doncaster local plan topic paper 3: green belt... · green belt, flood zones 2 & 3, or both,...

0

Doncaster Local Plan Topic Paper 3: Green Belt

March 2020 (Submission)

DMBC3

1

Purpose of the Document

As part of the preparation of the Doncaster Local Plan, work has been undertaken to

assess the Green Belt in the Borough. This work incorporates many areas, including

a general assessment of the Green Belt, potential Green Belt site allocation options

(both undertaken by consultants Ove Arup Partners), exceptional circumstances,

longer term safeguarding options, minor amendments, and settlement boundary

review work.

This paper aims to summarise all the work that has been undertaken with regards to

the Green Belt in preparing the Local Plan, and explain how and why decisions which

have an impact on the Green Belt have been made. It is broken down in to several

sections:

1. Introduction and Overview

2. Exceptional Circumstances and amendments to the Green Belt to support

allocations

3. Safeguarding Land

4. Submitted Small Green Belt Sites

5. Amendments Related to Planning Permissions

6. Minor Amendments

7. Adding Land into the Green Belt

8. Summary and Conclusions

2

Contents

1. Introduction and Overview ............................................................................................................. 4

1.1. The Green Belt Nationally ....................................................................................................... 4

1.2. The Green Belt in Doncaster ................................................................................................... 5

1.3. Reviewing the Green Belt in Doncaster .................................................................................. 8

1.4. Outcomes of the Stage 1 Report ........................................................................................... 10

1.5. Stage 2 Sites Assessment ...................................................................................................... 15

1.6. Outcomes of the Stage 3 & 2019 Stage 3 Addendum Report .............................................. 15

2. Exceptional Circumstances & Amendments to the Green Belt to support allocations ................ 26

2.1. National Policy ...................................................................................................................... 26

2.2. Case Law ................................................................................................................................ 29

2.3. Exceptional Circumstances - Housing ................................................................................... 30

2.4. Further Amendments ............................................................................................................ 93

2.5. Exceptional Circumstances for Housing Conclusions ............................................................ 94

2.6. Green Belt & Employment Land ........................................................................................... 98

3. Safeguarding Land ....................................................................................................................... 101

3.1. National Policy .................................................................................................................... 101

3.2. Local Circumstances ............................................................................................................ 102

3.3. The proposed approach to Safeguarding Land ................................................................... 102

3.4. Conclusions ......................................................................................................................... 111

4. Submitted Small Green Belt Sites ............................................................................................... 113

4.1. National Policy .................................................................................................................... 113

4.2. Summary of the Issue ......................................................................................................... 114

4.3. Proposed Approach............................................................................................................. 115

4.4. Conclusions ......................................................................................................................... 128

5. Amendments Related to Planning Permissions .......................................................................... 129

5.1. National Policy .................................................................................................................... 129

5.2. Summary of the Issue ......................................................................................................... 130

5.3. Proposed Approach............................................................................................................. 131

6. Minor Amendments .................................................................................................................... 136

6.1. National Policy .................................................................................................................... 136

6.2. Local Circumstances ............................................................................................................ 136

6.3. Proposed Minor Amendments ............................................................................................ 138

7. Adding Land into the Green Belt ................................................................................................. 139

3

7.1. National Policy .................................................................................................................... 139

7.2. Case Law .............................................................................................................................. 141

7.3. Land to the East of the Borough ......................................................................................... 141

7.4. Defined Village Approach ................................................................................................... 142

7.5. Undeveloped UDP Sites ...................................................................................................... 144

7.6. Compensatory Green Belt ................................................................................................... 145

7.7. Summary ............................................................................................................................. 149

8. Summary and Conclusions .......................................................................................................... 151

4

1. Introduction and Overview

1.1. The Green Belt Nationally

1.1.1. Since their national establishment in the 1947 Town and Country Planning

Act, Green Belts have been a mainstay of the English planning system. The

purpose of Green Belt is long established, with current national Green Belt

Policy published in Chapter 13 of the 2019 NPPF. Their importance is well

recognised and governmental support for them remains unwavering.

1.1.2. Paragraph 133 of the NPPF states:

“The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. The

fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping

land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their

openness and their permanence.”

1.1.3. The five purposes of the Green Belt are defined in paragraph 134 of the

NPPF:

“Green Belt serves five purposes:

a) to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;

b) to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another;

c) to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;

d) to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and

e) to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict

and other urban land.”

1.1.4. Green Belt covers approximately 13% of the total land area of England,

which is approximately 1.64 million hectares of land. Green Belt has been

established around some of the largest settlements and conurbations in the

country, including London, Birmingham, Manchester, Nottingham and York,

in addition to the South and West Yorkshire Green Belt, which includes land

in Doncaster.

1.1.5. Not every rural part of the country is covered by Green Belt, and many of

the country’s most beautiful landscapes such as the Peak District, Lake

District and North York Moors are not within the Green Belt. It is not a

landscape protection, rather it serves an important function in protecting our

countryside and preventing urban sprawl and the coalescence of

settlements.

5

1.2. The Green Belt in Doncaster

1.2.1. Unlike many areas nationally which have a Green Belt that forms a ‘ring’

around urban areas, the built form of Doncaster is not surrounded by this

designation. Green Belt covers land in the western ‘half’ of the Borough,

which is roughly delineated by the East Coast Mainline. Rural land in the

east of the Borough (to the east of the ECML) instead forms part of the

countryside, and is separately protected in policy terms.

1.2.2. As Doncaster has a dispersed pattern of development, settlements to the

west of the Borough outside of the Main Urban Area are generally separated

by areas of Green Belt. There are therefore numerous settlements to the

west which are entirely surrounded by, and separated from other

settlements by Green Belt.

1.2.3. 23,257ha of the Borough is covered by the Green Belt designation, which is

approximately 41% of land in Doncaster.

1.2.4. Green Belt in South Yorkshire was first established in the West Riding

County Development Plan (1966), with the general extent being identified

within the 1979 South Yorkshire Structure Plan. The latter established the

general extent of the Green Belt within Doncaster as being the East Coast

Mainline. It was at this point that it was decided by the then Secretary of

State that the east of the Borough did not require designation as Green Belt.

1.2.5. Subsequent Local Plans for Mexborough and Conisbrough (1982); Adwick

/ Bentley and Sprotbrough (1989); Balby / Hexthorpe (1989) defined Green

Belt boundaries within their areas, with Interim Planning Policy Statements

for Bessacarr / Cantley / Rossington; The Southern Rural Area; and

Edlington / Warmsworth being published throughout 1990, which defined

informal Green Belt boundaries for these areas not covered by Local Plans.

1.2.6. However, it was not until the 1998 Unitary Development Plan that the

detailed statutory boundary for the Green Belt within the Borough was

established. This has not been amended since.

1.2.7. In addition to the western extent of the Doncaster Urban Area (Bentley,

Warmsworth and Balby), a number of the Boroughs larger settlements are

surrounded by Green Belt, which has been tightly drawn around the built

form of the Boroughs western settlements. This includes the Towns of

Adwick – Woodlands; Conisbrough & Denaby; Mexborough and the western

6

half of Rossington (known as “Main Towns” within the Local Plan Settlement

Hierarchy). It also surrounds the smaller Towns and Villages of Askern;

Barnburgh – Harlington; Bawtry; Carcroft – Skellow; Edlington;

Sprotbrough; and Tickhill (knows as “Service Towns and Villages” in the

Local Plan Settlement Hierarchy), as well as a number of smaller defined

villages which are peppered around west Doncaster.

1.2.8. For the avoidance of doubt, the eastern extent of the Main Urban Area (Kirk

Sandall; Edenthorpe; Bessecarr; and Cantley), as well as the other Main

Towns of Armthorpe; Dunscroft, Dunsville, Hatfield & Stainforth; Thorne &

Moorends: and the east of Rossington; and the other Service Towns and

Villages of Auckley – Hayfield Green; Barnby Dun; and Finningley (as well

as smaller defined eastern villages) are not surrounded by Green Belt

designation, rather Countryside, which is afforded a different protection in

local planning policy. Investigations as to whether the Green Belt should be

extended to the east have concluded that there is no reason to do this.

Figure 1 (pp.7) shows the extent of the Green Belt in the Borough.

1.2.9. It should further be noted that the large amounts of the east of the Borough

are constrained by being within areas at either high or medium risk of

flooding (Flood Zones 3 and 2). This includes parts of the Main Urban Area,

Hatfield – Stainforth, Thorne – Moorends, Askern, as well as Carcroft –

Skellow (the latter two and parts of the Main Urban Area being Green Belt

settlements). Therefore, the task of identifying land that doesn’t fall within

Green Belt, Flood Zones 2 & 3, or both, whilst still delivering the homes

needed in the centres of population in Doncaster is a challenging one. Parts

of other settlements such as Conisbrough and Adwick also have smaller

areas of land at risk of flooding.

1.2.10. Whilst not wishing to directly compare Flood Risk and Green Belt, a

unique feature of the Borough is that Doncaster is constrained by both, and

generally in separate locations. It is the position of the Council that land

allocated as Flood Risk has a physical constraint upon it which could

potentially be a risk to property or life, and as such we will not seek to

allocate land for housing in such areas in the Local Plan (unless sites

already have planning permission), in line with national flood risk policy.

However, whilst respecting the purposes of the Green Belt, unless areas

also fall within Flood Zones, the same physical risks do not exist. This will

be elaborated on in Section 2.

7

Figure 1 - Green Belt in Doncaster (Local Plan 2019)

8

1.3. Reviewing the Green Belt in Doncaster

1.3.1. The notion that the Council would have to investigate whether land could be

removed from the Green Belt was established in the 2016 Homes &

Settlements Consultation, due to a lack of viable and available sites

promoted through Call for Sites to meet the proposed need in a number of

settlements surrounded by Green Belt. It was also previously acknowledged

at Issues and Options stage that certain options would be likely to require

Green Belt land to achieve the spatial strategy. In doing this, the Council is

striving to achieve the spatial strategy which was also set out initially in the

2016 Homes & Settlements Consultation (updated by the 2018 Settlement

Background Paper), and which is a result of consultation with the public via

Issues and Options in 2015, as well as an assessment of the findings of the

Settlement Audit.

1.3.2. It has been suggested through some consultation responses received

previously that the Council could avoid removing land from the Green Belt

by only allocating viable non – Green Belt sites in settlements in the Green

Belt, and where this is not enough to meet housing targets, meeting the

shortfall in settlements which lie to the east of the Borough and are not

constrained by Green Belt instead.

1.3.3. As noted above, a large number of the Boroughs settlements lie within the

Green Belt. Of the eighteen areas which are proposed in the Settlement

Hierarchy to have housing directed towards them, ten are entirely

surrounded by / inset within the Green Belt, with a further two surrounded in

their western halves – including the Main Urban Area where most housing

will be directed towards.

1.3.4. Of the six remaining settlements, Thorne & Moorends is severely

constrained by flood risk, as is Barnby Dun, and Armthorpe is covered by a

Neighbourhood Plan which allocates sufficient land to meet its targets.

Extant permissions mean that Dunscroft, Dunsville, Hatifleld & Stainforth

(which also has flood risk constraint) can meet and far surpass its housing

requirements, as per the strategy, and Auckley – Hayfield Green and

Finningley can also largely do so by these means, with additional growth

around the airport also planned.

1.3.5. If the Council did not investigate whether Green Belt land could be justifiably

released to help meet the spatial strategy and housing requirement, the only

unconstrained location for the proposed growth / urban extensions would be

the east and south east of the Borough. However, doing this would risk

creating an uneven and unsustainable pattern of development which is not

in accordance with the settlement strategy (a result of public consultation),

9

in places that are not as sustainable as some larger settlements to the west

of the Borough. Alternatively, it could mean the Borough may not be able to

meet its housing growth and economic ambitions. Finally, this would mean

that housing would not be delivered in the places it is needed.

1.3.6. The Council therefore employed consultants Ove Arup Partners to

undertake a Green Belt Review in the Borough, in order to assess the

potential impacts should land be removed from it.

1.3.7. In total, Arup have produced four reports to assist in the preparation of the

Local Plan:

1. Countryside Policy Area Review: this report looks at land currently in

the countryside in the east of the Borough and assesses whether there

is any justification for extending the Green Belt to the east. It finds that

there are no exceptional circumstances that would justify the eastward

expansion of the Green Belt, and concludes land here can be adequately

protected with alternative policy provision.

2. Green Belt Review Stage 1: this report divides the Green Belt in the

Borough into 64 parcels and assesses them against the five Green Belt

purposes. It finds that the vast majority of the 64 individually assessed

Green Belt parcels contribute strongly to one or, in most cases, more

than one of the 5 Green Belt purposes.

3. Green Belt Review Stage 3: this report looks at the implications of

removing specific sites from the Green Belt to accommodate housing or

employment allocations. 57 sites were assessed on their strength of

case for continuing in the local plan site selection process, considering

their impact on the Green Belt purposes and requirements. The results

of this report contribute to the site selection process, as well as

contributing to the understanding of whether the required "exceptional

circumstances" may exist which justify the release of land from the

Green Belt, although the report itself does not make any decisions.

4. 2019 Green Belt Review Stage 3 Addendum: this report assess Green

Belt sites that have been submitted after the original Stage 3 report was

published using the same criteria. It also assesses Green Belt sites in

Askern, Edlington and Rossington for completeness (these sites were

not originally assessed in the Stage 3 Review as these settlements can

meet their housing targets without using Green Belt land).

10

1.3.8. It should be noted that ‘Stage 2’ of this work was undertaken by the Council

in deciding on potential sites which were subsequently assessed at Stage

3.

1.4. Outcomes of the Stage 1 Report

1.4.1. The Stage 1 Green Belt Review split the entire Green Belt in the Borough

into 64 parcels and assessed these against the Green Belt purposes. In

addition to finding that almost all the parcels score well against at least one

local interpretation of the Green Belt purposes, the report also found that:

General areas adjacent to the built form of the ‘Large Built up Area of

Doncaster’ had a stronger role in ‘checking the unrestricted sprawl of

large built up areas’, but a number of areas connected to the with

Yorkshire Green Belt performed a strategic role in checking the

unrestricted sprawl of conurbations;

Few general areas play an essential role in preserving the land gap

between settlements;

A relatively large number of general areas support a ‘wide, but largely

essential’ strategic gap within the South Yorkshire Green Belt;

More rural areas in the north and south were considered to have a

weaker role in preserving the land gap between settlements;

Only two areas were considered to have permitted unrestricted ribbon

development; there was otherwise an even split between areas which

had resisted ribbon development, allowed it in part, and areas not

considered to have a role in restricting ribbon development;

Most general areas were considered to display moderate levels of

sensitivity to encroachment or higher – reflecting the open, rural and

undeveloped nature of the Green Belt away from the Boroughs main

settlements;

Most areas displayed a moderately strong, strong or strong unspoilt rural

character;

A number of general areas are adjacent to the historic core of a historic

town, but relatively few support views into and out of the these;

11

Only one area falls within a Regeneration Priority Area, but twenty are

considered to be contiguous with one.

1.4.2. A summary of the scores are as follows (red / lower numbers indicates the

area fulfils the purpose weakly, green / higher numbers highlights where the

area fulfils the purpose more strongly):

1 - Sprawl

2 - Prevent Merging

3 - Safeguard countryside 4 - Historic

5 - Urban Regen

Are

a

Pro

tects

ope

n lan

d

whic

h is c

on

tig

uou

s

or

co

nne

cte

d o

r in

clo

se

pro

xim

ity t

o a

'larg

e b

uilt

up

are

a'

Ge

ne

ral A

rea

re

sis

ts

de

ve

lop

me

nt th

at

wo

uld

resu

lt in

me

rgin

g

Exis

ting

Gre

en

Be

lt

bo

un

da

ry h

as

resis

ted

rib

bo

n

de

ve

lop

me

nt

Se

nsitiv

ity o

f th

e

Gre

en

Be

lt a

nd

fea

ture

s im

po

rtan

t to

the

ap

pre

cia

tio

n o

f

the

co

untr

ysid

e

Exte

nt to

wh

ich th

ese

lan

dscap

e fe

atu

res

ha

ve

be

en

im

pa

cte

d

by e

ncro

ach

men

t G

en

era

l A

rea

ha

s a

role

in

sup

po

rtin

g th

e

se

ttin

g c

ha

racte

r o

f

the

His

toric T

ow

n

Ge

ne

ral A

rea

su

ppo

rts v

iew

s into

an

d o

ut o

f th

e h

isto

ric

co

re

Assis

ting

in

Urb

an

Reg

ene

ration

Adwick le Street 1

3 4 3 3 2 2 1 3

Adwick le Street 2

1 3 0 2 4 1 1 3

Adwick le Street 3

1 3 0 2 4 1 1 3

Adwick le Street 4

1 3 5 3 3 1 1 3

Adwick le Street 5

4 4 3 3 2 2 1 4

Balby 1 3 3 5 2 2 2 1 3

Balby 2 4 1 0 4 2 2 1 4

Balby 3 4 1 3 3 3 2 1 4

Balby 4 3 3 3 3 4 2 1 3

Bawtry 1 1 1 0 4 4 2 1 1

Bawtry 2 1 0 5 4 2 5 3 1

Bawtry 3 1 1 3 2 2 5 1 1

Bentley 1 4 3 3 3 2 4 2 4

Bentley 2 1 1 0 3 3 1 1 2

12

1 - Sprawl

2 - Prevent Merging


5 - Urban Regen

Are

a

Pro

tects

ope

n lan

d

whic

h is c

on

tig

uou

s

or

co

nne

cte

d o

r in

clo

se

pro

xim

ity t

o a

'larg

e b

uilt

up

are

a'

Ge

ne

ral A

rea

re

sis

ts

de

ve

lop

me

nt th

at

wo

uld

resu

lt in

me

rgin

g

Exis

ting

Gre

en

Be

lt

bo

un

da

ry h

as

resis

ted

rib

bo

n

de

ve

lop

me

nt

Se

nsitiv

ity o

f th

e

Gre

en

Be

lt a

nd

fea

ture

s im

po

rtan

t to

the

ap

pre

cia

tio

n o

f

the

co

untr

ysid

e

Exte

nt to

wh

ich th

ese

lan

dscap

e fe

atu

res

ha

ve

be

en

im

pa

cte

d

by e

ncro

ach

men

t G

en

era

l A

rea

ha

s a

role

in

sup

po

rtin

g th

e

se

ttin

g c

ha

racte

r o

f

the

His

toric T

ow

n

Ge

ne

ral A

rea

su

ppo

rts v

iew

s into

an

d o

ut o

f th

e h

isto

ric

co

re

Assis

ting

in

Urb

an

Reg

ene

ration

Bentley 3 3 3 5 3 4 3 1 3

Bentley 4 1 0 0 1 2 1 1 3

Bentley 5 1 0 0 5 4 1 1 2

Bentley 6 4 1 0 1 2 3 2 4

Bentley 7 1 3 3 2 5 1 1 2

Carcroft 1 1 3 0 2 3 1 1 4

Carcroft 2 1 3 0 3 4 1 1 2

Carcroft 3 1 3 5 2 3 1 1 4

Conisbrough 1

3 3 3 4 1 2 1 3

Conisbrough 2

1 1 0 4 3 4 1 3

Conisbrough 3

1 1 0 5 5 2 1 2

Conisbrough 4

1 5 0 3 2 3 1 5

Conisbrough 5

4 4 3 4 3 3 2 4

Conisbrough 6

1 3 5 3 3 2 1 3

Cusworth 1 4 4 3 3 2 4 3 4

Cusworth 2 4 1 0 4 2 5 4 4

Cusworth 3 4 1 0 2 3 4 2 4

Doncaster 1 3 1 3 4 3 2 1 3

13

1 - Sprawl

2 - Prevent Merging


5 - Urban Regen

Are

a

Pro

tects

ope

n lan

d

whic

h is c

on

tig

uou

s

or

co

nne

cte

d o

r in

clo

se

pro

xim

ity t

o a

'larg

e b

uilt

up

are

a'

Ge

ne

ral A

rea

re

sis

ts

de

ve

lop

me

nt th

at

wo

uld

resu

lt in

me

rgin

g

Exis

ting

Gre

en

Be

lt

bo

un

da

ry h

as

resis

ted

rib

bo

n

de

ve

lop

me

nt

Se

nsitiv

ity o

f th

e

Gre

en

Be

lt a

nd

fea

ture

s im

po

rtan

t to

the

ap

pre

cia

tio

n o

f

the

co

untr

ysid

e

Exte

nt to

wh

ich th

ese

lan

dscap

e fe

atu

res

ha

ve

be

en

im

pa

cte

d

by e

ncro

ach

men

t G

en

era

l A

rea

ha

s a

role

in

sup

po

rtin

g th

e

se

ttin

g c

ha

racte

r o

f

the

His

toric T

ow

n

Ge

ne

ral A

rea

su

ppo

rts v

iew

s into

an

d o

ut o

f th

e h

isto

ric

co

re

Assis

ting

in

Urb

an

Reg

ene

ration

Doncaster 2 3 1 0 2 3 2 1 3

Doncaster 3 4 1 0 3 2 2 1 4

Doncaster 4 4 1 0 4 2 2 1 4

Doncaster 5 3 3 0 5 4 2 1 4

Mexborough 1

1 5 5 4 3 2 1 4

Mexborough 2

1 3 3 4 2 4 2 3

Mexborough 3

1 3 3 4 5 4 2 3

North 1 1 1 5 4 4 1 1 4

North 2 1 0 0 5 4 1 1 4

North 3 1 3 5 4 3 1 1 3

North 4 1 3 3 4 2 1 1 4

North 5 1 3 5 4 4 1 1 3

North 6 1 3 5 4 3 1 1 1

South 1 1 3 3 4 3 1 1 1

South 2 1 1 5 3 4 1 1 1

South 3 1 1 1 2 4 1 1 1

South 4 1 1 5 4 4 1 1 1

South 5 1 1 0 3 4 2 3 3

14

1 - Sprawl

2 - Prevent Merging


5 - Urban Regen

Are

a

Pro

tects

ope

n lan

d

whic

h is c

on

tig

uou

s

or

co

nne

cte

d o

r in

clo

se

pro

xim

ity t

o a

'larg

e b

uilt

up

are

a'

Ge

ne

ral A

rea

re

sis

ts

de

ve

lop

me

nt th

at

wo

uld

resu

lt in

me

rgin

g

Exis

ting

Gre

en

Be

lt

bo

un

da

ry h

as

resis

ted

rib

bo

n

de

ve

lop

me

nt

Se

nsitiv

ity o

f th

e

Gre

en

Be

lt a

nd

fea

ture

s im

po

rtan

t to

the

ap

pre

cia

tio

n o

f

the

co

untr

ysid

e

Exte

nt to

wh

ich th

ese

lan

dscap

e fe

atu

res

ha

ve

be

en

im

pa

cte

d

by e

ncro

ach

men

t G

en

era

l A

rea

ha

s a

role

in

sup

po

rtin

g th

e

se

ttin

g c

ha

racte

r o

f

the

His

toric T

ow

n

Ge

ne

ral A

rea

su

ppo

rts v

iew

s into

an

d o

ut o

f th

e h

isto

ric

co

re

Assis

ting

in

Urb

an

Reg

ene

ration

South 6 1 1 3 4 4 2 3 4

South 7 1 1 0 2 2 1 1 4

South 8 1 5 1 1 2 2 4 1

Sprotbrough 1

3 5 5 4 4 2 1 3

Tickhill 1 1 3 3 3 4 4 1 1

Tickhill 2 1 1 3 3 3 4 4 1

Tickhill 3 1 1 5 3 4 3 3 1

Tickhill 4 1 1 3 4 5 3 4 1

Tickhill 5 1 0 5 4 5 1 1 1

Tickhill 6 1 1 5 4 3 5 4 1

Tickhill 7 1 3 0 4 4 5 5 1

West 1 1 3 5 5 4 1 1 3

West 2 1 3 5 5 4 1 1 1

West 3 1 3 3 4 3 2 2 2

1.4.3. The Stage 1 Review assesses where general areas are scoring strongly or

weakly against the purposes of the Green Belt. The findings of this report

feed into the Stage 3 review work, where assessments of the general areas

which sites are located within form part of the site assessments.

