in Policy 8, and additional evidence the borough has one of the worst performing housing markets in the UK. base related to this has been published. Development should be supported in line with Green Belt policies. There is no provision for the ageing population including sheltered accommodation and community care.

The need for employment land is acknowledged and should be on brownfield and green field sites not Green Belt. Support aspirations to attract new employers and businesses as well as improving training opportunities and providing access to higher education. There should be a focus on better paid work.

271

0308/ 02003/ J10 Planning Would advocate a much higher housing growth around Adwick (1,200) 1,200 units is not justified at Adwick as per the 03599/ 03600/ (on behalf of Counter balancing under supply in one area with oversupply in another is methodology. There is very limited counterbalancing, only 03601/ 03602/ Brodsworth not a sound way to deliver housing. where no suitable sites can be found and therefore land 03603/ 03752/ Estate) Appears to be some sort of mixed messages re the A1-A19 link road (see must be found elsewhere. The approach to housing in the 03753/ 03754/ response for detail). defined villages has been amended and small scale 03755/ 03756 Concerned that undefined settlements (e.g. Hampole, Brodsworth, development may now be permitted in them. Adwick does Pickburn) are not offered any infill or exception housing. This will score well, but housing is also linked to the existing undermine health of communities and is contrary to the NPPF. population in the settlement, which is why Adwick does Adwick – woodlands is one of the best performing settlements in the not have a higher housing allocation. Other settlements borough according to this audit. Why then can it not accommodate a also score as well, if not better. higher proportion of the housing and employment? Disputes some of the findings for Pickburn and Brodsworth (see response) Plan will do nothing to support services in these communities and they will become unsustainable. 05197 Peacock and Supports the higher employment land figure in order to ensure that the The employment figure is in line with the employment Smith (on Borough provides for a wide choice and range of sites to capture inward targets of the SCR of 1% economic growth. The Peter behalf of Blue investment in Doncaster, and to maximise job creation. The plan should Bretts report sets out how this has been calculated and the Anchor Leisure adopt a positive approach towards employment land provision given the ELNA explains how the land requirements has been Limited) challenging Sheffield City Region growth target for Doncaster, which calculated, linked to this. This shows the 474ha previously represents a faster growth rate than the rest of the UK. Concerns with planned for has now been superseded / updated. allocation of Site 160 and 441. 01394/ 01404 Cllr Cynthia Object to scale of development in Sprotbrough / Barnburgh Harlington. Both Sprotbrough and Barnburgh Harlington have been Ransome & Cllr May seem small in scheme but will impact these rural communities, assessed as two of the more sustainable locations for Jonathan especially if only developed on one site. Based on targets which are part of growth, but in recognition of their size, they are only Wood an overall population inflation for Doncaster, they do not seek to deliver earmarked for relatively modest housing growth. Believe minimal growth for the villages they are assigned to. Urban pressures being any impact will be relatively limited given the inflicted on rural areas. Aspirations could easily be scaled back and focus on comparatively smaller amount of housing in these infill over allocation. locations.

272

04013 The Joint Rural Supportive of DMBC strategies (as set out in I&O) provided that brownfield The exceptional circumstances for the borough have been Parishes is developed over green belt. Job creation does not constitute very special set out in the Green Belt Topic Paper. This shows how circumstances to Green Belt release. Object to any such notion in the plan. complex the delivery of adequate amounts of housing are Believe sites along the A1(M) are illogical, support approach here. in the borough. Brownfield land is prioritised, Green Belt is released as a last resort, and only where supported by the Need a clearer breakdown of how the 338 houses are comprised (sale, rent, findings of the Green Belt review. affordable etc.) Re: affordable housing: Believe this needs a more targeted approach - establish stock, vacancies and waiting list as well as bidding info. Work has been undertaken by the Council on a new This will then reflect what the true requirement is. Housing Needs Study, the findings of which inform policy 8 of the Local Plan and has been undertaken along the lines Support position that development near A1 is put on hold until Highways suggested. England have assessed expansion plans, so development does no prevent any future expansion. Support A1 expansion, not a new road to west which Other support noted, although it is no longer felt that the would create isolated Green Belt between the two roads. washing over of settlements as proposed in the 2018 consultation is supported, and defined villages will remain Support M18 corridor. Support washing over Green Belt proposals. Support as they were. locating development in main towns best able to take on the growth. 04888 Graham Agree strategy is clear and coherently explained. Agree with spatial Support for respective elements noted. Land at Stainforth Dobson strategy. 147 should not be developed. Development should be at Road is in flood zone, and therefore unsuitable for Stainforth Road or an area where larger proportion of land is useable. Agree allocation, as set out in the allocations work. with revised Defined Village approach. 04889 Vanessa Agree strategy is clear and coherently explained. Agree with spatial Support for respective elements noted. Land at Stainforth Dobson strategy. 147 should not be developed. Development should be at Road is in flood zone, and therefore unsuitable for Stainforth Road or an area where larger proportion of land is useable. Agree allocation, as set out in the allocations work. with revised approach to defined villages. 04902 Heidi Exley Why not make a new area / village where there are no existing homes, with This option was ruled out earlier in the process, and the new amenities outcome of consultation was that the preferred spatial option was to spread housing around the borough with higher levels to larger and more sustainable settlements - as reflected in the strategy.