15

1.5. Stage 2 Sites Assessment

1.5.1. Stage 2 has been undertaken by Doncaster Council and consists of an

assessment of all the sites submitted through the Call for Sites. Green Belt

sites which were adjacent to the 18 growth settlements were filtered out to

be assessed in the Stage 3 Report.

1.5.2. Originally, only sites in the settlements that were more likely to potentially

require Green Belt release were filtered. Therefore, sites in Askern,

Edlington and Rossington were not originally proposed to be assessed at

Stage 3, as these settlements can comfortably meet their housing

requirement through existing commitments and non – Green Belt sites.

However, for the Stage 3 Addendum, it was decided that sites in these

locations should be assessed for completeness and avoidance of doubt.

1.5.3. Sites that progressed to the Stage 3 Review are non-isolated sites in the

HELAA adjacent to growth settlements in the Green Belt. No filtering has

been done on any other factors, such as whether the land is in a flood zone,

or whether there are access issues, however such factors may

subsequently rule out sites from allocation, as per the Site Selection

Methodology.

1.6. Outcomes of the Stage 3 & 2019 Stage 3 Addendum Report

1.6.1. In total, 57 sites have been assessed in the Stage 3 Review, and a further

29 in the Stage 3 Addendum, meaning a total of 86 sites have been

reviewed to assess the implications and impact of potentially removing

these sites from the Green Belt. These are potential housing, employment

or mixed use / multiple option sites.

1.6.2. Sites have been assessed in the following locations:

Settlement No of sites assessed

Adwick – Woodlands 6

Askern 5

Barnburgh Harlington 4

Bawtry 8

Carcroft & Skellow 8

Conisbrough & Denaby 9

Edlington 6

Main Urban Area 15

Mexborough 2

Rossington 3

16

Sprotbrough Village 4

Tickhill 15

Other 1

1.6.3. Each site has been assessed in two ways: for the strength of the resultant

boundary and against a localised interpretation of the sites contribution to

the aforementioned five purposes of the Green Belt (NPPF para. 134). An

overall “strength of case” conclusion is then provided as a conclusion for

each site.

1.6.4. With regards to boundaries, the NPPF (para. 139) states that when defining

boundaries, plans should define these clearly, using physical features which

are readily recognisable and likely to be permanent.

1.6.5. As per the report methodology, this means features such as motorways,

roads, railway lines, existing residential, industrial or mixed use

development with clearly defined boundaries, streams, rivers, canals,

watercourses, prominent physical features, protected or dense woodland or

continuous / dense hedgerows constitute strong and likely to be permanent

boundary features.

1.6.6. Weaker and less likely to be permanent boundaries include private /

unmade roads, weak existing development boundaries, field boundaries,

sparse or gappy tree lines, shallow drainage ditches, field drains or

culverted watercourses.

1.6.7. For boundaries, sites can score as having a strong, mixed strength or weak

boundary depending on their overall strength. A site may have a number of

boundaries of differing strength, in which case and overall assessment of

boundary strength is made.

1.6.8. Each site has also been scored against its impact on the Green Belt (using

the 5 purposes). The scores for each purpose have been correlated and

each site is assessed as scoring overall as strong, moderate or weak

against the purposes overall.

1.6.9. The site is then given a total overall score on the “strength of case for

continuing in the site selection process”. This could be strong, moderately

strong, moderate, moderately weak or weak case.

1.6.10. When considering sites for site selection purposes, a strong resultant

boundary is better than a moderate or weak boundary; however conversely,

with regards to purposes, scoring weakly is preferable to strongly or

17

moderately, as a weaker score indicates that the assessed site is not

serving the Green Belt purposes as fully.

1.6.11. Each site can score for its strength of case in five different ways:

Overall Case Strength Score

Strong Boundary strong / purposes weak

Moderately Strong Boundary strong / purposes moderate, or;

Boundary mixed / purposes weak

Moderate Boundary strong / purposes strong, or;

Boundary weak / purposes weak, or;

Boundary mixed / purposes moderate.

Moderately weak Boundary mixed / purposes strong, or;

Boundary weak / purposes moderate.

Weak Boundary weak / purposes strong

1.6.12. This can also be summarised as follows:

Purposes Weak

Purposes Moderate

Purposes Strong

Boundary Strong

Strong case Moderately Strong case

Moderate case

Boundary Mixed

Moderately Strong case

Moderate case

Moderately Weak case

Boundary Weak

Moderate case

Moderately Weak case

Weak case

1.6.13. Out of the 86 sites submitted, the feedback is:

2 site have a strong case for furthering through the site selection

process;

9 sites have a moderately strong case for furthering through the site

selection process;

26 sites have a moderate case for furthering through the site selection

process;

33 sites have a moderately weak case for furthering through the site

selection process;

16 sites have a weak case for furthering through the site selection

process.

1.6.14. The majority of sites therefore (49) are deemed to have a moderately

weak or weak strength of case. Only 11 of the sites assessed have a strong

18

or moderately strong case. In Green Belt terms, more options have the

potential to be more harmful to the Green Belt and its purposes.

1.6.15. The following tables summarise the findings for each site, grouped by the

strength of case. Please note, the site order within each table is by area, and not

illustrative of preference. The colour coding is also for illustrative purposes only

and not presented as such in the Arup report.

Sites with a Strong Case for inclusion in further site selection work

Land Use Ref Name Settlement

Boundary

Purposes

Case Strengt

h

Housing 141 Westwood Rd,

Bawtry

Bawtry Strong Weak Strong

Employment

1016

Land to the East of Attero

Rossington Strong Weak Strong

Sites with a Moderately Strong Case for inclusion in further site selection work

Land Use

Ref Name Settlement Boundary

Purposes

Case Strength

Housing

513

Redhouse Lane (c) South, Adwick

Adwick le Street

Strong Moderate Moderately strong

Housing

777

‘Plot 3’ Harlington

Barnburgh & Harlington

Mixed Weak Moderately Strong

Housing

165

Land North of A1,

Skellow

Carcroft & Skellow

Strong Moderate Moderately Strong

Housing

40 Land at Sheffield Road/Old

Road, Hilltop,

Conisbrough

Conisbrough & Denaby


Housing

826

Field off Clifton Hill, Conisbroug

h



Housing

115

Alverley Lane, Balby

MUA Strong Moderate Moderately strong

Housing

237

Warmsworth Quarry,

MUA Strong Moderate Moderately strong

19

Sheffield Road,

Warmsworth (2)

Housing

452

Land West of Dadsley

Road, Tickhill

Tickhill Mixed Weak Moderately strong

Housing

930

Land Between Lindrick

Lane and Worksop

Road, Tickhill

Tickhill Strong Moderate Moderately strong

Sites with a Moderate Case for inclusion in further site selection work

Land Use Ref Name Settlement Boundary

Purposes

Case Strengt

h

Employment

462 Land off Adwick Lane,

Carcroft

Adwick le Street

Mixed Moderate Moderate

Housing 143 Land North of Primary

School, Church Lane,

Barnburgh

Barnburgh &

Harlington


Housing 195 Askern Miners

Welfare, Manor Way,

Askern

Askern Mixed Moderate Moderate

Housing 786 South of Cockhill Close, Bawtry

Bawtry Strong Strong Moderate

Housing 42 Land to the rear of Skellow

Hall

Carcroft & Skellow


Housing 186 Land of Crabgate

Carcroft & Skellow


20

Lane, Skellow

Housing 1005

Land to West of Repton Road,

Skellow

Carcroft & Skellow


Housing 221 Garage off Sheffield Road /

Clifton Hill, Conisbrough (Site B)



Housing or Employme

nt

251 Hill Top Road,

Denaby Main



Housing or Employme

nt

1035

Land off Hill Top Road,

Denaby Main



Housing 33 Land adjacent.

163 Sheffield

Road, Warmswort

h

MUA Mixed Moderate Moderate

Housing 122 Challenger Drive,

Sprotbrough


Housing 161 Mill Farm, Mill Gate, Bentley


Housing 212 Lords Head Lane,

Warmsworth


Housing 214 Common Lane,

Warmsworth


Housing 234 Broad Axe, Scawthorpe


Housing (site now

developed)

246 Scawthorpe Reservoir,

Green Lane


21

Housing 436 Land at Scawsby

Lane


Housing 494 Green Lane,

Scawthorpe


Housing 1039

Stripe Road,

Rossington

Rossington Mixed Moderate Moderate

Housing 929 Land North of Cadeby

Road, Sprotbroug

h

Sprotbrough


Housing 281 Land off Worksop

Road, Tickhill

Tickhill Weak Weak Moderate

Housing 876 Site B, Land to East of

Doncaster Road, Tickhill

Tickhill Weak Weak Moderate

Housing 1019

Apy Lane, Tickhill

Tickhill Mixed Moderate Moderate

Housing 1024

Wilsic Lane,

Tickhill


Housing 1028

Sunderland Street, Tickhill


Sites with a Moderately Weak Case for inclusion in further site selection work


Purposes

Case Strength

Housing 458 Land off Church Lane,

Adwick

Adwick le Street

Mixed Strong Moderately weak

Housing 459 Land off Doncaster

Lane, Adwick

Adwick le Street

Weak Moderate

Moderately weak

Employment

461 Redhouse Lane (a)

North

Adwick le Street


22

West, Adwick

Housing 512 Redhouse Lane (b)

North East, Adwick

Adwick le Street

Weak Moderate

Moderately weak

Housing/ Gypsy &

Travellers

036 Paddock to rear of Holme Croft

Askern Weak Moderate

Moderately weak

Housing 226 South of Church

Field Road, Askern

Askern Weak Moderate

Moderately weak

Housing 146 Tickhill Road, Bawtry

Bawtry Mixed Strong Moderately weak

Housing 995 Menagerie Wood, Bawtry

Bawtry Mixed Strong Moderately weak

Housing 1003

Paddock adjacent to

Manor Farm,

Hickleton Road,

Barnburgh

Barnburgh - Harlington

Weak Moderate

Moderately weak

Housing 1004

Field adjacent to

Manor Farm,

Hickleton Road,

Barnburgh


Weak Moderate

Moderately weak

Housing 273 Askern Road,

Carcroft

Carcroft & Skellow

Weak Moderate

Moderately weak

Housing 1089

Land to East of

New Street, Owston Lane,

Carcroft

Carcroft & Skellow

Weak Moderate

Moderately weak

Housing 142 Land South of Sheffield

Road

Conisbrough &

Denaby

Weak Moderate

Moderately weak

Housing 825 Fields off Drake Head

Conisbrough &

Denaby

Weak Moderate

Moderately weak

23

Lane, Conisbroug

h

Housing 1000

Land to the North of Stringers

Nurseries, Crookhill

Road, Conisbroug

h

Conisbrough &

Denaby

Weak Moderate

Moderately weak

Housing or Employme

nt

051 Plot 1, Edlington

Edlington Weak Moderate

Moderately weak

Housing or Employme

nt



Moderately weak

Housing or Employme

nt



Moderately weak

Housing or Employme

nt



Moderately weak

Housing 328 Land off Tait

Avenue


Moderately weak

Housing 79 Land at Melton Road,

Sprotbrough

MUA Weak Moderate

Moderately weak

Housing 213 Mill Lane, Warmswort

h

MUA Mixed Strong Moderately weak

Housing 217 Back Lane, Cusworth


Housing 1036

Melton Road,

Newton


Housing 154 Land to the North West of Pastures

Road

Mexborough

Weak Moderate

Moderately weak

Housing 306 Land off Grange Lane,

Rossington

Rossington Weak Moderate

Moderately weak

Housing 252 Spring Lane,

Sprotbrough

Weak Moderate

Moderately weak

24

Sprotbrough

Housing 788 Land at Sprotbroug

h

Sprotbrough

Weak Moderate

Moderately weak

Housing 872 Land at Melton Road,

Sprotbrough

Sprotbrough


Housing 109 Land off Sunderland

Street, Tickhill

Tickhill Mixed Strong Moderately weak

Housing 357 Land off Wong Lane,

Tickhill

Tickhill Weak Moderate

Moderately weak

Housing 875 Site A, Land to East of



Moderately weak

Housing 877 Site C, Land to East of



Moderately weak

Sites with a Weak Case for inclusion in further site selection work


Purposes

Case Strengt

h

Housing 090 Land to North of

Moss Road, South East of Sewage

Works, Askern

Askern Weak Strong Weak

Housing 475 Land South of Oakwell Drive and

Askern Weak Strong Weak

25

Coniston Road

Housing 873 Site A, Land at Martin Common

Farm, Bawtry

Bawtry Weak Strong Weak

Housing 874 Site B (Safeguarded) Land at

Martin Road, Bawtry


Housing 996 Land West of Bawtry Hall,

Bawtry


Housing 1017 Land at Martin

Grange Farm, Bawtry


Housing 145 Land at Skellow

Carcroft & Skellow

Weak Strong Weak

Housing 185 Land at Mill Lane and Crabgate, Skellow

Carcroft & Skellow

Weak Strong Weak

Mixed Use (Housing, Employment & Retail)

1088 Land South West of

Conisbrough


Weak Strong Weak

Housing or Employme

nt


Edlington Weak Strong Weak

Housing 139 Land North of Wath Road

Mexborough

Weak Strong Weak

Housing 356 Land off Lindrick

Lane, Tickhill

Tickhill Weak Strong Weak

Housing 824/ 1030

*

Land Behind Lumley

Drive/ Paper Mill Fields,

Tickhill


Housing 880 Land at Tickhill


Housing 1021 Stud Farm, Tickhill


Employment

159 Land around Wadworth

Wadworth Weak Strong Weak

26

1.6.16. This information helps inform, along with other evidence, whether there

are “exceptional circumstances” which justify Green Belt release of specific

sites in specific locations, however the findings of this report are not the only

element taken into account. The report is not designed to recommend what

sites should or should not be allocated, but instead forms part of the

evidence base informing site selection. It is important to remember that just

because a site has a strong or moderately strong case for furthering the site

through the site selection process, does not mean its release from the Green

Belt is thus justified or guaranteed, nor are sites necessarily ruled out

because they have a weak or moderately weak case. All matters must be

weighed up.

1.6.17. Furthermore, there may be other constraints on each site, such as

flood risk or access issues that may be factored into decision making

alongside impact on the Green Belt.

2. Exceptional Circumstances & Amendments to the Green Belt to support

allocations

2.1. National Policy

2.1.1. Paragraph 136 of the NPPF states that:

“Once established, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered where

exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified, through the

preparation or updating of plans. Strategic policies should establish the

need for any changes to Green Belt boundaries, having regard to their

intended permanence in the long term, so they can endure beyond the plan

period. Where a need for changes to Green Belt boundaries has been

established through strategic policies, detailed amendments to those

boundaries may be made through non-strategic policies, including

neighbourhood plans.”

2.1.2. This paragraph clarifies three important Green Belt principles. Firstly,

Green Belt boundaries (once established, as they already are in the

Borough) should only be altered in ‘exceptional circumstances’. Although it

is not clarified what may constitute this, they must be fully evidenced and

justified. Therefore a locally specific exceptional circumstance justification

will be elaborated on in this section.

27

2.1.3. Secondly, the time to review Green Belt boundaries is when preparing or

updating plans. As the Boroughs Green Belt boundaries were established

over twenty years ago, and given the Local Plan will replace this document

(and the Core Strategy), with a newly proposed spatial strategy which is

impacted by, or impacts on, Green Belt, it is now necessary to review this

in order to deliver the proposed spatial strategy for the Borough.

2.1.4. Finally, paragraph 136 notes that boundaries should be capable of being

permanent in the long term and enduring beyond the plan period. This

partly means strong boundaries in the first instance, but also includes the

issue of ‘safeguarding land’, which is expanded on in section 3.

2.1.5. Paragraph 137 introduces new tests to be applied before concluding that

exceptional circumstances exist:

“Before concluding that exceptional circumstances exist to justify changes

to Green Belt boundaries, the strategic policy-making authority should be

able to demonstrate that it has examined fully all other reasonable options

for meeting its identified need for development. This will be assessed

through the examination of its strategic policies, which will take into account

the preceding paragraph, and whether the strategy:

a) makes as much use as possible of suitable brownfield sites and

underutilised land;

b) optimises the density of development in line with the policies in chapter

11 of this Framework, including whether policies promote a significant

uplift in minimum density standards in town and city centres and other

locations well served by public transport; and

c) has been informed by discussions with neighbouring authorities about

whether they could accommodate some of the identified need for

development, as demonstrated through the statement of common

ground.”

2.1.6. This paragraph introduces three checks related to maximising opportunities

outside of the Green Belt that need to be undertaken before it can be

concluded that exceptional circumstances exist. These checks will be

incorporated into the assessment of exceptional circumstances in the

Borough which will be elaborated on in this section of the report.

2.1.7. Paragraph 138 introduces the notion of promoting sustainable

development, and requires that:

28

“When drawing up or reviewing Green Belt boundaries, the need to promote

sustainable patterns of development should be taken into account. Strategic

policy making authorities should consider the consequences for sustainable

development of channelling development towards urban areas inside the

Green Belt boundary, towards towns and villages inset within the Green Belt

or towards locations beyond the outer Green Belt boundary. Where it has

been concluded that it is necessary to release Green Belt land for

development, plans should give first consideration to land which has been

previously-developed and/or is well-served by public transport. They should

also set out ways in which the impact of removing land from the Green Belt

can be offset through compensatory improvements to the environmental

quality and accessibility of remaining Green Belt land.”

2.1.8. Paragraph 138 establishes a number of principles. Firstly the need to

promote sustainable patterns of development must feed into the revision of

Green Belt boundaries, which will form part of the exceptional

circumstances justification in the Borough. Secondly, that first

consideration for land to be released from the Green Belt should be

previously developed Green Belt land and / or land which is well served by

public transport – again highlighting the importance of sustainability.

Finally, and in line with NPPF paragraph 141, that the impact of the Green

Belt can be offset by improving remaining Green Belt land. This is

elaborated on more fully in Section 7.

2.1.9. It is clear from national planning policy that the release of land from the

Green Belt must be fully justified and only undertaken once a number of

tests have been met to prove the case for doing so is suitably exceptional,

and the release is absolutely necessary.

2.1.10. Within Doncaster’s Local Plan, the approach to identifying housing and

employment land differs. The emphasis of the housing strategy is that need

will be met in the most sustainable locations, with more housing going being

allocated towards the Main Urban Area and seven Main Towns, as the most

sustainable locations for growth, but with some smaller “local needs” being

met locally in some smaller settlements which have a reasonable level of

service provision to support these.

2.1.11. For employment sites, the focus instead is on people being able to travel

from home to workplaces. As such, sites do not need to be found within

specified settlements to meet a strategy (as per the housing strategy) rather

the location of employment land is based on a number of different factors,

including marketability and location.

29

2.1.12. As allocations are required for both housing and employment land within

the Borough, both have considered whether there is a need for sites in the

Green Belt. However, the exceptional circumstances considerations and

test for these respective purposes differs due to their respective strategies,

and must be considered separately. This is dealt with in the following

sections.

2.2. Case Law

2.2.1. There are two commonly cited case law examples which are particularly useful in considering whether exceptional circumstances exist: ‘Gallagher Homes Ltd vs. Solihull Borough Council [2014], and ‘Calverton Parish Council v Greater Nottingham Councils [2015]’.

2.2.2. In the Solihull Local Plan case, a developer’s sites were being proposed to be placed into the Green Belt and the developer challenged this on 3 grounds:

i. that it was not supported by an objectively assessed figure for

housing need; ii. the Council had failed in its duty to cooperate; and, iii. the Council adopted a plan without regard to the proper test for

revising Green Belt boundaries.

2.2.3. The claim succeeded at the High Court. An appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal. The Court held that the Inspector and Solihull had made an error in law in failing to identify a figure for the objective assessment of housing need as a separate and prior exercise.

2.2.4. The Judge also dismissed the Inspector’s reasons for returning the

developer’s sites to the Green Belt, saying that: ‘The fact that a particular site within a Council’s area happens not to be suitable for housing development cannot be said without more to constitute an exceptional circumstance, justifying an alteration of the Green Belt by the allocation to it of the site in question’.

2.2.5. In the Calverton Parish Council v Nottingham City Council, Broxtowe Borough Council and Gedling Borough Council case, the Parish Council applied to the High Court to quash parts of the Aligned Code Strategies of the three authorities, arguing that:

i. it had failed to consider whether housing numbers should be

reduced to prevent the release of Green Belt land; and, ii. it had failed to apply national policy in considering its release.

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

30

‘In the case where the issue is the converse, i.e. subtraction, the fact that Green Belt reasons may continue to exist cannot preclude the existence of countervailing exceptional circumstance – otherwise, it would be close to impossible to revise the boundary. These circumstances, if found to exist, must be logically capable of trumping the purposes of the Green Belt; but whether they should not in any given case must depend on the correct identification of the circumstances said to be exceptional, and the strength of the Green Belt purposes’.

2.2.7. Paragraph 51 of this judgement sets out five matters for consideration when

deciding whether exceptional circumstances exist with regard to Green Belt

land through the local plan process:

i. the acuteness / intensity of the objectively assessed need (matters

of degree may be important);

ii. the inherent constraints on supply / availability of land prima facie

suitable for development;

iii. the consequent difficulties in achieving sustainable development

without impinging on the Green Belt;

iv. the nature and extent of harm to this Green Belt (or those parts of it

which would have been lost if the boundaries were reviewed); and

v. the extent to which the consequent impacts on the purposes of the

Green Belt may be ameliorated or reduced to the lowest reasonably

practicable extent.

2.2.8. This decision sets five criteria that should be considered before exceptional

circumstances can be said to be justified. The subsequent NPPF

(paragraph 137) sets out three separate tests that the local planning

authority must be certain it can meet before being satisfied releasing Green

Belt land is justified.

2.2.9. In order to demonstrate exceptional circumstances, it will be shown that

both case law, especially the Calverton tests, and NPPF tests have been

fully considered.

2.3. Exceptional Circumstances - Housing

Establishing the Housing Need

2.3.1. The Borough has a housing requirement which will be expressed as a

range between 585 - 920 dwellings per annum (dpa). Allocations will be

made to meet the top of this range, which will result in a fifteen year

31

allocated supply of 13,800 units to 2033, and 15,640 new dwellings

delivered in total by the end of the plan period in 2035.1

2.3.2. This figure has long been established. The 2015 Doncaster Housing Needs

Assessment arrived at this figure, and earlier stages of the Local Plan

process planned for this housing requirement. The figure was latterly

updated in the ‘Doncaster Economic Forecasts and Housing Needs

Assessment’, which was undertaken by Peter Brett Associates. This report

concluded that the housing requirement for Doncaster was 912 dpa, which

it was felt was suitably close enough to 920 dpa for the Local Plan to

continue to plan for.