273

04900 Richard Jones Sprotbrough should not be split in two and should be one as per the We believe there is a differentiation between the two for Neighbourhood Plan. planning purposes. There is both a Green Belt gap which means the settlement is not contiguous with the urban area, and the A1(M) also disects the two respective areas.

274

04950 Town- Fails to list out all settlements in Doncaster which undermines rural Doncaster is a large borough and there are a number of Planning.co.uk development approach. I.e. Kings Wood (grouping on Great North Road, settlements. 58 have been defined but there are other (on behalf of Bawtry). NPPF & PPG concept of inter-related settlement networks is not examples of small incidental developments. These have BBS examined or explored. Washing over many villages which are thriving and been taken in to account collectively in the Local Plan as (Doncaster) interconnected i.e. settlements around Bawtry support Bawtry services. 'other settlements'. Kings Wood is a very small grouping of Ltd) Many areas around Bawtry / Great North Road benefit from good houses with some employment uses along a main road, accessibility to a number of bus services. The government considers all and the size mentioned appears to rely heavily on the scale settlements can play a role in delivering sustainable development in rural of the employment provision in this location rather than a areas. Request Kings Wood, near Bawtry (Austerfield Parish) is cluster of housing. Bus provision may be reasonable here reconsidered. Has traditionally been left as open countryside despite being due to its position on a main road, however there are no a grouping of properties, including employment and housing - covers 20ha. other services in this location, and it is therefore clear to Similar to 26 out of the 40 defined settlements (Adwick upon Dearne; see why this previously undefined settlement should be Braithwaite; Brodsworth; Burghwallis; Cadeby; Clayton; Clifton; Fenwick; defined. Regarding the relationship of nearby settlements Hampole; Hickelton; Highfields; High Melton; Hooton Pagnell; Kirk to Bawtry, those listed are all significantly larger, and have Bramwith; Loversall; Marr; Micklebring; Moss; Old Cantley; Old Edlington; a higher number of houses and consequently population Owston; Pickburn; Skelbrooke; Stainton; Sutton; and Thorpe in Balne). than Kings Wood. Believe that despite the bus service, Emerging plan notes some of these are suitable for infill. Request Kings there is a clear and notable difference that means there is Wood should be a defined settlement. Many defined settlements do not no justification to defined this area. Note that the have primary / secondary facilities, but Kings Wood benefits from government put importance on rural areas and how they substantial public transport provision and is only 2km from central Bawtry. can help sustain larger settlements, however as noted the Has the built form and character where infill would be appropriate. borough has 40 settlements that are defined with no Community have modest ambitions for incremental development. Caravan proposed housing which already help fulfil this role, retail has been allowed to grow so undefined nature incompatible. Many potentially, and are more established and larger defined settlements (31/40) have little or no service provision, no reason to settlements. allow infill in these and not other areas washed over / presumption against development. Doncaster has a diverse and dispersed range of settlements. Local Policy needs to be flexible. Identifying Kings Wood will allow businesses here to grow and prosper. Need to consider relationship between areas like Bawtry and their rural hinterlands. I.e. Bawtry; Austerfield; Newington; Scaftworth and Scrooby are a combined network.