2.3.3. This report broke the housing requirement into two parts – a local housing

needs requirement, based on the Governments Standard Housing

Methodology, and an additional uplift to match the economic ambitions of

both the Council and the Sheffield City Region.

2.3.4. The starting point for housing projections was the Government’s proposed

new ‘Standard Method’ for assessing need. This was originally published

in September 2017, and was also included in the Draft NPPF and Planning

Practice Guidance, published in March 2018 when the Housing Needs

Assessment was undertaken (Subsequently fully published as the Revised

NPPF in July 2018 and revised in February 2019).

2.3.5. The methodology provides a standardised means of calculating housing

need for all Councils in the country. For Doncaster, it showed that:

Projected growth = 548 new dpa;

Market signals (affordability) adjustment = 1.68%

= Housing need (548 x 1.068%) = 585 dpa2

2.3.6. Planning Practice Guidance on Housing and Economic Needs

Assessments is clear that the standard method identifies a minimum

housing need figure (paragraph 002); Paragraph 010 of the guidance

clarifies that the “government is committed to ensuring that more homes

are built and supports ambitious authorities who want to plan for growth”. It

goes on to state that “there will be circumstances where it is appropriate

consider whether actual housing need is higher than the standard method

indicates”, including growth strategies. Paragraph 015 states that “Where a

strategic policy-making authority can show that an alternative approach

identifies a need higher than using the standard method, and that it

1 See pp. 36 & 37 for explanation of figure amendments 2 At the time the assessment was undertaken

32

adequately reflects current and future demographic trends and market

signals, the approach can be considered sound as it will have exceeded

the minimum starting point.”

2.3.7. The Council, in line with the Sheffield City Region, has aspirations for

economic growth. The Sheffield City Region SEP Refresh set a target for

jobs growth of 1% per annum3. This did not connect the jobs growth to

housing targets, however Peter Bretts Associates were commissioned to

reconsider the Doncaster Housing target, based on the Sheffield City

Region jobs target.

2.3.8. The housing requirement which is needed to match the 1% additional

economic growth therefore leads to a requirement of 327 additional dpa, or

a total of 912 dpa (rounded to 920 dpa / an uplift of 335dpa in addition to

the standard method figure).

2.3.9. The Council are ambitious and wish to plan for economic growth. The

economic growth aspired to, in line with the City Region, will mean more

houses are required. The 920 dpa figure has long formed a cornerstone of

the Local Plan process, and has been published and consulted on through

various consultations. It has the political support of the Council, and fits in

with national policy which aims to boost the supply of housing across the

country.

2.3.10. Housing delivery monitoring has shown that the figure of 585 has

comfortably been surpassed in the Borough for a number of years,

including in every year since the inception of the Local Plan in 2015. 920

dpa is more aligned to actual delivery rates (figures below are net

completions as per the RLA methodology):

2015 / 16 – 1,025 units delivered



2.3.11. The Borough has made great strides in the recent past to emerge from

the impacts of the decline of traditional industries. Momentum has been

built with the realisation of Doncaster’s key strategic position nationally –

being extremely well located on the road network (the M18 (connecting to

the M1, M62 and M180) and A1 both run through the Borough); being well

served by rail, including being on the East Coast Mainline with regular trains

to London; having its own quickly growing airport; and being within quick

access of the Humber ports. Additionally, former collieries are being

3 This document has yet to be signed off by Sheffield City Region or published at the time of writing

33

reimagined as new housing developments and open spaces. Communities

are being regenerated and new business – particularly logistics and freight

– are now locating in the Borough. Much has been achieved, but much

remains to be achieved.

2.3.12. Therefore, to continue this upward trend, the Council wishes to ensure

that business continues to locate in the Borough, and that these businesses

have the skills and employees they require. In turn, the local economy will

grow. This requires more houses than the standard methodology plans for,

and consequentially more land to be released to support this. This has both

Council support, and is supported by Planning Practice Guidance. Recent

housing and employment delivery shows it is also achievable and realistic.

Revising the Housing Need

2.3.13. The Local Plan runs from 2015 – 2035. The plan was originally

scheduled to cover the years 2015 – 2032, however given the lapse in time

and considering the need to provide a 15 year supply of housing, the end

date of the plan has been extended 3 years.

2.3.14. Supply across the plan period will be as follows:

2015 – 2018: Supply from completed permissions

2018 – 2033: Allocations

2033 – 2035: Supply from units remaining to be delivered on allocated

sites / permissions and oversupply in settlements.

2.3.15. In the first three years of the plan period, the Borough delivered 3400

units. This is above the three year requirement (3 x 920 dpa) by 640 units.

This oversupply will therefore be deducted from the remaining 17 year

requirement, leaving a residual requirement of 15,000 dwellings to 2035

(882 dpa), or a 15 year allocation requirement of 13,235 dwellings.

Individual settlement targets for the Main Urban Area and Main Towns have

subsequently been revised downwards slightly to account for this.

Delivering the Housing requirement

2.3.16. From the inception of the Local Plan, it has been acknowledged that it is

likely Green Belt land would be required to be released to meet the scale

of growth proposed in the Borough, due to the housing requirement and the

amount of the Boroughs larger and more sustainable settlements which fall

within the Green Belt. Indeed, the Issues and Options paper (2015) directly

34

asked (Q4, pp. 13) “to what extent should land be taken out of the Green

Belt to meet the Borough’s housing and employment needs?”

2.3.17. The Issues and Options Report also set out three options of ‘broad

locations for growth’ in the Borough:

Option 1 - the Core Strategy approach (where amendments to the

Green Belt were deemed to be likely to be minor);

Option 2 – less dispersal (where the Green Belt would need reviewing

around larger settlements in the west of the Borough); and

Option 3 – greater dispersal (which would require a comprehensive

Green Belt Review). Three additional options (New settlement; no

growth; and total dispersion) were all proposed but rejected as options.

2.3.18. The options were assessed in the Sustainability Appraisal of Doncaster’s

Growth Options (July 2015, updated March 2016). This found that against

the sustainability criteria, Options 1 and 2 performed most strongly. These

options focus on the larger settlements with better service levels, increasing

accessibility and reducing the likelihood of car use. Option 2 was felt to

have slightly more long term benefits by focussing development in the main

urban areas and growth corridors along key transport routes, compared to

greater dispersal amongst more settlements.

2.3.19. Option 3 was found to have benefits such as supporting the regeneration

of former mining communities, especially in the north of Doncaster, and

supporting rural services. The option also provides more developer choice

and more opportunities to deliver better quality housing and affordable

housing on sites which are less constrained by viability issues. However,

this option risks developing in less sustainable locations and in areas which

have less capacity to support regeneration in the Main Urban Area or

sustain existing services in urban areas. The option also reinforces existing

problems of long distance commuting, traffic and associated environmental

impacts, as well as being likely to necessitate the release of more greenfield

land.

2.3.20. Three rejected options were also assessed, scoring poorly especially in

comparison to the other options. These were:

Option 4 - a new settlement;

Option 5 – a low growth / environmental protection strategy;

Option 6 – a “total dispersal” strategy

35

2.3.21. A new town would have significant impacts on the countryside and

biodiversity, reinforce existing dispersed settlement patterns and increase

outward commuting. This option is also not seen as something that can

deliver the housing the Borough needs in the short term given the work

required to achieve this. The low growth option would reduce pressure on

existing services and the countryside (including the Green Belt), but this

would also result in lower levels of economic growth and less job

opportunities, as well as a failure to deliver the housing need in a way that

maximises the economic prosperity or a balanced approach to local growth.

Finally, the option of total dispersal around the Borough would conflict with

both national policy and legislation, as well as raising serious questions

about how viable such a strategy is, particularly given the infrastructure

requirements.

2.3.22. Feedback from the Issues & Options consultation was generally in favour

of avoiding building in the Green Belt, with a majority of those who

responded to question 4 preferring housing and employment needs to be

met outside of the Green Belt insofar as is possible, although some did

favour expansion into the Green Belt in the Boroughs western settlements.

2.3.23. However, when responding to the ‘broad locations for growth’ options

which highlighted the varying potential Green Belt impacts, responses to

how the Borough should grow were mixed, with general support emerging

for various forms of a “hybrid option”, or mix of the options consulted on.

2.3.24. This “hybrid” option was therefore developed following consultation and

was assessed in the 2016 Sustainability Appraisal Re-appraisal. The option

is designed to deliver a compromise between preferences by concentrating

development within existing urban areas, where there are likely more

vacant and underused sites with good transport links, and addressing local

priorities and needs in smaller settlements, or a mix of Options 1, 2 & 3.

2.3.25. The preferred hybrid option sees greater dispersal of housing to the

larger and more sustainable settlements in the Borough, whilst smaller

towns and villages with some service provision get smaller allocations to

meet their local needs. This option results in a greater dispersal of housing

around the Borough, but with the greatest share going to the larger centres

of population and services. It was acknowledged that given constraints on

land in some settlements, Green Belt would be required to accommodate

necessary urban extensions to meet the needs of the Borough and its

settlements housing requirements, and that the hybrid option would have a

greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt. However, this would be

less than would be required under Option 3, and tempered by the fact the

36

necessary growth is modest, and not all areas identified would need Green

Belt release.

2.3.26. With the hybrid option, the opportunity for growth is spread across the

Borough, which will help secure improvements in affordable housing

provision, open space and other infrastructure in a number of locations. The

sustainability appraisal assessed the hybrid option as scoring best against

the sustainability criteria, alongside option 2. However, the overall benefits

of distributing smaller amounts of growth to smaller settlements in order to

support local services and help contribute to infrastructure, affordable

housing provision and open space in these settlements alongside the larger

towns was ultimately deemed to be the preferable and more equitable

strategy for growth in the Borough.

2.3.27. In order to determine where the most sustainable locations for housing

are, a Settlement Audit was undertaken (published 2015 and updated in

2017) to review the service provision across the Boroughs settlements.

2.3.28. The Audit feeds into the settlement hierarchy, which was originally

published in the Homes and Settlements Paper in 2016. The outcome of

the Audit was that eighteen settlements were found to be the most

sustainable locations for growth in terms of service level and population.

Three tiers were created to group the settlements together based on

services and population:

2.3.29. The Main Urban Area incorporates central Doncaster and the

surrounding contiguous areas, and is the largest settlement where the

greatest amount of the Boroughs housing will be directed towards. In total,

approximately 50% - 55% of the Boroughs housing requirement should be

delivered here, including a share of the local (baseline) need of 585dpa,

and a large share (60 – 70%) of the economic requirement of an additional

335dpa. Therefore the need to deliver housing in this settlement is the most

acute in the Borough, and the most imperative to the Borough being able

to deliver the required amount of housing.

2.3.30. The Main Towns are the main settlements outside of the Main Urban

Area, and incorporate seven large towns across the Borough with excellent

service provision and larger populations. In total, these areas are expected

to meet their respective shares of the local needs and up to 10% each of

the Boroughs economic housing requirement. This means the settlements

can deliver within a range, and not all need to deliver at the top of their

respective ranges to achieve the collective Main Town target – so there is

the potential to offset the need between some closely related settlements.

The need in the Main Towns is therefore moderately acute, as they will

37

account collectively for approximately 40% of the Boroughs housing target.

It is therefore important that sites are delivered in these locations.

2.3.31. Settlements in the Main Town tier are: Adwick – Woodlands; Armthorpe;

Conisbrough & Denaby; Duncroft, Dunsville, Hatfield & Stainforth;

Mexborough; Rossington; and Thorne & Moorends.

2.3.32. The Service Towns and Villages are smaller settlements around the

Borough, which are only expected to provide their share of housing to meet

their local needs. In total, this will account for approximately 10% of the

Boroughs overall housing requirement, with settlements getting a split of

the baseline requirement (585dpa) based on their existing number of

households. This means that these settlements have comparatively modest

housing targets ranging from 55 to 250. Although it is important to meet

local needs locally, the more modest requirements mean that the need to

deliver housing in these settlements is less acute than in larger settlements

which are relied on to meet a greater share of the Boroughs overall housing

requirement. It remains important that sites are delivered in these locations

to meet local housing needs and deliver the settlement strategy, however.

2.3.33. Settlements in the Service Town and Villages tier are: Askern; Auckley

– Hayfield Green; Barnburgh – Harlington; Barnby Dun; Bawtry; Carcroft &

Skellow; Edlington; Finningley; Sprotbrough; and Tickhill.

2.3.34. The revised housing target of 882 dwellings per annum, distributed in

the way set out above, results in the following individual settlement targets:

Settlement Proposed allocation

Main Urban Area 6,805 – 7,315

7 Main Towns

Dunscroft, Dunsville, Hatfield & Stainforth

575 – 1,085

Thorne & Moorends 510 – 1,020

Mexborough 475 – 985

Conisbrough & Denaby 465 – 975

Armthorpe 420 – 930

Rossington 385 – 895

Adwick & Woodlands 225 – 765

10 Service Towns and Villages

Carcroft & Skellow 250

Edlington 230

Askern 165

Tickhill 165

38

Auckley & Hayfield Green 125

Bawtry 110

Barnby Dun 105

Sprotbrough 95

Barnburgh - Harlington 60

Finningley 55

Total 13,235

40 Defined Villages No allocations

The Challenges of Delivering the Spatial Strategy

2.3.35. Spatially, Doncaster is formed of a number of separate towns and

villages which are spread around the main urban core of the Borough,

general separated by large areas of countryside. This is largely a result of

the Boroughs mining heritage, where a number of settlements and

communities grew around collieries across the Borough, but also includes

market towns such as Bawtry and Tickhill, spa towns like Askern, which

also later had a colliery, and smaller villages like Hayfield Green and

Finningley which are closely related to the former RAF base at what is now

Doncaster Sheffield Airport.

2.3.36. Doncaster is the largest metropolitan Borough in the country, covering

an area of 225 square miles. The disparate settlement pattern and scale of

the Borough mean that delivering an equitable distribution of growth is

challenging. Given the distances between settlements, it is important that

identified housing needs for each settlement are met locally insofar as is

possible for each settlement to receive the benefits this brings. The spatial

strategy identifies the locations for growth and the aim of the Local Plan is

to deliver housing in the places it is needed wherever practical. It should be

noted there is an even Green Belt / Countryside (or west – east) split

between the locations of larger settlements.

2.3.37. The Settlement Audit clearly showed there was a disparity between the

size and service provision in the Borough, and thus where the more or less

sustainable locations for growth are. It has identified where the larger more

sustainable settlements with better service provision are, which can

accommodate the required growth. There are a limited number of

settlements in the Borough with the ability to subsume the required higher

amounts of housing, and a number of small villages with comparatively

limited service provision and small populations which are unsuitable for

large amounts of growth.

39

2.3.38. Within Doncaster, a majority of the largest and most sustainable

settlements which are proposed to have housing allocations are

surrounded by a tightly drawn Green Belt:

Settlement Proposed allocation

Green Belt or Countryside?

Main Urban Area 6,805 – 7,315 Approx. half Green Belt / half countryside

7 Main Towns

Dunscroft, Dunsville, Hatfield & Stainforth

575 – 1,085 Countryside

Thorne & Moorends 510 – 1,020 Countryside

Mexborough 475 – 985 Green Belt


465 – 975 Green Belt

Armthorpe 420 – 930 Countryside

Rossington 385 – 895 Both Green Belt & Countryside

Adwick & Woodlands 255 - 765 Green Belt

10 Service Towns and Villages

Carcroft & Skellow 250 Green Belt

Edlington 230 Green Belt

Askern 165 Green Belt

Tickhill 165 Green Belt

Auckley & Hayfield Green

125 Countryside

Bawtry 110 Largely Green Belt, small area of countryside

Barnby Dun 105 Countryside

Sprotbrough 95 Green Belt


60 Green Belt

Finningley 55 Countryside

Total4 13,235

40 Defined Villages No allocations 14 countryside; 26 Green Belt

2.3.39. Of these eighteen settlements, ten are surrounded by the Green Belt,

with a further two half surrounded by it, and six within the countryside to the

east. Of the Defined Villages, which are the less sustainable and populated

villages, 2/3 are also within the Green Belt, which means in total the majority

of settlements either identified as suitable to have a housing allocation, or

the pool of smaller ‘defined village’ settlements, are surrounded by Green

Belt.

4 Total reflects the OAN and fact the top of the ranges will not be achieved in every settlement

40

2.3.40. This highlights the first inherent problem for the Borough with regards to

delivering housing whilst avoiding the Green Belt – the majority of the

Boroughs most sustainable settlements where housing is earmarked to be

delivered in are located within it, and the Green Belt boundary is generally

tightly bounded to the edges of the respective settlements’ built form.

2.3.41. Meeting the settlement strategy and avoiding the Green Belt would

therefore require suitable sites being found on land within their respective

settlement limits.

2.3.42. Alongside the establishment of the settlement hierarchy, a Call for Sites

was undertaken to ascertain land availability in the Borough. Sites went

through the site selection process and were filtered by a number of criteria,

as explained in the Site Selection Methodology.

2.3.43. Before considering the need to allocate Green Belt land, sites must be

screened to filter out the options based on size, location in relation to the

strategy and performance in the sustainability appraisal. The outcome of

the process is that sites which are suitably located, available and not

constrained by issues such as Green Belt, flood risk, access, open space,

biodiversity importance, built heritage and archaeology etc. should come

out of the site selection process as a suitable site for allocation.

2.3.44. A long process has been undertaken as explained in detail in the Site

Selection Methodology, however the result is that all suitable urban,

brownfield and non-Green Belt urban extensions have been allocated in the

places required by the settlement hierarchy in order to help achieve the

respective housing targets for the settlement.

2.3.45. It is important to note that where a settlement can meet its housing target

through existing commitments, or by utilising these and suitable non –

Green Belt sites, then there will be no need to release Green Belt land in

these locations as there are no exceptional circumstances to do so.

2.3.46. For settlements in the Green Belt, this means that Askern, Edlington and

Rossington do not need further allocations, although for completeness

Green Belt sites have been assessed in these locations in the Green Belt

Stage 3 Addendum. Additionally, the countryside settlements of Dunscroft,

Dunsville, Hatfield and Stainforth, and Finningley can meet or largely meet

their housing target using commitments alone. However, in both Green Belt

and Countryside settlements, if a suitable site exists within the settlement

(for example a derelict brownfield site), this may still be allocated, or in other

cases covered by Residential Policy Area, as is the case in Askern,

41

Edlington and Rossington, as well as Dunscroft, Dunsville, Hatfield and

Stainforth.

2.3.47. In some cases, settlements can deliver more than their allocated supply.

When this happens, the oversupply (homes delivered above the settlement

target) will not count towards the Boroughs overall 15 year supply, rather it

will contribute to the supply in years 16 and 17 of the plan period. For

example: Askern’s housing target is 165, it can deliver 691 units. The

surplus of 526 will be allocated towards the supply in the final two plan

years, where 1,764 (2 x 882) units are required.

2.3.48. This is very important in order to maintain the settlement strategy. If

oversupply in some settlements against the housing targets was allowed to

offset the requirements in other areas, then areas would not be able to meet

their full local housing needs locally. By “capping” each settlements housing

delivery at the settlements target, we ensure that the strategy is maintained

and each area has the opportunity to deliver its required housing in the local

area, which includes either fully or in part, its locally assessed need.

2.3.49. Furthermore, in the interests of delivering the agreed spatial strategy and

ensuring its integrity is upheld, it is not possible for settlements which are

non – Green Belt to contribute alternative non – Green Belt sites to offset

the requirement in Green Belt settlements.

2.3.50. Were this allowed, it would create a skewed pattern of development,

where sites would be delivered in unconstrained parts of the east of the

Borough (generally the south east) as opposed to the areas they are both

needed and have been shown to be preferable and sustainable through

consultation and subsequent settlement work. If permitted, it would put a

large amount of pressure on settlements, services and the countryside in a

very limited part of the Borough, and a few generally small settlements

which would be in complete conflict with the agreed settlement strategy, or

on settlements where supply is already high. This will lead to unsustainable

patterns of development and a plan lacking a suitable spatial strategy.

Figures will therefore be ‘capped’ in these settlements.

2.3.51. Instead, it is contested that a few small well planned incursions into the

Green Belt, where absolutely necessary and fully justified are more

sustainable and potentially less impactful on the countryside, individual

settlements and the Borough as a whole than simply indiscriminately

directing housing to settlements and countryside in the east of the Borough

to avoid Green Belt. This means that the settlement strategy will also be

maintained, housing growth will be spread more equitably, and there will

42

not be an ad hoc delivery of housing based on wherever there are less

constraints on the supply of land.

2.3.52. As alluded to, within Doncaster it is not the case of having to only

contend with the Green Belt as a constraint, there are a number of other

constraints within the Borough which make delivering housing where it is

required challenging.

2.3.53. Chief amongst these is flood risk. The Borough is heavily constrained,

particularly to the north east (which is not Green Belt) by land which falls in

flood zone 2 or 3. Other settlements, including Dunscroft, Dunsville, Hatfield

and Stainforth, Barnby Dun and the Green Belt settlements of Askern and

Carcroft – Skellow, as well as parts of the Main Urban Area also have large

areas of land in the flood zone. The devastating impacts of flooding in the

Borough in the recent past are well documented. Figure 2 (pp. 43) shows

how both constraints are at play in the Borough.

2.3.54. Flood zone sites, unless already granted permission, will not be

allocated, even if this prevents a settlement reaching its housing target.

This approach has been carefully considered, especially given the fact this

may increase pressure on land in the Green Belt. This is because flood risk

is a physical constraint which could potentially be a risk to property or life,

and as such we will not seek to allocate land in such areas in the Local

Plan, in line with national flood risk policy. However, whilst respecting the

purposes of the Green Belt, unless areas also fall within Flood Zones, the

same physical risks do not exist. Therefore, we have committed to exploring

the options for releasing Green Belt where it may be necessary to do so,

and where exceptional circumstances apply and suitable sites can be

found.

2.3.55. Not allocating land in flood risk areas can drastically reduce the pool of

available sites in the Boroughs settlements. This has two impacts. Firstly,

it limits the ability of some settlements to meet their housing requirement in

the settlement itself. Secondly, this means that in the case of the Main

Urban Area and Main Towns, pressure may increase on other non-flood

risk settlements to deliver housing in order to meet their overall settlement

housing requirement, which is impeded by not allocating land in areas of

flood risk.

43

Figure 2 - Green Belt, Flood Risk and Development Limits in Doncaster

44

2.3.56. Furthermore, if a settlement in the Service Towns and Village tier

absolutely cannot meet its housing requirement, this could ultimately be

met in either the Main Urban Area or the Main Towns, although the

preference is for local needs to be met locally where there are suitable sites.

Only if it is absolutely necessary and unavoidable will needs be met outside

of the settlements that the need relates to.

2.3.57. Due to an array of non – Green Belt constraints, it may be that some

settlements cannot fully meet their housing requirement, despite the best

efforts to find a site. There are a number of other constraints on land and

the delivery of sites in the Boroughs settlements, including:

Settlement Main constraints

Main Urban Area Green Belt (west);

Areas of flood zone (predominantly north east)

Adwick - Woodlands Green Belt;

Some flood risk to north east;

Two conservation areas, including the Woodlands which covers a large amount of the settlement;

A1(M) provides clear western limit

Armthorpe The Local Plan will reflect the sites proposed in the Neighbourhood Plan and will not make additional allocations in this location.


Green Belt;

Borough boundary with Rotherham to the west;

Train line and River Don provide strong northern boundaries that have been developed up to.

Duncroft, Dunsville, Hatfield & Stainforth

Largely in Flood Zone 3

However, can meet / surpass requirement via permissions no further sites required.

Mexborough Green Belt;

Railway lines and Borough boundary with Rotherham to the south west;

Railway line, river and functional flood plain to the south;

HS2 safeguarding route to the east of the settlement

Rossington Green Belt (west)

45

Thorne & Moorends Within an extensive area of land identified as Flood Zone 3;

Askern Green Belt;

Surrounded by land in Flood Zone 2, notably to the south;

However, can meet requirement via permissions and urban sites

Auckley – Hayfield Green

No major constraints


Green Belt

Barnby Dun Heavily constrained by land in Flood Zone 3

Bawtry Majority of the settlement surrounded by Green Belt;

Borough boundary with Nottinghamshire to the south;

East Coast Mainline provides clear boundary to the east (although some development has occurred beyond this).

Carcroft - Skellow Green Belt;

Large amounts of the settlement, and land to the south is in flood zone 3

Edlington Green Belt;

However, can meet requirement via permissions

Finningley Constrained by Doncaster Sheffield Airport, which abuts the settlement to the west;

Railway line to the north provides a strong boundary although some development has occurred beyond this.

Sprotbrough Green Belt;

The A1(M) provides a strong boundary to the east;

The River Don provides a strong boundary to the south

Tickhill Green Belt;

The A1 provides a strong boundary to the east;

The settlement is constrained by access issues which make accessing potential sites difficult;

Tickhill Castle lies immediately south (scheduled monument).

2.3.58. It is therefore clear that, in addition to Green Belt there are a number of

other constraints on the availability of land in the preferred settlements in

46

the Borough, which makes the delivery of sites within the Borough

challenging.

2.3.59. Given these constraints on land, and the need to maintain the settlement

strategy and deliver housing where it is required, insofar as is possible, it is

not possible in Doncaster to meet the settlement strategy and consequently

the Boroughs housing target without the release of Green Belt land.

2.3.60. It is further acknowledged that some Green Belt sites may form entirely

logical site options which are sustainable, reasonable and are not overly

impactful on the purposes of that Green Belt. Where settlements cannot

meet their housing requirements, Green Belt options have been explored.

2.3.61. It should be noted that just because a settlement may have a need to

find a site, and cannot without utilising Green Belt, that this does not mean

that a site necessarily will be found / released from the Green Belt. It may

transpire that the impact on the Green Belt is considered too great or the

site options may otherwise be unsuitable, meaning no allocation will be

made as exceptional circumstances cannot be conclusively justified. Sites

will only be allocated where the Local Planning Authority feel the site is

suitable and fully justified across a range of criteria’s and exceptional

circumstances exist.

Establishing the Shortfall

2.3.62. As part of the site selection work, the supply of suitable sites in the

respective Green Belt settlements has been established. This allows for an

understanding of the scale of need and the acuteness.

2.3.63. Once all suitable non – Green Belt sites are allocated, the surplus /

deficiency of sites by settlement is as follows:

Settlement Target 15 year Supply Deficient / surplus?

Adwick - Woodlands

255 – 765 482 +227 (bottom range)

-283 (top range)

Askern 165 691 +526


60 0 -60

Bawtry 110 70 -40

Carcroft - Skellow 250 7 -243

47


465 – 975 328 -137 (bottom range)

-647 (top range)

Edlington 230 665 +435

Main Urban Area 6805 - 7315 6,780 -25 (bottom range)

-535 (top range)

Mexborough 475 - 985 310 -165 (bottom range)

-675 (top range)

Rossington 385 – 895 1,142 +757 (bottom range)

+247 (top range)

Sprotbrough 95 0 -95

Tickhill 165 0 -165

2.3.64. As has been established, Askern, Edlington and Rossington do not need

additional housing sites, and consequently possible Green Belt release, as

they can already meet and surpass their housing requirement.

2.3.65. Adwick – Woodlands, is able to get within its target housing range

without utilising Green Belt land, as there are enough suitable alternate

sites and commitments here. However, it is possible that it could still take

on more housing within the Green Belt if it can help boost the local and

overall Borough supply, offsetting the lack of sites in other settlements, and

if there are potential suitable sites in Green Belt terms.

2.3.66. The Main Urban Area cannot get within its housing range without utilising

Green Belt land, falling just short of the bottom of its range by -25.

2.3.67. In the smaller settlements of Barnburgh – Harlington, Bawtry, Carcroft –

Skellow, Sprotbrough and Tickhill, their respective settlement targets

cannot be met, and in the case of Conisbrough & Denaby and Mexborough,

settlements cannot get within their range. With the exception of Bawtry,

these settlements fall significantly short of their housing requirement by a

substantial amount.

2.3.68. Therefore, it is considered that in order to maintain the agreed settlement

strategy, which was the outcome of consultation in the Borough and is

considered a sustainable strategy, and furthermore given the evident

constraints on land in the Borough and subsequent lack of potential sites in

the places required to meet the strategy, that there are exceptional

circumstances for Green Belt release to be explored in these locations.

48

Utilising Brownfield Land and Underutilised Land

2.3.69. As alluded to, the approach to Site Selection is that before opportunities

for releasing Green Belt are explored, any suitable alternatives are

allocated in the settlements they are required. Green Belt release is only

sought as a last resort in settlements, where the allocated housing

requirement cannot otherwise be met.

2.3.70. A number of brownfield sites in the borough are in areas of flood risk and

therefore not suitable for allocation in line with National Policy on flood risk

sequential testing.

Optimising Development Density

2.3.71. Site densities for the Local Plan were agreed with HBF members of the

Stakeholder Group which was formed in the early stages of the Local Plan

for the Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment. Although a

guiding net density of 35 – 40 dph was agreed, when site assessments

were undertaken by members, numbers actually came out at an average

of 29dph. Where sites were not assessed by the group, the average density

of 33dph has been applied to calculate potential site densities.

2.3.72. There is not deemed to be any reason to deviate from this. Many of the

Local Plans urban sites already have planning permission and therefore

densities cannot be altered as part of the Local Plan. There is not thought

to be any great appetite for high density schemes adjacent to transport

hubs such as train stations, as there may be in other parts of the country.

Remaining sites include a number of greenfield extensions where densities

would be expected to be lower, with larger family houses more likely to be

delivered. As alluded to above, there are a number of large brownfield sites

which would lend themselves to higher density schemes, especially around

the town centre, but which cannot be justified as allocations in line with the

sequential approach to flood risk.

2.3.73. Viability testing for the Local Plan acknowledges that densities depend

on a range of factors, but if there are for example a lot of bungalows then

this would reduce the overall density. Planning Permission sampling for the

Viability Testing report also found that on average, a density of 35 per net

hectare is the average site density from the permissions sampled.

2.3.74. Policy 8 of the Local Plan aims to deliver a wide range of housing types,

sizes and tenures. The 2019 Housing Needs Study highlights that the

greatest needs for house types in the Borough is 3 bed houses, followed

by larger 4+ bed houses and 2 bed bungalows (see Local Plan Policy 8).

49

The Housing Design Standards Policy Evidence Paper 2019 shows that

there is a need for more bungalows, homes suitable for elderly and / or

disabled people and homes which are easily adaptable. All of these require

larger plots and subsequently less dense sites.

2.3.75. Additionally, Neighbourhood Plans in the borough also generally have

aspirations to deliver family housing and bungalows. The Local Plan will not

conflict with the aspirations of Neighbourhood Plans in the borough.

2.3.76. With this in mind, it is not felt there is any justified reason to increase site

densities proposed in the Local Plan,

Discussions with Neighbouring Authorities

2.3.77. As part of the Duty to Co-operate, the Council have made neighbouring

authorities aware of the fact that Green Belt land is likely to be required to

meet both the settlement strategy and the Boroughs housing target.

2.3.78. As such, in an email dated 27th September 2018, Doncaster Council

wrote to neighbouring authorities and wider South Yorkshire authorities to

ask5:

“NPPF paragraph 137 (c) is clear that before concluding that exceptional

circumstances exist to justify changes to Green Belt boundaries, the LPA

must take into account whether a neighbouring authority could

accommodate some of the identified need for development; this should

be demonstrated through the Statement of Common Ground. Based on

the current Local Plan consultation (Draft Policies & Proposed Sites –

September 2018) Doncaster Council’s annual housing requirement is

920dpa, or 15,640 new dwellings over the plan period to 2032. In order

to fulfil this, and to be in accordance with the emerging settlement

hierarchy, 1,960 new homes are being proposed on land currently

designated as Green Belt. The vast majority of this supply is on proposed

new housing allocations at: Doncaster Main Urban Area (742 units);

Mexborough (418 units); Conisbrough-Denaby (200 units); Carcroft-

Skellow (340 units); Sprotbrough (80 units); Barnburgh-Harlington (66

units); and, Bawtry (20 units). The balance in units (94 dwellings) is

made up from a couple of permissioned sites where very special

circumstances were demonstrated as part of the Development

Management stage and the Local Plan is looking to define a new

defensible boundary. All of these proposals have been informed by a

5 It should be noted the figures quoted were correct at the time of publication of the informal ‘Draft Policies and Proposed Sites Consultation’ in Autumn 2018, but which have subsequently been revised.

50

comprehensive Green Belt Review independently undertaken by Arups

in line with the agreed SCR Common Approach which is now published.

Further work is also being undertaken looking at the need and scale of

Safeguarding land which would be additional to the Green Belt release

referred to above. We are committed to planning for all of our housing

need within the Borough, but given the revisions to NPPF, Doncaster

Council is especially interested in understanding whether any of the

Borough’s housing need could be accommodated in your area, and if so

how much and within roughly what timescale?

2.3.79. This letter was sent to the Sheffield City Region authorities Barnsley,

Bassetlaw, Bolsover, Chesterfield, Derbyshire Dales, North East

Derbyshire, Rotherham and Sheffield, as well as the neighbouring

authorities of North East Lincolnshire, Selby and Wakefield.

2.3.80. Responses to this request showed that no neighbouring authorities are

able to take on any of Doncaster’s housing needs at this time, meaning it is

the sole responsibility of the Local Plan to deliver the required amount of

housing for the Borough, in the Borough.

Offsetting harm to the Green Belt

2.3.81. To ensure that harm to the Green Belt is alleviated, the Green Belt

boundary in Rossington has been amended to incorporate land which will

form a new country park, to the south of the colliery redevelopment.

2.3.82. The overall loss of Green Belt is tempered somewhat by incorporating

this proposal into the Green Belt. This is explored in greater detail in Section

7 (7.6 – Compensatory Green Belt).

The Nature and Extent of Harm to the Green Belt, and Exceptional

Circumstance Justification for removing sites from the Green Belt

2.3.83. The following sections elaborate on the justification for removing land

from the Green Belt (or lack thereof), in the Green Belt settlements which

cannot fully meet their housing requirements. As Askern, Edlington and

Rossington can all fully meet their housing requirements, there is no

exceptional circumstance argument for releasing Green Belt land in these

locations, and they are excluded from the assessments.

2.3.84. The following section is broken down on a settlement by settlement

basis:

51

Adwick - Woodlands

Adwick – Woodlands is a Main Town to the north west of the Borough, and

has a housing target of 255 - 765 dwellings for the years 2018 - 2033.

The latest evidence on potential land availability at the Town (HELAA Update 2018) identifies 437 dwellings with planning permission already granted as at 1st April 2018. There are just 5 relatively small non-Green Belt site options with a total capacity of just 121 units which shows that there are relatively few sites available that are non-Green Belt in the first instance. However, further analysis shows that 2 of the sites are constrained by large areas of medium flood risk leaving just 3 sites with a capacity of just 82 dwellings. Overall, it can deliver 45 dwellings via allocations on non – Green Belt sites

when all factors are considered, and 437 units via remaining capacity on

permissions (as at April 2018). It is therefore able to deliver 482 dwellings

and get into its target range without utilising Green Belt land.

Permissions

7 x sites 437 units

What are the non-Green Belt site options?

Site No Capacity Conclusion

North of Long Lands Lane

202 8 Uncertain whether deliverable / developable – make Residential Policy Area

Adwick depot, Mill Lane

368 12 Reject – fails flood risk sequential test

Ashwood House 371 29 Part permission, remainder unavailable

Lutterworth Drive 460 45 Proposed housing site

Fern Bank / Adwick depot

1051 27 Reject – fails flood risk sequential test

Overall, Adwick - Woodlands can deliver 45 dwellings via allocations on

non – Green Belt sites, and 437 units via remaining capacity on permissions

(as at April 2018). It is therefore able to deliver 482 dwellings and get into

its target range without utilising Green Belt land.

52

What are the potential Green Belt site options and are any ruled out

on other grounds?

No. Site name Cap Boundary

Purpose Overall Conclusion

458 Church Lane

89 Mixed Strong Mod - weak

Fails flood risk sequential test

459 Doncaster Lane

316 Weak Moderate Mod - weak


461 Redhouse Lane (a)

N/A Mixed Strong Mod - weak

Promoted for employment

462 Land off Adwick Lane

N/A Mixed Moderate Moderate Promoted for employment

512 Redhouse Lane (b)



513 Redhouse Lane (c)

624 Strong Moderate Mod - strong

Possible archaeological

constraints

Site assessment of the remaining sites

All Green Belt sites were assessed in the Green Belt Stage 3 Review,

however the only potential Green Belt site which is not subject to other

constraints is Site 513:

Site Boundary Purpose Summary

513 Strong: The boundary would be strongly defined by Red House Lane to the north, a feature of permanence which would result in the rounding off of the settlement.

Mixed: The site has a moderate role in preventing merging with Carcroft Skellow, despite falling in a largely essential gap. It is of moderate sensitivity to encroachment and demonstrates a strong rural character, as well as having a moderate role in assisting urban regeneration. However the site does not check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas and does not contribute to the historic purposes of the Green Belt.

Moderately strong: Overall, the site would provide a rounding off of the settlement via a strongly defined northern boundary. Against the purposes of the Green Belt, the site scores generally averagely. Against some purposes, it’s role is negligible, and it does not score strongly for any one purpose or test.

53

Conclusion: will Green Belt be released in this settlement?

With commitments and suitable non Green Belt sites, Adwick – Woodlands

can deliver 482 dwellings. This is within the target range for the settlement,

above their local needs requirement of 255 by 227 dwellings, and

furthermore delivering 63% of its overall target of 765 (a shortfall of 283).

There is a potential Green Belt site (513) which could contribute to the

settlement surpassing its overall housing target, which has also been

assessed as being potentially less impactful on the Green Belt and its

purposes were it to be removed and furthermore able to provide a strong

boundary and round off the settlement. However, given that Adwick –

Woodlands is the smallest of the Main Towns, and can comfortably deliver

a healthy supply of housing against its assessed needs, including meeting

its local housing needs and a significant amount of its economic uplift too,

delivering towards the middle of its range overall is deemed appropriate for

this settlement. It is not considered that exceptional circumstances exist

which warrant the release of Green Belt in this location at this time.

Settlement supply – Adwick - Woodlands

Housing range 255 - 765

Permissions 437 units

Non – Green Belt Allocations 45 units

Green Belt Allocations 0 units

Total 482 units

Against target of 255 - 765 Above bottom of range by +227 Below top of range by -283


Barnburgh - Harlington is a settlement made up of two adjacent villages in

the Service Towns and Villages tier. Lying to the west of the Borough, just

north of Mexborough, it has a housing target of 60 dwellings for the years

2018 - 2033.

The latest evidence on potential land availability in the village (HELAA

update 2018) identifies 0 sites with planning permission granted as at 2018.

There are 5 potential site options (with above 5 units) which could deliver

210 units in total as being deliverable / developable in the plan period. Of

this supply, 191 units (91%) is on land currently designated as Green Belt.

Only one non-Green Belt site which could potentially deliver 19 units is

available, however, concerns about this site related to the fact it is known

54

to be on top of landfill with issues of gas emissions and ground conditions

means there are deliverability concerns. Therefore, there are only 4 options

with a potential supply of 191 units available for allocation in this settlement,

all of which are in the Green Belt.

Barnburgh – Harlington can thus deliver 0 dwellings on suitable non –

Green Belt sites, and 0 allocations via remaining capacity on permissions

(as at April 2018). It is therefore unable to reach its housing target without

using Green Belt land, and has a severe lack of existing supply and non –

Green Belt options.

Permissions

0 sites 0 units



Hollowgate, Barnburgh

095 19 Site is known to be landfill, concerns about gas emissions and ground conditions.

Overall, Barnburgh – Harlington can deliver 0 dwellings via allocations on

non – Green Belt sites, and 0 units via existing permissions (as at April

2018). It therefore cannot reach its housing target without utilising Green

Belt land.


on other grounds?



143 North of Primary School, Church Lane

51 Mixed Moderate Moderate Significant built heritage and

archaeological impacts that may not be resolvable.

777 Plot 3, Harlington

66 Mixed Weak Mod - strong

No known constraints

1003 Paddock adj. Manor

Farm

19 Weak Moderate Mod – weak


1004 Field adj. Manor Farm



55


All Green Belt sites were assessed in the Green Belt Stage 3 Review,

with one site potentially constrained by archaeological concerns, and

three facing no non – Green Belt constraints:


143 Mixed: The boundary would be weakly defined in the east and south east, to the rear of properties in the north and a copse of trees in the north west. However, whilst these features are mixed, the resultant boundary would be more coherent that the existing one, which is considered weak, angular and unlikely to be durable in the long term.

Moderate: The site scores strongly for safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, displaying a strong unspoilt rural character. However, against the other Green Belt purposes, the site performs relatively weakly.

Moderate: The site would be defined by features mixed in strength, but would replace a weak existing boundary. With regards to purposes, the overall score is moderate, but against many purposes the site scores poorly, although it does score strongly against safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.

777 Mixed: Boundary features are weaker in the south, however the proposed site would help create a linear, strong and recognisable boundary reflecting built form in this location.

Weak: The site scores moderately against purpose 2a (resisting coalescence between the settlement at Mexborough), however it scores more weakly against all the other purposes, meaning overall the site does not strongly contribute to the purposes of the Green Belt in this location.

Moderately strong: the site could help create a strong, linear and likely to be permanent boundary in this location, and the existing boundary already is indented around the row of houses along Mill Lane. This site does not strongly contribute to the Green Belt purposes, with the only notable exception being its role in preventing neighbouring towns from merging, which it scores moderately for.

1003 Weak: the boundary would be weakly defined to the north and west due to the lack of recognisable features which are likely to be permanent.

Moderate: The site scores moderately highly for safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, and a moderate role in preventing

Moderately – weak: The proposed Green Belt boundary would be weakly defined, and formed of features which are not readily recognisable or likely to

56

neighbouring towns from merging (purpose 2a). It scores less strongly against other purposes.

be durable. The site scores moderately against the Green Belt purposes – stronger for safeguarding the countryside from encroachment and less strongly against the other Green Belt purposes.

1004 Weak: the boundary would protrude into the Green Belt and create an irregular boundary. Existing mature trees are rendered less effective as a boundary feature due to the undulating topography of the site.

Moderate: The site scores moderately highly for safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, and a moderate role in preventing neighbouring towns from merging (purpose 2a). It scores less strongly against other purposes

Moderately – weak: The proposed Green Belt boundary would be weakly defined, and formed of features which are not readily recognisable or likely to be durable. The site scores moderately against the Green Belt purposes – stronger for safeguarding the countryside from encroachment and less strongly against the other Green Belt purposes.


In order to deliver housing to meet Barnburgh – Harlington’s local housing

need, a Green Belt site would be required, as there are no houses which

can be delivered via existing commitments, and no suitable non – Green

Belt sites available in the settlement. The Green Belt boundary is tightly

drawn and land within the settlement is at a premium. However, just

because an allocation in the Green Belt is required to help the settlement

meet its housing target, it does not necessarily mean that a site will be

allocated – this is dependent on balancing the need to deliver housing with

the harm to the Green Belt.

In the case of Barnburgh - Harlington, on balance it is felt that there are

exceptional circumstances which justify the release of site 777, and that

this is a suitable site which could deliver the required number of dwellings

to meet the settlements local housing need. Allocation of the site will create

a strong boundary, and the site generally does not contribute to strongly to

most of the Green Belt purposes, which is reflected in its overall strength of

case for removal score of ‘Moderately Strong’ in the Green Belt review. The

57

site will deliver circa 66 units, which will allow Barnburgh – Harlington to

meet its relatively modest local housing needs target without being overly

impactful on the Green Belt.

Settlement supply - Barnburgh - Harlington

Housing Target 60

Permissions 0 units



Total 66 units

Against target of 60 Above target by +6

Bawtry

Bawtry is a market town to the south of the Borough, on the border of the

Boroughs boundary with Nottinghamshire. It has a housing target of 110

units.

The latest evidence on potential land availability in Bawtry (HELAA update

2018) identifies 3 sites with planning permission which can deliver 54 units

in total in the plan period. There are 6 non – Green Belt site options, of

which one is deemed suitable for allocation and can accommodate 16 units.

The remaining 5 sites have been ruled out due to access concerns.

Bawtry can therefore deliver 70 units overall via commitments and non –

Green Belt allocations.

Permissions

3 sites 54 units



Narrow Lane 172 92 Unlikely to achieve access

Rear of 17 Thorne Road

280 8 Unlikely to achieve access

North Avenue 499 16 Proposed housing site

Thorne Road 780 72 Fails flood risk sequential test

Land off Towngate

1006 8 Landlocked with no apparent means of access.

Narrow Lane, Bawtry and Bawtry Road, Austerfield

1087 102 (Merger of 172 and 280 with new access proposed. Unlikely to achieve access.

58

Overall, Bawtry can deliver 16 dwellings on non – Green Belt sites, and 54

units via remaining capacity on permissions (as at April 2018), a total of 70

units (64% of its target). It is therefore unable to meet its full housing target

without Green Belt land, however it can get some way towards its local

target without utilising land in the Green Belt.


on other grounds?



141 Westwood Road

20 Strong Weak Strong No known constraints

146 Tickhill Road

302 Mixed Strong Mod – weak


786 Cockhill Close

8 Strong Strong Moderate Access issues

873 Site A, Martin

Common Farm

214 Weak Strong Weak No known constraints

874 Site B, Martin

Common Farm


995 Menagerie Wood



996 West of Bawtry Hall


1017 Martin Grange Farm



All Green Belt sites were assessed in the Green Belt Stage 3 Review:


141 Strong: the site is supported by a strongly defined wooded area and the Borough boundary to the south,

Weak: The site is distinctly separate to the wider Green Belt as it is isolated and serves a separate function.

Strong: The site constitutes an isolated island of Green Belt which does not strongly contribute to its

59

which is also defined by a drain. Removal of the site from the Green Belt would round off the built form and furthermore the site is currently an isolated area of Green Belt.

The site demonstrates a strong rural character (purpose 3b), but this aside it scores weakly against other purposes, and makes no discernible contribution to the Green Belt or serve the Green Belt purposes.

purposes. Its removal and allocation would result in a rounding off of the settlement and a strong resultant boundary in this location. The site is one of only two in the Borough to have a “strong case” for continuation in the site selection process.