275

05190 Carter Jonas Agree with 407ha. Savills has reviewed the ELR and generally concurs with The figure of 474 ha has been updated through the Peter (on behalf of its broader findings. Based on historic and recent take-up figures, the 2015 Bretts work and the ELNA. It is therefore a more up to date Harworth target of 274 should be retained if not exceeded. Savills advises that the reflection of need than the 2015 figure. Employment work Group) ELR could be more critical about the deliverability of some of the major has been updated and expanded for the publication schemes. It goes on to question the inclusion of land promoted for air version of the Local Plan. related uses as generic employment land. There is a positive trend in respect of employment land with the long term average take up increasing for the past 5 years. This trend looks set to continue. Many of the schemes with planning permission have speculative development taking place and we consider that this increases the likelihood of occupier take-up and helps justify a higher target significantly over and over 407 ha. 05195/ 05196 Banks Property Whilst we support the settlement hierarchy and the focus on the Main The 10% is reflective of the fact that if all the Defined Ltd Urban Area and main towns, we believe that the service towns and larger Villages delivered their share of the local housing need villages should have a greater role in delivering sustainable growth. This will requirement, this would total approximately 10% of the ensure a flexible and resilient supply of deliverable new allocations and overall need. The spatial strategy is a result of public ensure there is not an overreliance on delivery within the urban area. It is consultation, which consulted on a greater distribution of unclear how the totals of new housing for each level of the settlement housing to smaller settlements, but which as not the hierarchy have been established, e.g. 10% for the service towns and larger favoured outcome. A number of the Service Towns and villages. Villages, by virtue of extant permissions, will deliver above this target, but for those that don't, allocations will be required to meet the requirement.

Wind Energy Development Background Paper Q29 - Do you agree that areas of search within which sites may be potentially suitable for wind energy development should be identified within Doncaster

Q30 - Do you have any views on the methodology identified for establishing areas of search within which sites may be potentially suitable for wind energy development?

276

Q31 - Do you have any views on the proposed area of search for wind energy developments?

Q32 - Do you have any comments on the draft Wind Energy developments policy (Policy 60)?

Representation Representation Representation Summary DMBC Response Reference No Name

03067 Mr Joseph Do not agree Noted Blackham 04513 Mr Samuel I could not locate this document online. The document was available online. Foster 04533 Ian Beck Agree with areas of search. Site 165 / 186 would be better as a windfarm. Noted support.

04579 Carol Wileman I am in favour of renewable energy so areas should be researched and discussed. Noted support. Renewable is the way to go. We have solar power so I would advocate it particularly on public buildings re cost effectiveness.

01263 Barnby Dun No - There is a need for certain policy details to be clarified and put in place – distances Note proposed boundary change suggestion. It with Kirk and sizes should be clearly stated. Potential sites should have a 1,000m stand-off from is not considered appropriate to set out specific Sandall Parish communities put in place. The proposed site shows no consideration given to the stand-off distances within the policy as there Council location of the proposed boundary or mitigation of potential impacts. The proposed may be instances when a proposal is acceptable area is too near to residential areas, footpaths and the canal. The eastern boundary below a stand-off distance depending on the should be moved to the west of the river Don and have at least a 1,000m stand-off size of the turbine and it's proposed location- applied. Thorpe Marsh site is deemed by the Parish Council as being more suitable. for example if there was an area of intervening woodland between a property and a moderate Policy: 60(e) does not appear to be complied with. 60(g) requires clarification on scale wind turbine. Point J of the policy repeats distance – the Parish Council would suggest 1,000m. 60(i) the “sufficient distance” a principle established in national guidance and requires clarification; it should be at least 1,000m. The red line should be moved to seeks to ensure that local residents are fully the west of the river Don to comply with being setback from any highway boundary, engaged in the process and their views are railway line, canal, public footpath or bridleway. 60(j) should be deleted as cannot be adequately addressed. complied with.