146 Mixed: The boundary is strongly defined to the north and south by roads, but weak to the west where there are only occasional trees and shrubs, and would also create an angular indentation in this location.

Strong: The site has an overall moderate role in preventing neighbouring towns from merging and resists coalescence and ribbon development in particularly strongly. The site also has a strong role in protecting the countryside from encroachment. It scores less strongly against other purposes.

Moderately weak: Whilst the boundary is mixed, with both weak and strong elements, the site does have a strong role in assisting in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, and also a moderate role in preventing neighbouring towns from merging, resulting in a moderately weak case overall.

873 Weak: the proposed site has a moderately dense field boundary to the west and a weak boundary based on no ground features to the north, meaning a weakly defined overall boundary.

Strong: The site contains land which is considered to have a strong role in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, and has also helped the Great North Road resist ribbon development, with a moderate overall contribution to preventing neighbouring towns from merging.

Weak: the site would be weakly defined to the west and north, and plays an important role in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, and a moderate role in preventing neighbouring towns from merging by resisting ribbon development.

874 Weak: the site would be weakly defined to the north and west, and in isolation to the south (unless site 873 came forward). Additionally, this would replace the

Strong: The site contains land which is considered to have a strong role in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, and has also helped the Great

Weak: the site would be weakly defined to the north and west, and south in isolation. It plays and important role in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, and a

60

strongly defined Great North Road boundary.

North Road resist ribbon development, with a moderate overall contribution to preventing neighbouring towns from merging.

moderate role in preventing neighbouring towns from merging by resisting ribbon development.

995 Mixed: the boundary would be strongly defined by the A631 and the Borough boundary, however the resultant boundary would be stepped.

Strong: the site plays a strong role in preventing Bawtry from merging towards / with Harworth Bircotes to the west. It also has a high sensitivity to encroachment and development would adversely impact on the existing woodland.

Moderately – weak: The site would create a mixed strength boundary, with a strong boundary feature in the Great North Road, but a stepped resultant boundary which protrudes west of Bawtry. In doing so, the site would begin to merge the settlement towards Harworth Bircotes in the west (Nottinghamshire). Furthermore, being a woodland, the site is considered to be sensitive to encroachment, where development would adversely impact on this feature.

996 Weak: The south and western boundaries would be strongly defined, however to the north the boundary would not be defined by any notable feature, and the resultant boundary would be result in isolated Green Belt to the north and east.

Strong: The site plays a strong role in preserving the setting and special character of the historic core of Bawtry. It also plays a strong role in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, although it scores more weakly against the other Green Belt purposes.

Weak: the resultant Green Belt boundary would be weakly defined to the north of the site and result in isolated areas of Green Belt to the north and east. The site plays and important role against the historic aims of the Green Belt, and in protecting the countryside from encroachment, meaning overall there is weak case for continuation in the site selection process.

1017 Weak: the boundary is not exactly aligned to

Strong: The site has a strong role in

Weak: The site would have a weakly defined

61

the west with features, and therefore not based on any infrastructure or natural features and poorly defined here and to the north. Were the site to be removed from the Green Belt, it would create an indentation into the Green Belt beyond the existing built form.

safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, and has also prevented neighbouring towns from merging by preventing ribbon development – however it scores less strongly against the other Green Belt purposes.

boundary and create an angular incursion into the Green Belt. Furthermore, Green Belt in this location serves an important role in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment and resisting ribbon development.


Without Green Belt, Bawtry can get some way towards its local housing

need target of 110, by delivering 70 units. Therefore, it is not quite as

imperative as other areas that a site is found to make up the shortfall of 40,

as Bawtry will deliver some of its local housing needs irrespective of Green

Belt constraints.

A number of Green Belt sites were submitted for consideration around

Bawtry (as well as a number of non-Green Belt sites with constraints). From

these, site 141 emerges as a clear sensible option for removal from the

Green Belt, and it is deemed that exceptional circumstances exist that

warrant the release of this site. The site is an isolated island of Green Belt

which does not strongly contribute to the purposes of the Green Belt, and

would round off the settlement, as well as boosting the supply by 20 units,

meaning Bawtry would be able to deliver 90 units (82%) of its local housing

need of 110. Whilst still short, this modest site could contribute to local

supply without being overly impactful on the Green Belt. It is not deemed

that exceptional circumstances exist that warrant the removal of any further

land in this location, an on the whole the release of any other site in this

location would be harmful to the Green Belt and many would result in large

oversupply of houses compared to the targets which Bawtry is deemed

capable of subsuming.

Settlement supply - Bawtry

Housing Target 110




Total 90 units

Against target of 110 Under target by -20

62

Carcroft – Skellow

Carcroft – Skellow is one settlement made up of two contiguous adjacent

towns in the north of the Borough. It is the largest settlement in the Service

Town and Villages tier, and is closely related to the neighbouring Main

Town of Adwick – Woodlands. It has a local housing needs target of 250

units in the plan period.

The latest evidence on potential land availability in Carcroft – Skellow

(HELAA update 2018) identifies 1 site with planning permission with a

capacity of just 7 units. Of this supply, 8 sites with a total of 1299 units

(95.6%) is on land designated as Green Belt. There are 3 non – Green Belt

sites promoted with a total capacity of 53 units, of which 0 is deemed

suitable for allocation.

This means that Carcroft - Skellow can deliver 0 dwellings on non – Green

Belt sites, and 7 units via remaining capacity on permissions (as at April

2018).

Permissions

1 site 7 units



1-29 Buttermere Close

367 7 Fails flood risk sequential test

Owston Road 398 39 Fails flood risk sequential test

Sandyfields View 401 7 Fails flood risk sequential test

Carcroft - Skellow can deliver 0 dwellings on non – Green Belt sites, and 7

units via remaining capacity on permissions (as at April 2018), a total of 7

units (2.8% of its target). It is therefore unable to reach its housing target

without considering the use of Green Belt land.

63


on other grounds?

No. Site name

Cap Boundary


042 Rear of Skellow

Hall

78 Mixed Moderate Moderate Fails flood risk sequential test

145 Land at Skellow

160 Weak Strong Weak Fails flood risk sequential test

165* Land North of

A1

300 Strong Moderate Moderately Strong

No known issues

185 Mill Lane and

Crabgate

334 Weak Strong Weak Fails flood risk sequential test

186 Crabgate Lane

See 165

Mixed Moderate Moderate No known constraints

273 Askern Road,

Carcroft

226 Weak Moderate Moderately weak


1005

Repton Road


1089

East of New

Street



* Assessment considered ‘165’ to be what is in actuality sites 165 and 186

combined



165 / 186

Strong: the proposed boundary would be defined by the A1(M) in the west and Green Lane in the north. These features are therefore considered strong and permanent and will result in the rounding off of Skellow.

Moderate: the proposed site scores moderately for assisting in urban regeneration, given its proximity to Carcroft / Skellow. It maintains a less essential gap between the settlement and Burghwallis, and has a moderate – strong role in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. It scores less strongly against other purposes.

Moderately strong: The site would deliver a strong, well defined and likely to be permanent Green Belt boundary which would also round off the built form in this location. The site scores moderately strong for safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, moderately for assisting urban regeneration, but less strongly against other purposes.

64


Carcroft – Skellow is the largest settlement in the Service Towns and

Villages tier, and assessed as being a sustainable settlement with a number

of services. Furthermore, it is well related to the adjacent Main Town of

Adwick – Woodlands, which means this is seen a highly sustainable

location for growth overall. The local housing need is 250 units, which is the

largest of all settlements in this tier and therefore the need here is more

acute and akin to some of the lower ends of ranges for some Main Towns.

A number of sites have been submitted in the settlement, all of which are

constrained by flood risk with the exception of site 165 / 186, which is also

coincidentally the site most suitable for release in Green Belt terms. On

balance, it is deemed that exceptional circumstances exist which justify the

release of this site from the Green Belt, and in doing so, the settlement can

deliver its housing requirement and local need locally on a site which will

help round off the settlements built form, provide a strong Green Belt

boundary and not be overly impactful in its removal on the purposes of the

Green Belt. There is no alternative submitted to meeting the settlements

housing target within Carcroft – Skellow, and furthermore, given the fact

Green Belt surrounds the settlement and flood risk also covers much of the

area, including land to the south, there are limited alternatives to the

allocation of this site within Carcroft – Skellow.

Settlement supply – Carcroft - Skellow

Housing Target – 250 units

Permissions 7 units



Total 307 units

Against target of 250 Above target by +57


Conisbrough & Denaby are two adjacent settlements in the west of the

Borough which form one Main Town in the settlement hierarchy. The

settlement is closely related to neighbouring Mexborough and other towns

in Rotherham and Barnsley which form the Dearne Valley.

The latest evidence on potential land availability in Conisbrough & Denaby

(HELAA update 2018) identifies 5 sites with permission which can deliver

203 units. There are 6 non – Green Belt sites promoted with a total capacity

65

of 546 units, of which 1 is deemed suitable for allocation and can

accommodate 125 units. The remaining 5 sites have been ruled out due to

other issues such as access and surface water. Additionally, there are 5

sites with permission which have capacity remaining, totalling 203 units.

This means that Conisbrough & Denaby can deliver 328 units overall on

non – Green Belt sites.

Permissions

5 sites 203 units



Kearsley Brook 087 43 Fails flood risk sequential test.

Garage off Sheffield Rd / Clifton Hill


South of Canal, opposite Earth Centre


Windgate Hill 304 28 Access issues

Hill Top Road 383 125 Proposed allocation

Former Depot, Sheffield Road

435 15 Part of wider site 087 which fails flood risk sequential test – retain as employment policy area.

Conisbrough can deliver 203 units via planning commitments, and 125

through suitable site allocations on non – Green Belt land – 328 units

overall which is 32% of the top of the target range for the settlement, and

short of the bottom of the range by 137 units. This means that Conisbrough

& Denaby would be unable to achieve its housing targets without utilising

Green Belt land.


on other grounds?



040 Sheffield Rd / Old Rd

200 Strong Moderate Mod – strong

No known issues

142 South of Sheffield Rd


No known issues

66

221 Garage off Sheffield Rd / Clifton Hill

19 Mixed Moderate Moderate Access issues

251 Hill Top Rd 327 Mixed Moderate Moderate Access issues

825 Drakes Head Lane


No known issues

826 Clifton Hill 80 Strong Moderate Mod - strong

No known issues

1000 North of Stringers nurseries

Weak Moderate Mod – weak

No known issues

1035 Hill Top Rd (251

amendment)

285 Mixed Moderate Moderate Possible access concerns

1088 Land SW of Conisbrough

13,389

Weak Strong Weak No known issues



040 Strong: the triangular site is defined by both Old Road (the Borough boundary) and Sheffield Road and as such is considered to be strong and likely to be permanent.

Moderate: The Green Belt in this location has a moderately strong sensitivity to encroachment, and has a strong role in preventing ribbon development. However, its release would still mean that the large strategic land gap between Doncaster and Rotherham is maintained, although there will be coalescence with the washed over hamlet of Hill Top. It also plays a moderate role in assisting urban regeneration.

Moderately strong: the site has a strong boundary and scores mixed against the Green Belt purposes – more strongly for resisting ribbon development and safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, but more weakly against checking unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas and the historic purposes of the Green Belt.

142 Weak: the resultant Green Belt boundary would be weakly defined by a private road to the south, a gappy field boundary to the south west as well as a road and

Moderate: the site has a moderate role in assisting urban regeneration and has an important role in preserving the setting and special character of Conisbrough. The site

Moderately - weak: the site has weak boundary features and would result in an indentation into the Green Belt beyond a strong and largely linear boundary. Against the purposes,

67

cemetery. These features are therefore predominantly weak, and the result would be a weakly indented area of built form incurring into the Green Belt south of the strong boundary of Sheffield Road.

has a moderate role in assisting in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment and contains features of a moderately high sensitivity to encroachment. However, the site also has a less important role in restricting unrestricted sprawl or preventing merging.

the site scores mixed overall – more strongly against the historic purposes, less strongly against restricting urban sprawl and preventing merging, and has a moderate role in assisting urban regeneration.

825 Weak: the boundary to the north, north west, east and south east would be weakly defined and the proposed site would also create an isolated area of Green Belt between the site and Drake Head Lane.

Moderate: the site has a moderate – strong role in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. It has a moderate role In preventing towns from merging and assisting urban regeneration. It scores more weakly against historic tests and checking unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas.

Moderately – weak: The site scores mixed against the localised interpretation of the Green Belt purposes; notably more strongly against protecting the countryside from encroachment. However, the site has a notably weak boundary that is both poorly defined and would result in an isolated area of Green Belt if the site were allocated.

826 Strong: the site is supported by strong features, including Clifton Hill, a dismantled railway line with vegetation, an embankment feature and built form to the north. The resultant boundary would be linear, recognisable and likely to be permanent.

Moderate: the site scores mixed overall – moderately – strongly against assisting in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, and less strongly for checking the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas. Against other purposes (preventing neighbouring towns from merging; historic purposes and assisting urban regeneration) the site scores moderately.

Moderately strong: The site has a strong boundary and would result in a rounding off of the built form of Conisbrough. The site largely scores moderately against the Green Belt purposes, albeit slightly stronger against protecting the countryside from encroachment.

1000 Weak: boundaries are weakly defined in all

Moderate: The site has a mixed role against the

Moderately weak: The site has weak

68

directions except the west and south west, and would result in an angular protrusion of built form beyond the edge of Conisbrough.

Green Belt purposes. It has a moderately strong role in assisting in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment and a moderate role in preventing neighbouring towns from merging and assisting in urban regeneration. The site scores less strongly against historic purposes, preventing neighbouring towns from merging and checking the unrestricted sprawl of built up areas.

boundaries and would result in an angular protrusion beyond the built form of the settlement. Against the purposes the site scores mixed – stronger for safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, less strongly against the historic purposes and checking unrestricted sprawl, and moderately against other purposes.

1035 Mixed: the boundary to the west would be weakly defined by a field boundary adjacent to a track area. However, to the south it would be strongly defined by Doncaster Green Belt boundary, supported by a mature and linear woodland. Overall, the boundary is therefore mixed in strength.

Moderate: The site scores moderately for safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, for supporting the character of a historic town or place, and moderately strongly for assisting in urban regeneration. It scores less strongly against the other purposes.

Moderate: The site has mixed boundary features – strong to the south and weaker to the west. Against the purposes it scores moderately – stronger for assisting in urban regeneration, moderately for safeguarding the countryside from encroachment and supporting the character of a historic town or place in the Borough and less strongly against the other purposes.

1088 Weak: despite strong boundaries to the north and south, the western and eastern boundaries are weakly defined and often not defined by any feature on the ground whatsoever, which means there is no durability or permanence, and that

Strong: The site is of such a scale that it scores well in Green Belt terms against a number of purposes. It scores especially strongly for preventing neighbouring towns from merging, as the site would merge Conisbrough with

Weak: the site is of such a scale that it impacts strongly on a number of Green Belt purposes, and also has a weakly defined boundary in the east and west where it is undefined by ground features in a number of places.

69

the boundary is weak overall.

Clifton and Micklebring, as well with Rotherham and assisting in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. It scores moderately for assisting in urban regeneration and less strongly against the historic purposes and checking unrestricted sprawl of large urban areas (as it is not in proximity to a large built up area)


Conisbrough & Denaby is a large and sustainable settlement which is also

closely related to a number of other towns in the Dearne Valley, meaning

this is a very sustainable location for growth. Once potential sites are ruled

out for flood risk issues and access constraints, there are seven potential

Green Belt sites that are available that could help make up the shortfall of

at least 137 units which Conisbrough & Denaby would need to reach its

range.

Four of these seven sites have been assessed as having a moderately

weak or weak case for continuation in the site selection process, given their

potential impact on the Green Belt, particularly in terms of delivering a

suitable, strong and likely permanent boundary that doesn’t result in an

angular built form for the settlement. One site (1035) has a moderate case,

however 2 sites are deemed to be less impactful on the Green Belt.

Considering two sites (040 and 826) are able to form strong and more likely

to be permanent boundaries, and have an overall moderately strong case

for continuation in the site selection process, these are the two sites which

were considered primarily for Green Belt release.

Site 040 could help the settlement get into its target range alone as it has

a capacity of 200 units, whereas the projected 80 units on site 826 would

not be enough alone to reach the settlements targets – although it could

contribute towards making up the shortfall in Conisbrough & Denaby. Both

sites were assessed in the Sustainability Appraisal, which found on 28/33

criteria they scored the same; however on the remaining 5 (bus stop on the

core network; primary school proximity; affordable housing provision; not

70

on an area of known landfill; and does not impact on biodiversity) site 040

scores better.

Therefore, exceptional circumstances exist which justify the release of site

040 from the Green Belt. It is assessed as being a more sustainable option

which could help the Main Town of Conisbrough & Denaby meet its housing

target range and furthermore contribute to the overall Borough supply,

whilst also ensuring that the Green Belt in this location has a strong

boundary, and in being allocated, that the Green Belt is not impacted to an

unacceptable degree.

Settlement supply – Conisbrough & Denaby

Housing Target – 465 - 975




Total 528 units

Against target of 465 - 975 Above bottom of range by +63 Under top of range by -447

Main Urban Area

The Main Urban Area is the main urban centre of Doncaster, and the largest

and most sustainable settlement in the Borough. It is made up of a number

of contiguous settlements around central Doncaster, and has the largest

housing requirement – being expected to deliver approximately 50% of the

overall Borough housing requirement (compiled of its local need and

between 60 - 70% of the Boroughs overall economic growth requirement

too. The need to deliver housing in this area is therefore the most acute in

the Borough, and this is deemed the most sustainable location to deliver

this.

The Main Urban Area has a housing target of 6805 - 7315 dwellings. The

latest evidence on potential land availability in the Main Urban Area

(HELAA update 2018) 49 sites with planning permission with a 15 year

capacity of 3,489 units. There are 43 non – Green Belt sites which have are

potential options, 19 of which are deemed suitable for allocation and have

a 15 year capacity of 3,291 units. The remaining sites have been ruled out

for issues such as flood risk or access.

Permissions

49 sites 3,489 units

71



Acres Ranch, Warning Tongue Lane


Kirk Sandall Gorse


Stevens Road 111 69 Proposed housing site

Armthorpe Lane 116 646 Access issues and on site infrastructure (pylons)

Amersall Road 121 14 Fails flood risk sequential test

Loversall Land, Weston Road

148 92 Proposed housing site

East of Warning Tongue Lane (1)

164 / 430

275 Proposed housing site

East of Warning Tongue Lane (2)

166 480 Impacts on the entrance to Yorkshire Wildlife Park and would extend the urban area notably into the open countryside.

High Road, Warmsworth

215 50 Proposed Local Green Space

Mere Lane 241 600 Proposed housing site – subsequently granted permission via appeal

Bloodstocks, Carr House Road


Hungerhill 255 542 Proposed housing site – subsequently granted permission

Marshgate 257 114 Fails flood risk sequential test

5a off Carolina Way / Lakeside Boulevard


Plot 6 Lakeside Boulevard


3 Sites in St Sepulchre Gate

263 10 Parts no longer available due to alternate use

Former Carr House Allotments

284 79 Landowner intentions unclear / not promoted by landowner

Rear of Bentley Road


Rose Hill 350 / 407


Alexander Street 369 7 Fails flood risk sequential test

Goodison Boulevard (1)

380 64 Open Space

Former Wheatley Hills School

391 / 432


Weston Road 395 10 Proposed to be Residential Policy Area

Orchard Street 397 110 Deliverability concerns

Pickering Road 399 36 Fails flood risk sequential test

72

Rose Hill Cemetery Land

400 31 Open Space

Wilberforce Road 411 40 Fails flood risk sequential test

Goodison Boulevard (2)

416 28 Now has permission for a care home (not considered housing units)

Off Thorne Road 431 319 Access issues

Waterfront (East) 438 363 Fails flood risk sequential test

Waterfront (West) 439 143 Fails flood risk sequential test

Sunnyside Depot 474 10 Fails flood risk sequential test

Rostholme, Bentley


Sandy Lane 833 39 Proposed housing site

Warmsworth Res 835 23 Proposed housing site

Woodfield Way 836 840 (15 year

(1131 total)

Proposed housing site

Balby Archives 1041 15 Proposed housing site

Ashworth Barracks


Cross Bank 1046 137 Proposed housing site

Cusworth Centre 1049 26 Proposed housing site

Stanley House 1052 26 Proposed housing site

Don View, Thellusson Ave


Cook St / Truman St


The Main Urban Area can deliver 3,489 units via capacity remaining on

outstanding commitments, and a further 3,291 units on non – Green Belt

allocations in the years 2018 – 2033. This means there is a 15 year

allocated supply of 6,780 units. This is below the lower range target of 6,805

by 25 units, and below the upper range target of 7,315 by 535 units. As the

Main Urban Area is the main location for growth in the Borough, and the

most sustainable settlement, it is imperative to find land to enable it to meet

its housing land, if suitable sites exist. Therefore, exploration of whether

there is justification for release of any Green Belt land in order to meet local

housing targets and deliver towards the overall Borough supply, for which

the Main Urban Area is the main contributor, is warranted. There is also the

opportunity to encourage growth to the west of the Main Urban Area.

73


on other grounds?



033 Sheffield Rd,

Warmsworth

112 Mixed Moderate Moderate No known issues

079 Melton Rd, Sprotbrough


No known issues

115 Alverley Lane


No known issues

122 Challenger Drive

120 Mixed Moderate Moderate Access issues

161 Mill Farm 254 Mixed Moderate Moderate Fails flood risk sequential test

212 Lords Head Lane


213 Mill Lane, Warmsworth

1004 Mixed Strong Moderately weak

No known issues

214 Common Lane


217 Back Lane 845 Mixed Strong Mod - weak

No known issues

234 Broad Axe 480 Mixed Moderate Moderate No known issues

237 Warmsworth Quarry


Deliverability concerns

246 Scawthorpe Reservoir

12 Mixed Moderate Moderate Now developed

436 Scawsby Lane


494 Green Lane 479 Mixed Moderate Moderate No known issues

1036 Melton Road


Impact on Grade 1 listed Cusworth Hall



033 Mixed: the boundary is strongly defined to the north by Sheffield Road but weakly defined to the west by a unrecognisable feature lacking durability

Moderate: the site has a strong role in preventing unrestricted sprawl, although on merging its contribution is negligible, as the urban area and Edlington are already

Mixed: the site has a mixed boundary and scores mixed against the purposes. There would still be a large gap between Warmsworth and Conisbroug, and

74

merging along Warmsworth Halt / Edlington Lane. The site also has a strong role in assisting in urban regeneration, but is more moderate in assisting in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment and less strong against the historic purposes.

Edlington and the urban area are already merging via development to the south of the site. The site is separate from the historic core of Warmsworth and therefore it would not overly impact this, if allocated.

079 Weak: Defined to the south and west by the weakly defined Ings Lane which becomes an informal footpath, as wel as a weakly defined field boundary in the south east – features largely lack durability.

Moderate: the site plays an important role in restricting the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas and assisting in urban regeneration. The gap between the urban area and Sprotbrough is dimished somewhat by four residential dwellings further west on Melton Road, meaning this site does not contribute strongly to this as the essential gap is further west. The site has a moderate sensitivity to encroachment and a moderate role in preserving the setting and special character of a historic town.