277

01546 Yorkshire Area covers a corridor which comprises a significant number of sites of interest to local Noted policy has been amended accordingly. Wildlife Trust biodiversity (see extended comments on response form) The area of search has been determined in consultation with the Council's ecologists and has been drafted with appropriate criteria to enable effects on biodiversity to be properly considered on a case by case basis and in accordance with the other local plan policies covering biodiversity. 04544 David Nicklin Agree with areas of search. Could form part of M18 corridor employment sites too. Note support for area of search. Policy 60 B Employment sites should have a "rule in favour" approach if renewable energy sources supports smaller wind energy developments are identified as providing a significant amount of power. Could tie to government adjacent to employment locations. ambitions. DMBC must go above and beyond on this. Agree with rear of Wheatley Hall Furthermore, policy 47 requires all new Rd and Thorpe Marsh locations. Prudent to steer away from Barnby Dun to avoid commercial developments to meet 10% of resident impacts. May be suitable sites in the east for small wind turbines. Should be energy from renewables- therefore going better tied to employment sites to reduce environmental impact. above building regulations. 01837 John Waggitt Do not agree. They only work if there is a wind speed within a given range of knots. No Comments noted. The area of search is based wind NO power to HIGH a wind speed they are switch off for safety’s sake. upon technical evidence which suggests wind speeds are sufficient for commercial wind energy development. 0746 Marr Parish Supports the objective for Doncaster to be a leader in renewable energy but has major Note comments made. Policies 59 and 60 aim Council concerns on how DMBC are to achieve this status. Object to “scarring the Greenbelt to control wind farm development and direct Landscape with Wind Turbines Solar Panel Farms”. Compulsory solar instillations on all them to suitable areas. policy 47 requires all new builds could be the first step, followed by suitable large Roof Tops e.g.: Industrial, new commercial developments to meet 10% of Commercial & Agricultural buildings & large shed structures and a managed roll out of energy from renewables- therefore going residential roof spaces. This would be fully aligned to the Borough’s Vision, Aims and above building regulations. Objectives. Until we maximise & exhaust the opportunities that currently exist, we cannot support any proposal to cover valuable Greenbelt or Agricultural Land. The Council has the full support of Marr Parish on its most recent decision, where it voted to prevent exploration or fracking within the borough.

278

04648 Carole Lambe Object to wind farm at Barnby Dun. Blight on countryside. Noise and visual. There are no specific wind farm proposals in the plan, an area of search is identified for possible wind energy developments. Policies 59 and 60 aim to ensure there are no unacceptable impacts like those referred to. Wind farm developers do offer community benefit schemes so this would be something to discuss with them if a proposal came forward. Objections noted. 04649 David Lambe Object to wind farm at Barnby Dun. Unsightliness, noise pollution and impact on There are no specific wind farm proposals in wildfowl from neighbouring Thorpe Marsh. the plan, an area of search is identified for possible wind energy developments. Policies 59 and 60 aim to ensure there are no unacceptable impacts like those referred to. Objections noted.

279

05098 Anton Fix Does not agree that areas of search within which sites may be potentially suitable for Comments noted. The area of search is based wind energy development should be identified within Doncaster. Doncaster Council is upon technical evidence which suggests wind required to designate a site to comply with Government policies. Proposed Wind speeds are sufficient for commercial wind Energy Development location is of ‘moderate’ efficiency in terms of wind power energy development. Note proposed boundary generation, and the red line boundary shown is considered to be far too close to change suggestion. It is not considered existing communities appropriate to set out specific stand-off distances within the policy as there may be instances when a proposal is acceptable below a stand-off distance depending on the size of the turbine and it's proposed location- for example if there was an area of intervening woodland between a property and a moderate scale wind turbine. Point J of the policy repeats a principle established in national guidance and seeks to ensure that local residents are fully engaged in the process and their views are adequately addressed.