Moderate: the importance of this parcel in isolation is not as great as it might be due to four dwellings to the west of the site, however overall against the Green Belt purposes, the sites role is mixed. It is stronger for restricting unchecked sprawl and assisting urban regeneration. However, the boundaries are weakly defined and do not consist of durable features, and the resultant boundary would allow the built form to protrude into the Green Belt away from the existing built form

115 Strong: The southern boundary is a densely vegetated dismantled railway to the south which is strongly defined and likely to be permanent, and will also round off the built form in this location.

Moderate: the site plays and important role in assisting in urban regeneration and checking the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas. It scores less strongly against other purposes, but has a low moderate role in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.

Moderately – strong: The site can contribute to rounding off the built form in this location and provide a linear, durable and defensible boundary. With the exception of assisting urban regeneration and checking unrestricted urban sprawl, the site does not score strongly against the Green Belt

75

purposes, although it has a low moderate role in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.

213 Mixed: The boundary would be strongly defined to the south west by Mill Lane, and to the north west by a strongly defined and likely to be permanent copse of woodland. However, to the north, the site would be weakly defined by a field boundary, and a strongly defined River Don boundary in the far north. To the east, the boundary is weakly defined by a field boundary and the extent of Warmsworth Cemetery. It is therefore a mixed boundary overall.

Strong: The site scores very strongly for preventing neighbouring towns from merging – in this case the Main Urban Area and Sprotbrough. The site also scores strongly for assisting in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, moderately for assisting in urban regeneration and checking unrestricted sprawl, but less strongly against historical purposes.

Moderately – weak: The site has a mixed boundary, defined by a number of features – some strong and others weak. Against the purposes, the site scores notably strongly for preventing neighbouring towns from merging – these being the Main Urban Area and Sprotbrough. Given the land gap is already narrow between Sprotbrough and the Urban Area to the east of Sprotbrough, this gap is especially essential if Sprotbrough is to remain as a separate entity. The site also scores strongly against safeguarding the countryside from encroachment and moderately for assisting in urban regeneration and checking unrestricted sprawl.

214 Mixed: boundary features to the west are weakly defined by a shallow field drain, but strongly defined in the east by the A1(M) and in the south by a dismantled railway line / Broomhouse Lane to the south as well as the waste water treatment works. Overall the boundary is mixed, however in isolation the

Moderate: the site has a moderate role in preventing unchecked urban sprawl and assisting urban regeneration, a moderate role in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, and a negligible impact on the historic core of Warmsworth. However, the site would result in

Mixed: The site would provide a mixed boundary which is strong in the east and south but weak to the west. Against the purposes, the site has a mixed score, however it is within an essential gap, and the site would lead to the Main Urban Area coalescing with Edlington.

76

site would result in an angular area of largely isolated built form.

the full coalescence of Edlington with the Main Urban Area, and falls within an essential gap.

217 Mixed: The boundary features in the north west and south are strongly defined by woodland and Back Lane and are therefore considered to be strong, however the resultant boundary would create an angular area of built form.

Strong: The site plays a strong role in protecting the countryside from encroachment and supports features not easily replaced and views to a historic parkland. The site would be visually intrusive and have a detrimental impact on views. It has a moderate role in preventing sprawl and assisting urban regeneration, and a moderate strong role against the historic purposes. Overall, the site scores strongly against the Green Belt purposes.

Moderately weak: Although the boundary features are considered to be strong, the resultant parcel would create an angular area f built form which would protrude into the Green Belt. With regards to purposes, the site scores highly for protecting the countryside from encroachment and supports features not easily replaced. In addition to the physical protrusion into the Green Belt, the site would have a detrimental impact on views to and from Cusworth Hall.

234 Mixed: the site has strong boundary features in the south west and north east, but is weak to the west and therefore mixed overall. The site would lead to the built form in this area being rounded off due to the wedge like nature of the site.

Moderate: The site has a mixed role against the Green Belt purposes, scoring moderately strongly for both checking unrestricted sprawl and assisting urban regeneration. The site has a moderately high sensitivity to encroachment, but a more limited role in this historic purposes of the Green Belt, and it makes no discernible contribution to separation and preventing neighbouring towns from merging with one another, as both Scawthorpe and

Moderate: The site has mixed strength boundary features mainly due the northern boundary not being strongly defined, however the site would round off the built form in this location. Against the purposes, the site is stronger for preventing urban sprawl, assisting urban regeneration and has a moderately high sensitivity to encroachment, but it scores more weakly for the historic tests and makes no discernible contribution to separation and preventing neighbouring towns

77

Scawsby are within the Main Urban Area, and towards settlements in the north such as Highfields, the A638 influences the separation.

from merging. The site is closely related to 436 and 494 and this should also be taken into account.

436 Mixed: the boundary is defined by Barnsley Road and Scawsby Lane in the south and west and Roman Ridge to the east which are considered strong and durable, however the boundary to the north is a weakly defined field boundary. The resultant boundary would elongate the built form of Bentley in isolation. Overall the boundary is considered to be mixed in strength.

Moderate: The site scores strongly for safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, moderately for checking unrestricted sprawl and assisting urban regeneration, as well as preventing ribbon development – although overall the site does not make a discernible contribution to separation given the adjacent built form, but does have a moderate role against the historic purposes.

Moderate: The site has strong boundary features with the exception of the northern boundary and would extend the built form in this location in isolation. Against the purposes it scores strongly for protecting the countryside from encroachment, but does not play a role in preventing neighbouring towns merging. Against the other purposes, the site scores moderately and therefore on balance moderate overall. The site is closely relates to 234 and 496 and this should also be taken into account.

494 Mixed: the site is strongly defined to the north by Green Lane and west by Roman Ridge, however the south eastern boundary is poorly defined and in isolation the site would create an angular protrusion into the Green Belt in isolation, and therefore in isolation the resultant boundary is mixed.

Moderate: The site scores more strongly for checking unrestricted sprawl, safeguarding the countryside from encroachment and assisting urban regeneration. It scores less strongly on historic purposes and makes no discernible contribution to preventing neighbouring towns from merging.

Moderate: against the purposes, the site scores mixed – more strongly for checking unrestricted sprawl, safeguarding the countryside from encroachment and assisting urban regeneration, but less so for historic purposes and the site makes no contribution to preventing neighbouring towns from merging. The boundary is strongly defined, but in isolation the site would create an

78

angular intrusion into the Green Belt. The site is closely related to 234 and 436 and this should also be taken into account.

1036 Mixed: to the north the boundary is indented and formed by features lacking durability around Cusworth Hall, but stronger to the west and north west where the boundary is defined by the A1(M) and Back Lane. The resultant boundary would leave an indented contained area of Green Blet ot he north which would not demonstrate openness, and therefore the boundary is mixed overall.

Strong: The site is considered to scores strongly or very strongly against all the Green Belt purposes. It is especially strong for preserving the setting and special character of historic towns, given its proximity to Cusworth Hall, and for preventing the Main Urban Area merging with Sprotbrough, as well as having an important role in preventing unrestricted sprawl.

Moderately weak: Although the boundaries are mixed – in places strong and in others weak – the overall impact on the Green Belt of allocating this site would be significant, and the site plays an important role against all the Green Belt purposes.


Without releasing Green Belt in this location, the Main Urban Area cannot

get within its target range, albeit just falling short. Given that this is the most

sustainable settlement in the Borough which will provide the greatest

number of new homes, it is considered imperative to deliver housing here,

meeting local needs and helping to boost the supply where possible. Given

that settlements such as Thorne & Moorends and Mexborough cannot

deliver to the top of their ranges – or in the case of the latter, get within the

range at all - it is also important that the supply in the Main Urban Area is

sufficient enough to help offset this.

Green Belt only surrounds the western side of the Main Urban Area, with

the east being enveloped by countryside. This provides the opportunity for

less constrained urban extension sites to the east of the Main Urban Area.

However, consideration also needs to be given to ensuring there is a variety

of sites spread around this large settlement, and that there is not an over

focus in the east. For example, Edenthorpe has seen permission granted

for two large sites (Hungerhill and Mere Lane – the latter being a large

urban extension), and a large site at Warning Tongue Lane on the edge of

the urban area has also been allocated. To the west, given the Green Belt

there are less clear chances for urban extensions due to Green Belt.

79

With these considerations in mind, and given that there are sites promoted

which could gently boost the supply of sites in the Main Urban Area (and

Borough, therefore), helping the Main Urban Area meet its housing targets

without being overly impactful on the Green Belt and its purposes, it is

considered that exceptional circumstances exist which justify the release of

site 033 and 115 from the Green Belt for allocation for housing.

Site 033 would provide a modest urban extension of 112 units to

Warmsworth, and is in a location where it would not contribute strongly to

the urban area merging towards Consibrough, and furthermore is in a

location where built form means that merging between the urban area and

Edlington has already occurred. Whilst the northern and southern

boundaries are well defined, it is noted that the boundary to the west is not.

In order to rectify this and provide a new strongly defined and linear

boundary, developer requirements will ask that any scheme provides

landscape buffers to the east.

Site 115 is physically sited at a point where the Green Belt is indented and

protrudes into the urban area beyond a linear boundary in the dismantled

railway line. By allocating this site, a strong, linear and consistent boundary

can be formed in this location along the aforementioned feature which will

round off the built form in this location. Furthermore, aside from checking

urban sprawl and assisting urban regeneration, which the site scores

moderately for, it does not score highly against the other Green Belt

purposes, and makes a limited contribution to historic purposes and no

contribution to preventing neighbouring towns from merging. It’s overall

score of ‘moderately strong case’ reflects the fact this site could be removed

without being overly impactful on the Green Belt purposes, whilst providing

a stronger and more permanent boundary in doing so. In terms of Green

Belt strength of case in the urban area, site 115 is unique in being the only

available and otherwise unconstrained site in the urban area which has an

above moderate case for continuation in the site selection process.

Both sites are considered to be relatively modest in size and will not result

in large wholesale change to the Green Belt. Site 033 will extend the

existing built form slightly westwards, and 115 will round off the settlement

and the built form in this part of the Borough, bringing it to its logical

conclusion. Their allocation also ensures that housing delivery is spread

around the urban area, and that urban extensions are also provided in the

west of the urban area.

With the allocation of these two sites, the supply of housing in the Main

Urban Area is boosted by 262 dwellings, which means it can now deliver

7,042 dwellings over 15 years, which comfortably ‘mid-range’, falling short

of the upper target by 273 dwellings, but above the lower range target by

80

237 units. This means the most sustainable settlement in the Borough will

deliver 96% of its top housing target, and that over 50% of the total Borough

housing target will be met in the Main Urban Area, as intended (53.2%).

Settlement supply – Main Urban Area

Housing Target 6805 - 7315

Permissions 3,489 units

Non – Green Belt Allocations 3,291 units


Total 7,042 units

Against target 6805 - 7315 Above bottom of range by +237 Under top of range by -273

Mexborough

Mexborough is a Main Town in the west of the Borough. The town is a

deemed highly sustainable and has certain services not commonly found

elsewhere in the Borough such as a hospital and town centre. The town is

closely related to neighbouring Conisbrough & Denaby, as well as other

towns in the Dearne Valley, and provides services for a number of

surrounding villages. It has a housing target of 475 – 985 in the period 2018

– 2033.

The latest evidence on potential land availability in Mexborough (HELAA

update 2018) identifies 8 sites with a capacity of 108 units as at April 2018.

A further 7 non – Green Belt sites have been promoted, of which 36 are

deemed suitable and have a combined capacity of 202 units. The remaining

3 have been ruled out due to issues such as flood risk and alternative uses.

This means that Mexborough can a total of 310 units, which is 165 short of

its lower range target. It is therefore unable to reach its housing target

without considering the use of Green Belt land.

Permissions

8 sites 108 units



Former Coal Depot, Pastures Rd


6 Site 412 is part of site 1048

81

Leach Lane 155 16 Proposed allocation

Garden Street 379 15 Used as surface car park for town centre

Windhill, Whinhill Ave

414 112 Proposed allocation

Pitt Street 834 82 Public Open Space

Schofield St 1048 74 Proposed allocation (with 412 – total 74)

Mexborough is one of the most constrained settlements in the Borough,

and is limited by Green Belt, areas of flood risk, physical features such as

canals and railway infrastructure and the Borough boundary, as well as the

requirement to safeguard the proposed HS2 route. Urban opportunities are

limited and often on a small scale. Via permissions and suitable sites

submitted for allocation, Mexborough can only deliver 310 units, which is

someway short of the lower end of its range.


on other grounds?



139 North of Wath Road

418 Weak Strong Weak Potential access issues

154 NW of Pastures

Rd


HS2 safeguarding route


Both Green Belt sites were assessed in the Green Belt Stage 3 Review,

however the only potential Green Belt site which is not subject to other

constraints is Site 139:


139 Weak: Overall, the boundary is considered to be weakly defined aside from the small portion bordered by the A6023. The field boundaries that otherwise define the sire are intermittent if notable at all, and otherwise demarked by a variation in crops /

Strong: The site performs strongly when assessed against the Green Belt purposes, and most notably plays an important role in preventing Mexborough and neighbouring Wath from merging with each other (and consequently Doncaster and

Weak: Overall, the site displays poor boundary features and a resultant angular form which is unlikely to be permanent. The site plays an important role in preventing Mexborough and Wath (and Doncaster and Rotherham) from merging with each

82

field lines. Additionally, to the north, the site would protrude. Given all of this the boundary is unlikely to be durable

Rotherham). The site would physically and visually reduce this gap and also result in ribbon development. It is not considered that the site plays a role in preventing urban sprawl as it is disconnected from the main urban centre of Doncaster. The site has a moderate strong role in encouraging urban regeneration and a moderate role in protecting the countryside from encroachment. It does not have a strong role in preserving the setting and special character of historic towns.

other, and would erode an essential gap, and ribbon development that would unacceptably reduce the perception of separation between the two settlements.


Mexborough cannot meet its housing requirement without using Green Belt

land for a variety of reasons. It is highly constrained and furthermore is

constrained in different parts of the settlement for different reasons. The

upshot is that land within the settlement is at a premium and often on a

small scale where available, and greenfield and urban extension sites are

also limited, including by important areas of Green Belt.

The only site available to help deliver the shortfall in Mexborough’s housing

requirement locally is site 139, however this is also an important piece of

strongly performing Green Belt with poorly defined and unlikely to be

durable boundaries. Therefore, consideration must be given as to whether

it is more important that this key piece of Green Belt is preserved and

merging with Wath / Rotherham avoided, or whether the need to meet

Mexborough’s housing need on balance justifies the obvious harm to the

Green Belt here. There are also access issues to the site for the amount of

housing proposed and the points access is available from.

On balance, it is considered that the overall harm to the Green Belt that

releasing this site for housing would have is too great, and as a result that

exceptional circumstances do not exist which justify the release of this site.

This means that Mexborough will be unable to meet its housing

83

requirement, and will only deliver 310 units. The shortfall will be made up

via the overall supply in the Main Town tier (Armthorpe; Dunsville,

Dunscroft, Hatfield and Stainforth; and Rossington) all have good levels of

supply which can help offset the loss here slightly, or in the Main Urban

Area, where the supply has been boosted by the release of two Green Belt

sites.

It should be noted that this site was a proposed allocation in the Draft

Policies and Proposed Sites Consultation (Autumn 2018). The Council

have subsequently revised the approach to this site and are no longer

proposing this site for allocation.

Settlement supply - Mexborough

Housing Target 475 - 985




Total 310 units

Against target 475 - 985 Under bottom of range by -165 Under top of range by -675

Sprotbrough

Sprotbrough is a village in the Service Towns and Villages tier, with a

housing requirement of 90 dwellings over the plan period.

The latest evidence on potential land availability in the village (HELAA

update 2018) identifies 0 sites with planning permission that can contribute

towards the housing supply in the settlement, and furthermore no non –

Green Belt potential site options in the settlement. 4 Green Belt options

have been promoted for assessment. Sprotbrough therefore cannot get into

its housing range without the release of Green Belt land.

Permissions

0 sites 0 dwellings



No sites

There are no non – Green Belt site options in Sprotbrough to help meet

their local housing requirement, and no permissions with capacity

84

remaining which can contribute towards the settlements housing

requirement.


on other grounds?



252 Spring Lane 185 Weak Moderate Mod – weak

No know issues

788 Land at Sprotbrough


No know issues

872 Melton Road


No know issues

929 North of Cadeby Road

80 Mixed Moderate Moderate No know issues


All Green Belt sites were assessed in the Green Belt Stage 3 Review, as

none were subject to additional constraints:


252 Weak: The site is bounded by weakly defined field boundaries to the north and west that would be unlikely to be durable.

Moderate: The site scores moderately strongly for protecting the countryside from encroachment, a moderate role in supporting the land gap between settlements, but otherwise scores weakly for checking unrestricted sprawl, assisting in urban regeneration and against historic purposes.

Moderately weak: The proposed boundary is weakly defined and unlikely to be durable. Against the purposes the site scores mixed – strongly for protecting the countryside from encroachment, more weakly for checking unrestricted sprawl, assisting in urban regeneration and against historic purposes, but moderately for supporting the land gap between settlements. Overall the sit

788 Weak: The boundaries to the west and south east are considered weakly defined, with the

Moderate: The site scores as mixed for supporting a land gap between settlements

Moderately weak: The sites boundary is both weakly defined and unlikely to be durable,

85

A1(M) to the north east acting more strongly. Furthermore, release of this site would result in an angular built form which would protrude northwards parallel to the A1(M), but un-mirrored by any built form to the east, creating a ‘pincer’ of built form in this location.

and moderately for preventing neighbouring towns from merging. It scores moderately weakly for preserving the setting and special character of historic towns and weakly for assisting urban regeneration and checking unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas.

and would also result in a long linear extension of built form to the settlement which is poorly related to the village itself. Against the purposes the site scores mixed – moderately for safeguarding the countryside from encroachment and preventing neighbouring towns from merging, but less strongly against the other purposes.

872 Mixed: The boundary is weakly defined in the west and in the north by an access track which is unlikely to be durable, however it is strongly defined to the south. Overall the features are mixed and the resultant boundary would protrude out from the existing built form

Strong: The site scores moderately for preventing neighbouring towns from merging with each other, particularly for resisting ribbon development. It also scores moderately for assisting in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, notably as the site has no built form within it. Against all other purposes it scores weakly, and makes no real contribution to these purposes.

Moderately weak: The site has a boundary which is mixed in strength, but would protrude out from the existing built form. Against the purposes, the site scores strongly for preventing neighbouring towns from merging and assisting in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, but weaker against all other Green Belt purposes.

929 Mixed: the site would be strongly defined by roads to the north and south, however to the west the boundary is weakly defined by a low gappy hedgerow. The resultant boundary is therefore mixed. However, whilst this site would extend the settlement westwards the protrusion into the

Moderate: The site scores moderately for preventing neighbouring towns from merging, and moderately for sensitivity to encroachment. It scores weakly against all other Green Belt purposes.

Moderate: the site has a mixed strength boundary which is weaker to the west, and would result in a built form which is reasonably well related to the existing settlement shape. Against the purposes, the site scores moderately for preventing

86

countryside is reasonably well related to the existing built for and would not result in a large protrusion into the countryside.

neighbouring towns from merging and against sensitivity to encroachment, but weakly against other purposes. Overall, the site scores moderately.


Sprotbrough cannot meet its housing requirement without utilising Green

Belt land. The Green Belt boundary is tightly drawn and opportunities for

development land within the settlement itself are at a premium. This is

reflected in the lack of permissions and the lack of non-Green Belt site

options proposed through call for sites.

There are four possible options, however three (252; 788; 872) have been

assessed as having a moderately weak case for inclusion in the site

selection process and all would deliver housing in substantial excess of

what is required presently in this settlement. Site 929 scores as having an

overall ‘moderate’ case for continuation in the site selection process,

scoring mixed in its boundary assessment and moderately against the

purposes. The site is smaller than the others proposed in this location, and

could therefore deliver a housing number in line with what is required for

the settlement (80 units out of a 95 required). It would also provide a

resultant boundary which is better related to the existing built form and a

resultant boundary which is less angular than the other sites.

On balance, therefore, it is deemed that there are exceptional

circumstances which justify the release of site 929 from the Green Belt.

Release of this site will enable Sprotbrough to achieve its allocated local

housing need requirement, but not result in an over – allocation of

dwellings, and furthermore is deemed to be the least impactful site option

available in Green Belt terms, and the best related to the settlement and its

built form.

Settlement supply - Sprotbrough

Housing Target – 95 units

Permissions 0 units



Total 80 units

Against target 95 units Under target by -15

87

Tickhill

Tickhill is a market town in the Service Towns and Villages tier of the

settlement hierarchy. It has a reasonably good level of local services and

population, and its local housing need requirement is consequently 165

units.

The latest evidence on potential land availability at Tickhill (HELAA Update

2018) identifies 0 with planning permission as at April 2018, and

furthermore no non – Green Belt site options within the settlement. Tickhill

can therefore not meet its housing requirement without considering the

need for Green Belt release.

Permissions

0 sites 0 units



No sites

There are no non – Green Belt site options in Tickhill to help meet their local

housing requirement, and no permissions with capacity remaining which

can contribute towards the settlements housing requirement.


on other grounds?



109 Sunderland Street


No known issues

281 Worksop Road

10 Weak Weak Moderate Access issues

356 Lindrick Lane

153 Weak Strong Weak No known issues

357 Wong Lane 93 Weak Moderate Mod – weak

Access issues

452 Dadsley Road

116 Mixed Weak Mod –strong

Access issues

824 (1030)

Lumley Drive

205 Weak Strong Weak Possible access issues

88

875 Site A, Doncaster

Rd


No known issues

876 Site B, Doncaster

Rd

102 Weak Weak Moderate Would require access through Site 875 (same

ownership)

877 Site C, Doncaster

Rd


Would require access through Sites 875 and

876 (same ownership)

880 Land at Tickhill

88 Weak Strong Weak Access issues

930 Between Lindrick Lane /

Worksop Rd

39 Strong Moderate Mod – strong

Access issues

1019 Apy Hill 79 Mixed Moderate Moderate Access issues

1021 Stud Farm 26 Weak Strong Weak No known issues

1024 Wilsic Lane 12 Mixed Moderate Moderate Access issues

1028 Sunderland St



A number of the sites submitted in Tickhill have issues with access to the

site. Once the sites where access issues are considered to be

insurmountable are filtered out, nine sites remain for consideration.


109 Mixed: the existing boundary is weakly defined, being indented and unlikely to be permanent. The proposed site would create an equal issue, with a site that protrudes outwards in a linear fashion beyond the existing settlement form. It is strongly defined in the east by the A1 (M), but boundaries to the south

Strong: the site falls within a largely essential land gap between Tickhill and Harworth Bircotes, however some development could be possible. It has strongly resisted ribbon development. The linear nature of the site means there are expansive views of the historic core of Tickhill, meaning the site scores

Moderately weak: Overall the site boundary is mixed and replaces a poor boundary with an equally problematic one which is strong to the west and weaker to the south and east. Against the purposes the site generally scores strongly, particularly on historic purposes, but also for preventing neighbouring towns

89

and west lack durability meaning the site boundary is mixed overall.

strongly on these purposes. The site has a moderate – low sensitivity to encroachment but displays a strong rural character overall. The site scores weakly for checking the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas and assisting urban regeneration.

from merging with each other, where the site scores especially well for resisting ribbon development.