280

05119 Banks Group The Climate Change Act 2008 puts in place legally binding targets to reduce Policies have broadly been amended in line greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80% of 1990 levels by 2050. The Clean Growth with suggestions and further explanation added Strategy (2017) sets out the Governments proposals for decarbonising the to the explanatory test as requested. economy throughout the 2020s to meet climate change targets. Onshore wind is now the lowest costs form of new power generation. BEIS show 76% of the public support the development of onshore wind. clean, renewable electricity which reduces carbon emissions. Wind energy development should therefore not be overly restricted by additional policy. 100m-135m wind turbines are no longer considered large! 150m+ is the way forward as fewer are needed! 04673 Anne Nicklin Agree with areas of search. Could form part of M18 corridor employment sites too. Note support for area of search. Policy 60 B Employment sites should have a "rule in favour" approach if renewable energy sources supports smaller wind energy developments are identified as providing a significant amount of power. Could tie to government adjacent to employment locations. ambitions. DMBC must go above and beyond on this. Agree with rear of Wheatley Hall Furthermore, policy 47 requires all new Rd and Thorpe Marsh locations. Prudent to steer away from Barnby Dun to avoid commercial developments to meet 10% of resident impacts. May be suitable sites in the east for small wind turbines. Should be energy from renewables- therefore going better tied to employment sites to reduce environmental impact. above building regulations. 04985 Anthony Object. Noise would be a significant problem. Potential threat to wildlife; birds, bats There are no specific wind farm proposals in Darlow (1 and and impact near to water. the plan, an area of search is identified for 2) possible wind energy developments. Policies 59 and 60 aim to ensure there are no unacceptable impacts like those referred to. Objections noted. 04988 Lesley Darlow Object. Noise would be a significant problem. Potential threat to wildlife; birds, bats There are no specific wind farm proposals in (1 and 2) and impact near to water. the plan, an area of search is identified for possible wind energy developments. Policies 59 and 60 aim to ensure there are no unacceptable impacts like those referred to. Objections noted. 04888 Graham Agree with areas of search support noted Dobson 04889 Vanessa Agree with areas of search support noted. Dobson

281

04902 Heidi Exley Thought wind energy had been scrapped as per media reports. The government requires Council's to prepare a proactive strategy for all forms of renewable energy but they are now encouraged define areas of search for wind energy. 04911 Kevan Green No comments if located away from residential properties. Noted. Policies 59 and 60 aim to ensure there are no unacceptable impacts like those referred to. Objections noted. 04912 Michelle Green No comments if located away from residential properties. Can create noise and are Noted. Policies 59 and 60 aim to ensure there ugly. are no unacceptable impacts like those referred to. Objections noted.

282

Sustainability Appraisal Q33 - Do you have any comments on the Sustainability Appraisal?

Representation Representation Representation Summary DMBC Response Reference No Name 01233 The Coal Would expect any sites being considered for allocation to be assessed against All comments in respect to the Interim SA Report have Authority 'Development High Risk and Surface Coal resources plans'. We provide the been summarised and responded to through the LPA with downloadable data in respect of Development Risk and Surface Coal Publication version of the SA Report prepared by Resource Plans. Expect all sites being considered for allocation to be assessed Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions and against this information. published alongside the draft Local Plan. This is in line 03038 Phil and Linda Support Aims 4 but feel Site 115 is contrary to it. Re: Aim 5 - Aims sensible, with comments submitted to previous iterations of Foster but development would contradict aims the SA Report.

03067 Mr Joseph No substance to comment on. Blackham 05008 Savills (on No fundamental objection to the methodology behind the SA, but the SA behalf of Philip appears to reject site 149 on a very simplistic approach. Lodge) 03100 The Planning Site 037 has strong performance in process. and Environment Studios Ltd (on behalf of Barry Smith and Peter Kelson) 03782 Will Bedford Finningley Conservation Area needs a Heritage Impact Assessment.

0016 Historic We would broadly endorse the evaluation of the likely impact which the England Policies and proposals of the Plan might have upon the historic environment and, where an adverse effect has been identified, support the proposed mitigation measures which have been proposed to reduce that harm.

283

04548 Sabir Ali Site 379 - wished to see the previous consultation 01937 Lichfields (on Disagree with assessment of 436. Unclear how development would result in behalf of water body pollution - no permanent surface water bodies on or near site. Theakston Only one in southern field which is excluded from development. Impacts Estates Ltd) could be mitigated through design. Have sought to address archaeological concerns. SA should be updated to reflect this. 02989 Gladman Sustainability appraisal - Sets out what SA is and what it should do. Developments 05197 Peacock and Section 7 of the Vision Statement for West Moor Park East (Site 937) Smith (on identifies a number of concerns as to how the site has been assessed within behalf of Blue the Sustainability Appraisal. Section 6 of the Vision Statement sets out Anchor Leisure general concerns as to the approach that has been adopted in relation to Limited) flood risk when comparing sites. 03820 Natural Broadly welcomes, but mistakenly assumes that the plan area includes no England grade 1 BMV land. Post 1988 assessments show this is present in the area. Maps of these are available to view on MAGIC website. Update assessment advised. Larger sites in areas that may be BMV (i.e. over 20ha) should be considered ""- - "" on impact on soil resources, rather than a ""-"" Agricultural Land Classification Surveys should be undertaken or requested from site promoters. SA should be cross referenced with the Site Selection methodology 04888 Graham 147 is not long term sustainable and is on an area of flood risk. Will be made Dobson worse with global warming, insurance will be high, should be built with future in mind. 04889 Vanessa 147 is not long term sustainable and is on an area of flood risk. Will be made Dobson worse with global warming, insurance will be high, should be built with future in mind. 05207 Tangent SA acknowledges at paragraph 7.3 that both HS2 and NPR are likely to have Properties (on an impact on the plan in terms of future growth and regeneration later in the behalf of ION plan period will require a review the Local Plan. We do not concur with this Property position. The growth and regeneration associated with HS2/NPR needs to be Developments considered in the current local plan