356 Weak: the site boundary is predominantly weak, particularly to the south and east, where boundaries are nor recognisable or likely to be permanent.

Strong: The site scores strongly for assisting in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment and preserving the setting and special character of the historic core of Tickhill. The site scores less strongly against the other purposes, although it does have a moderate role in resisting development which would lead to coalescence between neighbouring settlements.

Weak: The site has a poorly defined boundary and plays an important role in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment and against the historic purposes.

824 / 1030

Weak: the existing boundary is weakly defined, being indented around dwellings on Lancaster Crescent and Meadow Drive and not likely to be durable therefore. The proposed boundary is considered to be weak to the west, south east and east, albeit stronger in the south. The boundary is not considered likely to be durable and furthermore, in isolation this site would defined and not likely to be

Strong: The site scores especially strongly for preserving the setting and special character of the historic core of Tickhill, with views to St Mary’s church and a large part of the Conservation Area, as well as possible view towards the historic core from the southern extent of the site. The site has a strong rural character and has a moderate sensitivity to encroachment. The site scores less strongly against the other Green

Weak: The site would have a weak, indented boundary which would lead to a further indented built form in this location and is unlikely to be permanent. Against the purposes, the site sores strongly against the historic purposes and falls within a largely essential gap between Tickhill and Harworth Bircotes, albeit one where some development could be possible. It has a moderate role in

90

permanent indented built form in this location.

Belt purposes, but has a moderate role in resisting development that could result in coalescence with neighbouring settlements.

assisting in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, but scores less strongly against the other purposes.

875 Weak: the existing boundary is considered to be strongly defined, and the resultant boundary would be strongly defined by a copse of trees to the north, but more weakly defined to the south and east. Furthermore, in isolation the site would lead to an extension to the built form in the north of the settlement, which would lead to a stepped and angular residential built form.

Moderate: The site has a relatively weak role in preserving the setting and special character of Tickhill, and also scores weakly for checking the unrestricted sprawl of a large built up area, supporting regeneration and preventing neighbouring towns from merging. It has a low – moderate sensitivity to encroachment and possesses a ‘strong rural character’.

Moderately weak: The site scores moderately against the Green Belt purposes, however the boundary is considered to be both weakly defined and to replace an existing strong boundary. Furthermore, the site would result in a stepped angular built form in this location.

876 Weak: the proposed site boundary is irregularly drawn and not defined by ground features to the east, and defined by a private track in the north which is considered unlikely to be permanent.

Weak: The site has a moderately weak role in assisting in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment and scores weakly or relatively weakly against all other Green Belt purposes.

Moderate: the site has a weakly defined boundary but also performs weakly against the Green Belt purposes, with the only notable purpose it fulfils being a moderately weak role in assisting in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. It should also be noted that the site cannot be accessed without coming via Site 875, however this is known to be in the same ownership.

877 Weak: the existing boundary is well defined, however the proposed boundary would comprise of a strongly defined

Moderate: The site has a moderate role in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, but a relatively weak role in

Moderately weak: The site has weakly defined boundaries which are unlikely to be durable, but scores moderately against the Green Belt

91

boundary to the east in the A1(M), but a weakly defined boundary in a track road to the west, and no physical features to the north.

preserving the special setting and character of Tickhill, and otherwise scores weakly against the other Green Belt purposes.

purposes. It especially has a moderate role in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, although it scores more weakly against the other purposes. It should also be noted that the site cannot be accessed without coming via Site 875 & 876, however this is known to be in the same ownership.

1021 Weak: The removal of the site would create an angular protrusion into the Green Belt. The boundary is moderately defined in the north (private access road) and south east (mature tree line with ditch), but predominantly weak in east (fence and field boundary); south west (irregular and indented extent of the built form) and west.

Strong: As the site is directly adjacent to the historic core of Tickhill, it performs a very strong role in preserving the setting and historic character of the complex historic town core of Tickhill. The site falls within a largely essential gap between Tickhill and Harworth Bircotes where the overall scale and openness of the gap is important to maintaining separation, although some development may be possible. It plays a moderate role in assisting with safeguarding the countryside from encroachment and notably contains land with a moderate – high sensitivity to encroachment. The site scores less strongly against the other Green Belt purposes.

Weak: The site boundary is considered to be predominantly weak and the allocation of the site would create an angular protrusion into the Green Belt. Against the purposes, the site scores very strongly for preserving the setting and special character of the historic core of Tickhil; moderately for assisting in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment and resisting development that could lead to coalescence with Harworth Bircotes, but less strongly against other purposes. The overall case is therefore weak.

1028 Mixed: To the east, the boundary is considered to be very strong,

Moderate: The site has a mixed role in preventing

Moderate: The site has a mixed boundary, which is weaker to the

92

however the southern boundary is not defined by aby notable ground features. However, given the fact that the sites southern boundary would be in line with the existing built limits in this location to the west, were the boundary to be strengthened, its linear nature would mean that the boundary strength would increase. The site would also correct an indented Green Belt in this location.

neighbouring towns from merging and a moderate role in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. It is noted as having a strong role in resisting ribbon development. It has a lesser role in preserving the setting and historic character of the historic core of Tickhill, and scores less strongly against the other Green Belt purposes.

south, but strong to the east. However, it is noted that were this boundary to be strengthened (i.e. by incorporating likely to be permanent features, then the linear nature means the boundary strength would increase, and the settlement would effectively be rounded off in this location. Against the purposes, the site scores moderately – moderately for preventing neighbouring towns from merging and assisting in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, but less strongly against the other purposes. It should be noted that the site is an amalgamation and rationalisation of sites 109 and 880.


In order to meet its local housing requirement, land would need to be

released from the Green Belt in Tickhill. A number of sites have been

submitted in this location – more than in any other settlement in the Service

Towns and Villages tier – however there are also a number of constraints

in this location, namely access (which rules some sites out) and Green Belt.

Additionally, some of the sites submitted rely on adjacent sites for access,

or are subsequent amendments to other submitted sites.

Once filtered, there are a more limited number of sites which are both

accessible and less impactful on the Green Belt to consider. Through this

process, it has been determined that exceptional circumstances exist which

justify the removal of site 1028 from the Green Belt for allocation of 74 units.

This would ensure that Tickhill achieves some of its local housing need

93

target. However, despite still falling short of the overall settlement target of

165 units by 91 units, it is not deemed that exceptional circumstances exist

to warrant the removal of any other sites in the settlement, as the assessed

harm to the Green Belt were these sites to be removed is considered to be

greater than the need to supply further housing to what has been proposed

in this location at this time. Given the levels of supply in other settlements

within the Borough, the shortfall can be met in other locations.

As part of the developer requirements for this site, there will be a

requirement to strengthen the southern boundary, which should allay

concerns about this and provide a linear and durable Green Belt limit in this

location.

It is considered that this approach strikes the right balance between

delivering housing to meet local needs in the correct local areas, and

protecting the Green Belt from harmful development.

Settlement supply - Tickhill

Housing target – 165 units

Permissions 0 units



Total 74 units

Against target 165 units Under target by -91

2.4. Further Amendments

2.4.1. As a result of the changes proposed to the Green Belt, the following further

amendments are also necessary to help form logical boundaries, prevent

indented areas, unusual areas or “islands” of Green Belt enclosed by non

– Green Belt land, and ensure insofar as is possible a linear strongly

defined limit. This helps ensure consistency with NPPF paragraph 139b,

which states that “when defining Green Belt boundaries, plans should:…b)

not include land which it is unnecessary to keep permanently open”:

Location Related to site ref

Description Rationale

Carcroft - Skellow

165 / 186

The site boundary excludes small area to the north west of the site which has a few

Removing this site would create a clear an un-indented boundary along Green Lane,

94

dwellings and woodland on it, this should be excluded from the Green Belt.

which will be both linear and likely to be permanent.

Conisbrough 040 Remove the settlement of Hill Top from the Green Belt as the development of this site will lead to a merger with this undefined settlement.

To create a clean and unambiguous Green Belt boundary.

Main Urban Area

115 Small tidying up of land south of the proposed site is required to remove the tree belt from the Green Belt and ensure the boundary is drawn to the defunct railway line.

This creates a linear and unambiguous boundary in this location.

Sprotbrough 929 Site allocation would lead to an isolated area of Green Belt within the settlement boundary. This area contains open space and housing to the north, but would be entirely isolated.

Land should be removed from the Green Belt, but remain as Open Space to reflect the use. With the allocation of site 929, the land would be an isolated area of Green Belt which does not contribute to the purposes or need to be kept open.

2.5. Exceptional Circumstances for Housing Conclusions

2.5.1. Exceptional circumstances exist which justify the release of the following

housing sites from the Green Belt for allocation in the Local Plan:

Site no.

Capacity Site name Location

033 112 Land adj. 163 Sheffield Road, Warmsworth

Main Urban Area

040 200 Land at Sheffield Road / Old Road, Hilltop, Conisbrough


115 150 Alverley Lane, Balby Main Urban Area

141 20 Westwood Road, Bawtry Bawtry

95

165 / 186

300 Land North of A1 / Land off Crabgate Lane, Skellow

Carcroft & Skellow

777 66 ‘Plot 3’, Harlington Barnburgh & Harlington

929 80 Land North of Cadeby Road, Sprotbrough

Sprotbrough

1028 74 Sunderland Street, Tickhill Tickhill

Total 1,002

2.5.2. In arriving at this conclusion, the Council has demonstrated that it can meet

the five ‘Calverton’ tests:

i. The acuteness / intensity of the objectively assessed need (matters of

degree may be important);

2.5.3. The housing requirement for the Borough has been assessed as being 920

dpa. This will be expressed as a range and is comprised of two elements –

a baseline housing requirement of 585 dpa (based on the governments

standard methodology), which will be shared amongst the 18 largest and

most sustainable settlements on a proportional basis; and an uplift to

account for 1% economic growth that is being planned for the Borough, in

line with the ambitions of the Sheffield City Region. This uplift will be

delivered in the Main Urban Area and the Main Towns, as the largest and

most sustainable settlements which are best placed to subsume this

additional need.

2.5.4. This need is split amongst the Boroughs settlements to ensure a fair spread

of housing growth across the Borough and its disparate settlements. It is

considered that the uplift from the standard methodology figure is justified,

given the Boroughs economic ambitions, and furthermore that recent

housing delivery shows that this is a realistic and achievable figure,

supported by both the Council and City Region, as well as being in line with

government policy to boost housing supply.

ii. The inherent constraints on supply / availability of land prima facie

suitable for development;

2.5.5. Land availability in Doncaster is primarily constrained by two main issues:

Green Belt and flood risk. The majority of the Boroughs most sustainable

settlements for growth are constrained by at least one, but sometimes both.

2.5.6. The Call for Sites has shown that there is a lack of alternative sites to urban

extensions within the chosen settlements for housing to be delivered.

Where suitable alternatives to Green Belt exist within settlements, these

96

have been allocated. However, it has been shown that often this is not

enough for settlements to achieve there housing requirements, and

furthermore in a number of cases there are a significant lack of sites, or

even no alternative sites at all. This is amplified by the lack of permissions

in settlements which could contribute to the supply.

2.5.7. There will be no new sites allocated in flood zones, in line with national

policy. Given how much of the Borough falls within a flood zone, this

increases pressure on non – flood zone areas and sites to deliver housing.

Additionally, settlements in the Borough are further constrained by matters

such as access to sites; HS2 safeguarding; major infrastructure such as

motorways, railways or canals which severe areas from the land beyond

and prevent expansion; and some settlements lying on the Borough

boundaries.

2.5.8. It has therefore been clearly demonstrated that these constraints on supply

mean in many settlements, the only solution is to release Green Belt, if that

settlement is to deliver its housing requirement. In doing so, the Council

has chosen to explore options for Green Belt release as a last resort. This

includes allocating suitable urban brownfield land and underutilised land in

settlements, and enquiring as to whether neighbouring areas can take on

any of the Boroughs housing requirement.

iii. The consequent difficulties in achieving sustainable development

without impinging on the Green Belt;

2.5.9. Numerous consultation was undertaken to establish the preferred

settlement hierarchy and ensure a sustainable pattern of development in

the Borough. Given how many of the Boroughs largest and most

sustainable settlements are located within the Green Belt, it is considered

extremely challenging to deliver sustainable and equitable development

across the Borough without incursion into the Green Belt to support housing

growth in the Boroughs western settlements.

2.5.10. With the Borough roughly half covered by Green Belt, it may of course

be feasible to deliver more growth in the east of the Borough (although large

areas are constrained by flood risk), at the expense of development in

settlements to the west. However, this would result in a lopsided pattern of

development informed solely by where there is unconstrained land rather

than the evidence and consultation backed Settlement Strategy.

2.5.11. Furthermore, more of the Boroughs settlements lie to the west than the

east, and a number cannot deliver any growth to meet local housing needs

without using Green Belt land. Were the spatial strategy re-configured to

97

avoid the Green Belt at all costs, the result would be less sustainable, more

impactful on the Countryside to the east of the Borough, and its settlements.

Instead, it is considered than some small, justified and well planned Green

Belt release is preferable and helps maintain the settlement strategy and a

promote sustainability within the Borough, as well as more equitable

housing distribution.

iv. The nature and extent of harm to this Green Belt (or those parts of it

which would have been lost if the boundaries were reviewed)

2.5.12. The release of Green Belt has been informed by a comprehensive Green

Belt Review by consultants Arup, which includes a review of the whole of

the Boroughs Green Belt (Stage 1), and individual site assessments (Stage

3). These reports indicate where Green Belt release may be less impactful

on the Green Belt, both against the purposes and via an assessment of the

resultant boundaries.

2.5.13. This work has aided the Council’s understanding of the impact of various

site options on the Green Belt. When selecting which sites to allocate,

extreme caution has been exercised to ensure there is a balance between

harm to the Green Belt, and the need to deliver housing.

2.5.14. In allocating sites, the options from the pool of sites which have been

deemed less harmful to the Green Belt have been allocated in settlements

where there are multiple options. Additionally, it has not been the case that

just because a settlement cannot meet its housing target, that Green Belt

is released. In the case of Mexborough, Tickhill and Bawtry, either no Green

Belt sites have been allocated, or not enough have been allocated to meet

the housing requirement, as it is not deemed that this need outweighs the

evidenced harm to the Green Belt. This highlights the measured and careful

approach that has been adopted in approaching Green Belt release.

v. The extent to which the consequent impacts on the purposes of the

Green Belt may be ameliorated or reduced to the lowest reasonably

practicable extent.

2.5.15. In line with NPPF policies 138 and 141, non – Green Belt land has been

identified at Rossington as being suitable for inclusion within the Green Belt

and development for a country park. In doing this, the loss of Green Belt in

the Borough is being offset in terms of quantity, and the quality of the Green

Belt is also being improved, including better access and improved

environmental quality, as well as recreational enhancement.

98

2.5.16. Where issues have been identified on the sites which are being

proposed for release from the Green Belt, particularly in terms of forming

durable and strong boundaries, the need to do this has been enshrined in

the Developer requirements for sites, which is an appendix to the Local

Plan.

2.5.17. Overall, it has been shown that exceptional circumstances exist to justify

release Green Belt in certain locations to help deliver a sustainable housing

strategy and meet the Boroughs housing requirements. The Council has

adopted a cautious ‘Green Belt last’ approach, and only removed land from

the Green Belt for site allocations where it is deemed absolutely necessary,

and where there are no other site options for housing within the respective

settlements – and only then where the loss of Green Belt is justified.

2.5.18. In quantitative terms, the net loss of Green Belt land in the Borough (the

total losses for allocations and other small amendments offset against the

gain at Rossington), there is a reduction of approximately 0.15% in the

Boroughs Green Belt, from 23,257ha to 23,221ha of Green Belt in

Doncaster.

2.6. Green Belt & Employment Land

2.6.1. The employment land requirement for the Local Plan is 481ha to 2035. This

is based on the employment findings of the ‘Doncaster Economic Forecasts

and Housing Needs Assessment’ (Peter Bretts Associates), with an

additional local floor space conversion to work out what floor space the

amount of jobs projected will require.

2.6.2. Eleven Green Belt employment (or multiple options) sites were assessed

in the Green Belt Review:

Use No. Name Location Boundary

Purposes

Case Stregth

Housing or Employmen

t


Edlington Weak Moderate Moderately weak


t




t



99


t


Edlington Weak Strong Weak


t



Employment

159 Land around

Wadworth

Wadworth Weak Strong Weak


t

251 Hill Top Road,

Denaby Main



Employment

461 Redhouse Lane

(a) North West,

Adwick

Adwick le Street


Employment

462 Land off Adwick Lane,

Carcroft

Adwick le Street


Employment

1016

Land to the East of Attero

Rossington Strong Weak Strong


t

1035

Land off Hill Top Road,

Denaby Main



2.6.3. There are no exceptional circumstances for releasing Green Belt land for

employment purposes in Doncaster.

2.6.4. The strategy for identifying employment land differs from that for identifying

housing sites. The housing strategy focusses on directing housing to the

most sustainable existing centres of population, with growth in particularly

focussed on the Main Urban Area and Main Towns, and splitting the

housing requirement accordingly.

2.6.5. For employment, the focus is not on allocating sites in settlements, rather

allocating sites in the best locations across the Borough, based on a range

of criteria, including market demand, strategic location and access to the

motorway network. The main focus is therefore the M18 corridor, but this

less location-specific approach means that there are a number of potential

sites that are not in the Green Belt that may be viable options for allocation.

100

2.6.6. As the approach is less location specific than the housing approach,

consequentially, through Call for Sites, a number of potential non-Green

Belt sites have been promoted and shown to be potential options.

2.6.7. The majority of sites submitted through Call for Sites for employment were

located in the east of the Borough along the M18, and therefore not Green

Belt. Together with demand information which shows that large end users

wish to located along the M18 and congestion and access issues along the

A1(M) there is currently no exceptional circumstance justification for Green

Belt land to be allocated for employment use, and no Green Belt sites will

be proposed for allocation.

2.6.8. However, partially to help ensure that there is a spread of employment sites

around the Borough, Carcroft Common (site 441) has been re-allocated for

employment uses. It should be noted that this is not a loss of Green Belt as

it was allocated for employment use in the 1998 Unitary Development Plan,

however it is in an area surrounded by Green Belt, to the north of Toll Bar.

Furthermore, there is also a permission for the multimodal inland port (iPort)

initiative within the Green Belt at Rossington, which was granted due to

very special circumstances. Employment delivery is therefore not limited to

the east of the Borough.

2.6.9. Additionally, there are congestion problems along the A1(M) – which runs

through the Green Belt in the west of Doncaster - which currently limits the

delivery of new large scale strategic employment sites during the plan

period. The Highways England Route Strategy – London to Leeds East

2015 states that one of its priority issues is the “capacity and safety

concerns on the A1 between junction 34 and Holmfield Interchange (M62),

that could threaten growth” (page 10). The diagram on page 11 goes on to

say that there is a “lack of capacity to support growth in Doncaster and

Wakefield”. The report recognises that the A1 junctions 38 – 41 are a poor

standard alternative to the M1.

2.6.10. Due to these problems, the A1(M) is currently part of the Highways

England programme for capacity improvements and these are likely to

include both the widening of the road and junction re-alignments. The

scheme is still in its early stages and there is no date set yet for scheme

commencement. It is therefore difficult at this time to allocate sites along

A1(M) as it unclear what land-take the road will require and it is unlikely that

extra traffic on the A1(M) will be supported by Highways England.

Responses to the Issues and Options consultation also did not support

development along the A1(M) corridor.

101

2.6.11. The M18 on the other hand is currently considered to have capacity for

further growth. It is recognised in the Highways England South Pennines

Route Strategy (March 2017) as having some congestion and capacity

issues but that the corridor is also of strategic importance for freight and

logistics as it is a vital link to a number of strategic road network sections in

South Yorkshire as well as to the Humber ports. The document also

recognises that there are significant levels of growth which are focussed

along the M18 corridor and that it will need to “adapt to additional traffic

flows created by corridor developments and increases in tonnage through

the Humber ports”.

2.6.12. Feedback from developers also indicates that the market demand for

employment is also on the M18 corridor.

2.6.13. On balance therefore, there are enough suitable non-Green Belt

employment allocation options in the Borough that can satisfy the

employment needs. Non – Green Belt land has been allocated in the north

to ensure a good spread of sites, and highways issues and marketing

feedback confirm that the M18 is a preferred location for employment sites,

which includes many potential non-Green Belt options. Unlike the housing

requirement, there is no need to be as location / settlement specific in

allocating land. Therefore, it is not felt that there are exceptional

circumstances to warrant the release of land in the Green Belt for

employment purposes at this time.

3. Safeguarding Land


3.1.1. NPPF paragraph 136 requires that:

“Strategic policies should establish the need for any changes to Green Belt

boundaries, having regard to their intended permanence in the long term,

so they can endure beyond the plan period.”

3.1.2. Paragraph 139 states that:

“When defining Green Belt boundaries, plans should:…

102

c) where necessary, identify areas of safeguarded land between the urban

area and the Green Belt, in order to meet longer-term development

needs stretching well beyond the plan period;

d) make clear that the safeguarded land is not allocated for development

at the present time. Planning permission for the permanent development

of safeguarded land should only be granted following an update to a plan

which proposes the development;

e) be able to demonstrate that Green Belt boundaries will not need to be

altered at the end of the plan period;

3.1.3. National Policy is therefore clear that Local Planning Authorities should

seek to safeguard Green Belt land and ensure the permanency of the

Green Belt beyond the plan period, where necessary.

3.1.4. However, there is minimal guidance available which concerns how Local

Planning Authorities should approach safeguarding land, nor is there

evidence in other Local Plans or by other Local Authorities of consistent

approaches, or under what circumstances it is “necessary” to safeguard

Green Belt land.

3.2. Local Circumstances

3.2.1. No land has previously been safeguarded in the Borough. As noted,

Doncaster finds itself in a relatively unique position nationally with regards

to Green Belt, whereby ‘half’ the Borough is surrounded by Green Belt, and

half is not.

3.2.2. Hence, although the current settlement strategy means that Green Belt

release is required to meet the desired spatial strategy, with a different

strategy Doncaster may be able to avoid Green Belt release. The current

spatial strategy, which disperses housing allocations across Doncaster is

the preferred option for how the Borough will grow at this time.

3.3. The proposed approach to Safeguarding Land

3.3.1. In light of the previously highlighted Borough circumstances, it is considered

that safeguarding Green Belt land cannot be justified in Doncaster.

3.3.2. NPPF Paragraph 139c states that safeguarded land should be identified

“where necessary”. On balance, the Local Planning Authority do not believe

that safeguarding Green Belt is necessary or justifiable at this time for a

number of reasons:

103

1) Prejudicing Future Strategies

3.3.3. The approach to distribution of development around the Borough in the

Local Plan is a result of the current settlement strategy. The settlement

strategy is itself a result of consultation undertaken for this Local Plan. The

spatial strategy has been identified as appropriate for the Borough at this

time, and is backed up by the findings of the Settlement Audit and the

Sustainability Appraisal.