284

Ltd and The Frickley Estate)

05190 Carter Jonas Support and note the findings in respect of Site 160 (on behalf of Harworth Group)

285

05189 Trebbi (on Sites 880 and 109 have been rejected not only on the Green belt but on other behalf of C and sustainability criteria including the distance to schools, local centre and bus R Clark) stops. This is very simplistic approach to measuring sustainability. Planning obligations can be attached to proposed development to ensure additional bus stops etc. can be included. Also detailed studies submitted as part of the original representation do not appear to have been taken into account.

The SA scores are incorrect with regard to:

- Access to cycle network – the SA scores the sites as neutral our work shows that there is good access to existing cycle networks within close proximity

- Distance to bus stop and train station – the SA scores the sites as preforming negatively. This is clearly not the case there is very good access to bus stops within close proximity. They are in Sunderland Street, approx. 250m in both directions.

- Access to existing centre, schools and GPs – the SA scores the sites as performing from neutral to negatively. Work clearly shows that these facilities are accessible by walking or public transport

- Agricultural land – sites to the north of Tickhill are grade 1 agricultural land while 880 and 109 ate classed as grade 3. This should be taken into consideration.

- Surface water flooding and pollution to surface water bodies – the SA identifies site 880 as performing neutral in relation to surface water flooding and both sites 880 and 109 are noted as having significant negative effects in relation to Pollution to Surface Water Bodies. Further studies have been carried out to consider how the above identified poor performance for site 880 can be managed / mitigated. This is done by:

o The boundaries of Site 880 and Site 109 have been repositioned – this

286 reduces the area of the sites and means that both sites are now approximately 200 m from Paper Mill Dike, the nearest named watercourse. o An assessment of the potential of surface water flooding and the potential for flooding of surface water has been undertaken o It is concluded that development of the sites for residential use would have a positive effect on both pollution to surface water bodies Criteria 14b(ii) and surface water flooding Criteria 11A(ii) and that the sites should score (+) in respect of both criteria.

The representation is supported by a masterplan, diagrams showing such issues as walking distances, bus stops, and footpaths and technical notes such as Transport and Access Appraisal report, Surface Water Flooding and Pollution.

287

1017 Peter In its Conclusions it (para 9.1.4) it speaks of “The preferred option will see . . Pennington employment growth over and above that required to meet local needs, . . . . .with additional effects associated with . . . . consumption of resources

0014 Environment We are pleased to see that Objective 14 (page 8) covers the protection and Agency enhancement of water quality. However, we would like this to refer to “quality and quantity”, or “water resources”. Quantity is mentioned in the column on how the objective will be achieved, but is not in the ‘headline’ which seems an oversight.

Table 3.1 Key Sustainability Issues - We are concerned that there is no acknowledgement of the pressures on surface waterbodies (in terms of both quantity and quality) in the table on key sustainability issues - only pressure on groundwater is mentioned.

Water Framework Directive - It is good to see the Water Framework Directive (WFD) has been used as part of the evidence base of the SA. We recommend a section in the report highlighting pressures and issues in the water environment within the Doncaster Borough Council boundary. The WFD has a ‘no deterioration’ requirement. This means that no environmental harm should result from the planned catchment developments. The Humber River Basin Management Plans updated in 2015 require that the watercourses within the district continue to show improvements in overall and ecological status in line with the quality standards specified in these documents. Any new development should consider the WFD.

Water Resources - Doncaster Borough is covered by both Yorkshire Water and Severn Trent Water. We recommend making reference to these Water Company’s Water Resources Management Plan (WRMP). Water is not freely available across Doncaster Borough, however water company WRMP shows the likelihood the water company can meet demand for water over the next

288

25 years. The water companies are currently in the process of updating these strategic plans which were last published in 2015. The updated draft plans have been submitted to DEFRA for review in December 2017 and is currently going through the review and consultation process.

It is worth highlighting changes in either water company deliverable output of water may occur in their updated WRMP. Therefore, Doncaster Council and developers will need to be satisfied that there are resources available to supply extra demand incurred with the new housing developments.

It is also good to see they have acknowledge in their infrastructure plan, that the Environment Agency (EA) will not grant permits or licences for certain activities within sensitive locations. Water is not freely available within the Idle and Torne catchment, new and existing abstractors may require a licence from the EA. The Abstraction Licensing Strategies details if water is available for abstraction across Doncaster Borough.

Water Efficiency - We request that any new homes must continue to meet the mandatory national standard set out in the Building Regulations of 125 litres/person/day (l/p/d). Where there is a clear local need, councils can set out local plan policies requiring that new dwellings meet the tighter Building Regulations optional requirement of 110 l/p/d (as set out in the Planning Practice Guidance).

Retrofitting is about improving or adapting existing homes to be more efficient, councils may be able to implement retrofitting schemes for their own properties such as social homes, council offices or schools. Retrofitting could reduce consumption by 14%. This can involve no or low technology, such as a cistern displacement device, simple flow aerator tap insets or low flow shower heads.

Water Quality - It is good to see the infrastructure strategy is considering the impact of growth on existing waste water treatment works. The increased

289 amount of waste water and sewage effluent produced by new and existing development will need to be dealt with to ensure that there is no detriment in the quality of the watercourses receiving this extra volume of treated effluent. As such there may be a requirement for the expansion and upgrading of current sewage treatment systems, if the volume of sewage requiring treatment within the district increases. Appropriate infrastructure should be in place by the water company to effectively transfer and treat any increase in waste water, growth should not cause a deterioration in water quality and WFD status.

Infrastructure should consider sewage collection network including Combined Sewer Overflows, overflows from pumping stations, pumping station capacities and sewage treatment works capacity in terms of the permitted volumes and quality limits. Need to link into the water companies 5 year Asset Management Plans (AMP) to ensure appropriate investment is planned and delivered.

GROUNDWATER RESOURCES (General note for information) - Groundwater is an important resource that we rely on every day. It provides the majority of drinking water in some parts of the country, sustains baseflow and ecology in our rivers; and supports lakes and wetland ecosystems. Local plans can help to ensure that groundwater is protected and where necessary improved during regeneration and development.

Contamination in or on land can present unacceptable risks to human health and the wider environment, including to groundwater. Land contamination may be caused by previous land uses such as factories and mines, as well as existing activity such as petrol filling stations and waste management. Land contamination, or the potential for contamination, is a material planning consideration.

Doncaster’s water supply depends on groundwater abstractions in the Principal aquifer which has high permeability and needs to be protected to

290 avoid any kind of contamination.

The protection is given by buffer zones around the source of drinking water call Source Protection Zones (SPZs) (Figure 3). Please find more info here. These are divided:

· SPZ1 Inner protection zone

· SPZ2 Outer protection zone

· SPZ3 Source catchment protection zone

The aquifer’s permeability is responsible for the travel time of any possible contaminant into the source therefore the SPZs shapes depend on it.

The Environment Agency’s approach to groundwater protection shows which activities are possible in SPZs. (Please see the Appendix with the summary table with the SPZS and activities).

According to Yorkshire Water Resource Management Plan the combination of growing population in Yorkshire and the climate change will increase the fresh water demands.

All of these need to be taken into consideration in the new Doncaster Local Plan.

These are the sort of things that we look for in a local plan:

Future developments are in appropriate locations where pollution and other adverse effects on the local environment or amenity value are minimised.

Local plan policies and strategies help to ensure that developing land affected by contamination won’t create unacceptable risks, or allow existing

291 ones to continue.

Land is managed sustainably, protecting soils and water and contributing positively to reducing the impacts of and adapting to climate change.

292