3.3.4. The plan will run to 2035. There is no guarantee that at this time, the

Borough will be pursuing a strategy which mirrors the current one, or

requires Green Belt release. Safeguarding land at this stage would result

in land being potentially made available and the Green Belt altered where

it may not be required in future.

3.3.5. As established, the Borough is not completely surrounded by Green Belt.

The preferred spatial approach at this time is to distribute the requirement

across the Boroughs settlements, despite the acknowledgement that this

could require Green Belt release to achieve this strategy. At present, it is

felt that failure to distribute the housing in this manner would result in a

skewed pattern of housing delivery which is not in accordance with the

consultation.

3.3.6. However, future strategies may result in a different spatial approach. It is

possible that strategies could be preferred and delivered (whilst not the

preferred option at this time) which avoid needing Green Belt land given the

Borough is not entirely constrained by this. Potential options which were

ruled out at Issues and Options stage, such as a new town, may in future

become viable or preferred options. It is the view of the Local Planning

Authority that such decisions would be premature to make now, and as

such safeguarding land at this time, which would be a result of replicating

or carrying forward the current strategy, would similarly be premature.

3.3.7. Furthermore, a number of large and important projects are emerging in the

Borough that would result in notable changes which will require

reconsideration of approach if and when they are delivered.

3.3.8. These include:

Doncaster Sheffield Airport

3.3.9. Doncaster Sheffield Airport has ambitions to grow into a significant airport,

with associated employment, housing and infrastructure. The Local Plan

104

includes a policy (Policy 7) to help the development of this key economic

asset, with conditions. There can be no doubt that, should the ambitions of

the airport - including housing and employment development, a new retail

area with local facilities for Hayfield Green, and importantly, a rail link to

Doncaster and the East Coast Mainline – are realised, that this would result

in a massive step change and opportunity for Doncaster that could heavily

influence future spatial approaches.

3.3.10. Whilst currently in its relative infancy, if the ambitions for the airport are

realised, the adjacent settlement of Auckley – Hayfield Green, which is a

Service Town and Village and has a modest housing target of 125 dwellings

in the current local plan, may in future be viewed as a more sustainable

location for growth in an area unconstrained by both Green Belt and flood

risk.

Major Infrastructure projects which impact on the Green Belt

3.3.11. The proposed HS2 safeguarding route passes through the west of the

Borough, including potential development land in the east of Mexborough.

Again, this project is in its infancy in Doncaster, but the development of HS2

would result in a massive change for Doncaster, and further more have a

large potential impact on the Green Belt itself.

3.3.12. Additionally, three locations in Doncaster (Mexborough, Hickleton and

Clayton) have been earmarked as potential locations for an as of yet

unannounced HS2 parkway station7. However, without clarification on this

or the development of the HS2 line itself, which is not at the point of

reaching Doncaster yet, it is too premature to assess the impact on the

Borough or on its Green Belt.

3.3.13. There is an added complication with HS2 in that whilst the Council have

been asked to safeguard the route, there remains question marks at this

stage about timescales and deliverability of the project in the Borough. The

Government has recently indicated it will come forward. Were the scheme

not to come forward, land that is currently on the safeguarding route which

cannot therefore be allocated, particularly in east Mexborough (including

Green Belt land) would again potentially be available for consideration for

development. The Council would like to have the opportunity to re-evaluate

the Green Belt and the impact of HS2 (and a potential parkway station or

7 The location of a parkway station in the Borough is now in serious doubt given the publication of the Sheffield City Region ‘Integrated Rail Plan’ (17/07/19), which prefers a Dearne Valley Station at Goldthorpe, Barnsley, as part of a separate mon – HS2 project.

105

other nearby Dearne Valley Rail station unrelated to HS2) on it as and when

this occurs, but it is too early to predict with any certainty at this time.

3.3.14. Concurrently, there are also plans to widen the A1(M) in Doncaster and

improve capacity on this, as well as improve connectivity to the M18.

Capacity constraints are known to be an issue in the attractiveness of

locations along the A1(M) for business to locate. As with HS2 this is in its

early stages, and any amendments to this route in Doncaster would result

widespread benefits for the Borough; however it is also too early to be able

to foresee the impact of this on the Green Belt.

3.3.15. The proposed Pan Northern Route, which will provide a strategic

highway connecting Manchester and the proposed Trans-Pennine Tunnel

with the A1 and the Humber Ports similarly will have impacts on the north

of Doncaster, including potentially land in the Green Belt. Again, it is too

early to assess what the impact of this will be on the Borough, but it will

deliver two key projects for the Borough: the Hickleton – Marr bypass and

the A1 – A19 link road. In both cases, the Council would like to have the

opportunity to re-evaluate the impact of these road schemes on the

Borough and its Green Belt when they are advanced or complete.

3.3.16. Whilst respecting the requirement of national policy to ensure Green Belt

boundaries endure beyond the plan period, the local planning authority are

of the view that it is inevitable that the Green Belt will need to be reassessed

at the end of the plan period to account for the progress of the

aforementioned infrastructure projects, which in themselves could both

impact on the Green Belt and its purposes, or depending on what happens,

impact future thinking with regards to the Green Belt, requiring in any case

a review of the Green Belt.

3.3.17. This means that it is difficult to conclude with certainty that in any case

the Green Belt will not need to be altered at the end of the plan period as

is intended in paragraph 139 of the NPPF.

3.3.18. Any changes will also impact on the Boroughs future spatial strategy and

consideration of the approach at that time.

3.3.19. It is possible that Green Belt land may therefore not be needed in future,

or conversely that release may be needed as proposed infrastructure has

unlocked potential sites that are currently unavailable or led to a changed

spatial approach. At this moment in time, it is too premature to be able to

assess the impact of these infrastructure projects which are in their relative

infancy. Therefore, despite the intentions of the NPPF, it is felt that

safeguarding land in the Borough now would not ensure that the Green Belt

106

will endure beyond the plan period in any eventuality, with a future review

likely to be necessary.

3.3.20. Subsequently, rather than safeguard land now, the local planning

authority would prefer to wait to assess the impact of proposed and pipeline

infrastructure in the Borough and then assess the Green Belt in light of this

and future strategies, meaning future decisions on spatial approaches are

made when there is the information available to make an informed decision

and a complete assessment of the Green Belt.

2) Housing Target Uncertainty

3.3.21. Alongside uncertainty about the future spatial strategy for the Borough,

there is no clear indication of what the Boroughs future housing target may

be, which impacts on the ability of the Local Planning Authority to predict

the quantum of land that may be required to be safeguarded.

3.3.22. The Local Plan will express the housing target as a range between 585

and 920, with the former representing the government’s standard

methodology and the latter being representative of the Council’s growth

ambitions.

3.3.23. These figures have been calculated using information and targets which

are relevant to this moment in time. There is no guarantee of what housing

targets will be at the end of the plan period, and whether the targets at this

time would mean Green Belt land is required, or whether the targets and

ambitions are such that housing numbers can be met in the future without

needing Green Belt.

3.3.24. Planning Practice Guidance states that:

“The housing need figure generated using the standard method may change

when National Household projections and affordability ratios are updated by

the Office of National Statistics and this should be taken into consideration

by strategic policy-making authorities.” 8

3.3.25. The standard method figure is therefore going to change and as and

when it does, this will need to be taken into account by the Local Planning

Authority. However, it remains an unknown how these will change, and

again whether the figures would be such that if the Council decided in future

to follow this method (if still applicable), that it would require Green Belt land

to accommodate the volume of houses required.

8 Planning Practice Guidance – Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessments, Paragraph 008

107

3.3.26. Furthermore, the Council has chosen to express the Boroughs housing

target as a range from 585 – 920 with the latter representing an uplift reflect

the Boroughs current economic ambitions. The requirement for this

economic uplift is distributed amongst, and forms part of the allocated

requirements for the Main Urban Area and Main Towns only.

3.3.27. This requirement means that the need to meet both the housing targets

and spatial strategy forms part of the exceptional circumstances argument.

However, it is also true to say that were it not for this uplift, if allocations

were made against the 585 dpa of the standard methodology, the need to

look at utilising Green Belt land would diminish. Indeed, if allocating 15

years’ worth of 585 dwellings (8,775 units) there would be no need to

consider allocating Green Belt land in the Main Urban Area, and although

Conisbrough and Mexborough would not be able to meet their baseline

(standard methodology split requirement) need, their percentage of the

target achieved without Green Belt would substantially increase. With a

different spatial strategy, 585 dpa could be delivered without using Green

Belt land, but this is not the preferred option for growth at this time, nor is it

in line with the Boroughs economic ambitions or recent housing delivery

figures.

3.3.28. As such, the Council feels that at this stage it is difficult to predict with

any certainty what level of housing will be required in the Borough in the

future, and furthermore, whether the levels of housing would result in Green

Belt land being required. The requirements for calculating the amount of

land needed for housing shifts over time, and is influenced by new

governments and shifting policy.

3.3.29. Simply carrying forward the requirement for this plan period could result

in the wrong quantum of land being safeguarded, be it an over or under

supply against what may be needed in future.

3.3.30. Again, as the Borough is not entirely constrained by Green Belt, it may

be that future targets can be met outside of the Green Belt, or that future

strategies may not require Green Belt amendments to help accommodate

the requirement, which could especially be the case if the standard method

remains in place and the Council choose not to uplift from this.

3) Land Availability beyond the Plan Period

3.3.31. The plan period runs from 2015 to 2035, with allocations for the 15 year

period 2018 – 2033, as well as enough sites to ensure that there is supply

for the remaining two years to 2035. However, some of the Boroughs

supply is projected to still be delivering beyond his point.

108


Site ref Site name Location Supply remaining post

2035

247 Former Rossington Colliery

Rossington 56

418 The DN7 Initiative Hatfield et al. 2,085 units

836 Land South of Woodfield Way

Main Urban Area 151 units

Total 2,292 units

3.3.33. The Council is therefore confident that there will be a good supply of land

available beyond the plan period which helps negate the need to safeguard

land. Given the scale of the 3,100 home Unity initiative, even if the site is

built out more quickly than projected, it would be unlikely to be complete by

2035.

3.3.34. 2131 homes post 2035 equates to 17.3% of the 15 year allocated supply

for 2018 – 2033, or 12.5% of the total requirement of 18,400 homes for the

plan period of 2015 – 2035. In both cases, this is far above the total amount

of Green Belt proposed to be released in the Local Plan (1,002 dwellings,

or 7.6% of the 15 year allocated requirement of 13,235).

3.3.35. With regards to employment sites, it is also projected that there will be

capacity remaining on these sites beyond 2035, which again lessens the

need to consider safeguarding Green Belt land for this use.


Site ref

Site name Location Supply remaining

post 2035 (ha)

% of the site

001 Thorne North Thorne & Moorends

22.09 30%

092 Balby Carr MUA 2.65 24%

418 The DN7 Initiative

Hatfield et al. 32.4 49%

441 Carcroft Common

Carcroft – Skellow / Toll Bar

12.32 50%

569 Askern Saw Mills

Askern 1.52 40%

Total 71ha N/A

109

3.3.37. As with housing, a good supply of available land exists beyond the plan

period which shows it is unnecessary at this stage to safeguard Green Belt

land for this purpose.

3.3.38. Furthermore, in relation to employment, the current strategy locates sites

along the M18 corridor. Whilst as previously acknowledged, future

strategies may consider land elsewhere, particularly following infrastructure

improvements, it is also the case that there are continued potential

employment development opportunities which exist along the M18. The

Call for Sites shows that land is currently being actively promoted in this

location, including land not proposed for allocation at this time. Feedback

is that this is an attractive place for business to locate, and its connectivity

to the national motorway network, ports, and improved access to Doncaster

Sheffield Airport via the Great Yorkshire Way enhance its appeal.

3.3.39. The Local Plan will allocate sites that fall within or close to the M18

corridor area, and there is therefore no current indication that the popularity

of this area for investment and development will change – indeed

development here is likely to enhance the attractiveness of this location.

Whilst not wishing to prejudice any future employment strategy, this shows

that there are potential and popular options for growth for employment

purposes outside of the Green Belt.

3.3.40. The Local Plan also includes a number of ‘Reserve Development Sites’,

which are sites that currently face constraints which mean they are

unsuitable for allocation. This is generally as they fall within areas at risk of

flooding.

3.3.41. The Council feel these would be otherwise suitable sites, and therefore

have allocated these as ‘Reserve Development Sites’ to give them a status

as sites that are preferred for development subject to constraints being

overcome. Whilst these do not form any part of the allocated supply, they

do indicate that there are other potential sites available in the Borough for

development outside of the Green Belt. These include:

Site ref Site name Location Capacity

303 Land off Highfield Road

Askern 29 units

398 Owston Road, Carcroft

Carcroft - Skellow

93 units

256 South of Canal, Opposite Earth

Centre

Conisbrough 325 units

110

399 Pickering Road, Bentley

MUA 36 units

495 / 1116 Rostholme, Bentley MUA 622 units

497 Dons Rugby Ground, Bentley

MUA 91 units

154 Clayfield Ave (Non GB)

Mexborough 151 units

500 Bull Green Mexborough

Mexborough 52 units

839 Mexborough Power Station

Mexborough 39 units

Total 1,438 units

3.3.42. These sites are all constrained by flood risk, with the exception of Site

154 which the HS2 safeguarding route runs through, 500, which is close to

the safeguarded route and also flood zone and site 839 which is a partially

completed permission which has stalled due to HS2. Flood risk is a major

factor in the North East of the Borough that prevents land from being

allocated, which in turn increases the likelihood of Green Belt release to

help meet the allocation requirement. The view of the local planning

authority is that flood risk is a physical constraint which can be a risk to life

and property, whereas Green Belt is a planning tool, albeit an important

one. Therefore, land at risk of flooding will be strictly avoided for allocations,

whereas Green Belt can be considered where appropriate and ideally

where the impact will be less great on the purposes of this designation.

3.3.43. The Environment Agency are currently working on new hydraulic

modelling, which will provide a better understanding of residual flood risk to

the Borough. Once in place, we will be able to better assess flood issues,

whether these can be overcome, and whether sites brought forward. Once

again, a potential supply of new non – Green Belt sites are known which

could form future supply.

4) Limited Reliance on the Green Belt in the Local Plan

3.3.44. Given the make-up of the Borough, the stringent approach that has been

taken to allocating land wherever possible outside of the Green Belt, and

only allocating sites in the Green Belt where robustly justified by exceptional

circumstances and on suitable sites, the current Local Plan, whilst

allocating some land in the Green Belt, is not heavily reliant on Green Belt

land to deliver it’s spatial strategy.

3.3.45. Overall, land totalling approximately 57ha will be released from the

Green Belt in the Borough, which equates to a decrease of 0.25% of the

111

Boroughs Green Belt. However, when the proposed addition to the Green

Belt at Rossington is factored in to these calculations, the overall net loss

of Green Belt in the Borough is approx. 36ha, which equates to a reduction

of 0.15% in the Boroughs Green Belt (or 99.85% being retained). This

shows that the Borough is not overly reliant on the Green Belt to provide

allocations.

3.3.46. Indeed, only 1,002 dwellings, or 7.6% (of the 15 year allocated

requirement of 13,235), or 6.68% (of the 17 year requirement of 15,000)

are proposed on land currently allocated as Green Belt. This demonstrates

that there are opportunities outside of the Green Belt to develop land, and

that at present, Doncaster is not overly dependent on the Green Belt to

deliver its housing requirement. Rather, Green Belt has been needed to be

utilised in some locations to help boost the supply of housing, meet the

spatial strategy and achieve a sustainable pattern of development as

agreed through consultation for this Local Plan.

3.3.47. As alluded to in previous sections, there may in future be a number of

opportunities or decisions which come forward that may mean that there

does not necessarily need to be a reliance on Green Belt land in future

iterations of the Local Plan.

3.3.48. If there was a higher amount of Green Belt being proposed for release,

it may indicate that more land would likely be required in the future in the

Green Belt, however it is not felt that the amount proposed shows a strong

reliance on Green Belt land in the Borough.

3.3.49. With the above in mind, the Council feels that it is premature and

unnecessary to release any further land from the Green Belt for

safeguarding purposes at this stage.

3.4. Conclusions

3.4.1. In summary, it is not deemed “necessary” as per NPPF paragraph 139 to

safeguard land in the Borough at this time. The local planning authority are

not proposing to allocate any safeguarded land in the Borough through the

Local Plan.

3.4.2. There are a number of compelling reasons for this. There is not a large

reliance on Green Belt land to deliver the current spatial strategy for

housing and employment. Green Belt sites have been allocated where

exceptional circumstances exist in order to help meet the preferred spatial

spread and contribute towards the Boroughs housing supply. This is

112

relevant to the strategy as proposed, however there are a number of

unknowns that mean that it cannot be certain that the current strategy would

be imitated in future iterations of the local plan.

3.4.3. There are many major infrastructure projects at relatively early stages

which, if realised, will likely influence future spatial thinking in the Borough.

This includes Doncaster Sheffield Airport and the potential growth around

this asset, but also HS2, a potential parkway station or other railway station

provision in the Dearne Valley, and a number of road improvement projects

in the Green Belt. It is too early to plan for the impact of these, given their

infancy, and in any case delivery of these schemes would be likely to

warrant a green belt review in future, given their potential impact on it.

3.4.4. The local planning authority may be inclined in the future to locate business

and housing adjacent to these schemes, which would be highly likely to

require Green Belt release, and therefore despite the intentions of the

NPPF, it cannot be said in Doncaster that the Local Planning Authority can

be satisfied that the Green Belt will not need to be amended at the end of

the plan period. Therefore, it is deemed more prudent to assess this at this

time when an up to date view on the Green Belt can be taken. Removing

land to safeguard would be premature at this time and may not satisfy the

eventual requirements of a future Local Plan.

3.4.5. Additionally, the housing requirement is subject to change. The current

methodology for setting a housing target is based on the government’s

standard housing method, which will continue to be reassessed when new

data becomes available. The Council has chosen to plan for above this

figure, based on current economic ambitions. How both these figures will

look in the future, and consequently whether Green Belt land may or may

not be needed (which is also reliant on future spatial strategies), cannot

currently be known. This means that allocating safeguarded land at this

stage cannot be done with any accuracy, and furthermore, the means of

calculating how much may be necessary is uncertain as it is based on both

numbers and a strategy subject to change.

3.4.6. With regards to the strategy, the present spatial spread for the Borough is

based on consultation and current thinking. There is no guarantee that in

the future, the Local Plan will follow this spatial approach. Given

approximately half of the Borough is in the Green Belt, there are potential

non-Green Belt options, should any future strategy choose a different

pattern of growth.

3.4.7. In any case, the Council can demonstrate that beyond 2035 there is a

projected supply of land for both housing and employment from land

113

allocated in the current Local Plan. Given this, it is felt that there is less

demand to seek to safeguard Green Belt land, as good levels of supply,

which outstrip the amount of Green Belt proposed to be released, can be

demonstrated beyond the plan period. There are other potential sources of

supply in addition to this, such as the Reserve Development Sites, and

future hydraulic modelling may change the approach to land at risk of

flooding, which is generally non – Green Belt areas.

3.4.8. Finally, the emerging Local Plan does not have a large reliance on releasing

Green Belt land to meet its housing requirement, and it does not rely on

Green Belt to meet its employment requirement. This is partially because

the Borough is only half covered by Green Belt, and should it be deemed

an appropriate strategy at the time, opportunity thus exists outside of the

Green Belt for development. This will be subject to the spatial strategy in

the future, but at this stage it is felt premature to assume that the both the

strategy and the requirements for houses or employment will be replicated

after 2035, and therefore it is premature to make assumptions about the

future strategy and whether that may require Green Belt at this stage in

time.

4. Submitted Small Green Belt Sites


4.1.1. NPPF Paragraph 135 states that “new Green Belts should only be

established in exceptional circumstances…” Paragraph 136 states that:










4.1.2. Paragraph 139 b) states that “When defining Green Belt boundaries, plans

should: not include land which it is unnecessary to keep permanently open”,

and paragraph 139 f) states that “When defining Green Belt boundaries,

114

plans should: define boundaries clearly, using physical features which are

readily recognisable and likely to be permanent.”

4.1.3. Therefore whilst it is clear that exceptional circumstances are required to

make even a minor amendment to the Green Belt, it is also clear that

boundaries are required to have a degree of permanency where possible.

4.2. Summary of the Issue

4.2.1. As part of the Call for Sites stage, and in the intervening years, a number

of sites within the Green Belt have been submitted as either a request to

amend the Green Belt, but not specifically allocate a site, or sites to

consider for allocation which are too small to form part of the allocated

supply as per the HELAA methodology, which excluded sites below 0.14

ha or 5 units.

4.2.2. These sites are not considered to be of a size or type that would fall under

“minor amendments” (Section 6), rather they are locations that could

potentially support development.

4.2.3. Whilst exceptional circumstances are required to amend the Green Belt to

include even small sites, this test by its nature differs from the exceptional

circumstances test for large sites and large Green Belt amendments. The

exceptional circumstances test for larger sites and settlements is partially

to do with the settlements need to deliver housing, and then a series of

tests on whether suitable individual sites exist in the settlement, considering

a number of factors including constraints.

4.2.4. The amount of development that a small site could deliver is often not

significant enough to contribute towards the allocated supply of an area.

The HELAA uses 5 units as a minimum. Below this, the sites have largely

been assessed as part of the “Small Sites Boundary Review”. This was

originally published in February 2017, however has subsequently been

revisited to review the findings. A summary of the Green Belt sites and the

new conclusions as to whether to amend the Green Belt for them is

available in this section. For sites in the countryside, please see the

‘Identifying Development Limits’ report.

4.2.5. Sites that are adjacent to existing settlements, and therefore not ‘isolated’

as per the HELAA methodology have been reassessed to see whether

there are any exceptional circumstances to warrant their release from the

Green Belt. A number of other ‘isolated’ sites were also assessed as part

115

of the Small Site Review, with the findings being that there are no

exceptional circumstances to warrant the release of these.

4.2.6. Additionally, a small number of sites have been submitted to the Council

solely for consideration as a Green Belt boundary amendment, rather than

a site allocation. A summary of these sites and the conclusion as to whether

to amend the Green Belt boundary in these locations is available in this

section.

4.3. Proposed Approach

4.3.1. The Council believe it is the intention of Green Belt Policy to form, insofar

as is possible, logical and defensible boundaries. In some cases, small

sites have been submitted via Call for Sites on land adjacent to settlements

but just within the Green Belt.

4.3.2. Where such sites exist, should removing them from the Green Belt help

improve a poorly defined boundary and subsequently provide a strong,

defensible and likely to be permanent boundary, then removal of the small

site from the Green Belt will be considered.

4.3.3. It is not always possible to draw boundaries to a defensible feature, or to

prevent the Green Belt from being indented and angular, especially given

the number of villages inset within the Green Belt, and attempting to do so

on a Borough wide could result in wholesale changes to the Green Belt.

4.3.4. The approach that has been taken is that where amendments have been

proposed, either through a submitted small site or a proposed Green Belt

boundary amendment (which does not include a proposed site), then the

suitability of these for removal from the Green Belt will be tested. Unless

other small amendments are suggested through ‘Minor Amendments’, then

there will be no Borough wide attempt to find land to remove from the Green

Belt or to incorporate land into it to find a clearly defensible boundary or for

any other reason, as the extent of the Green Belt has already been

established.

4.3.5. Where sites have been proposed to the Council, whether there are

exceptional circumstances that warrant the removal of the land from the

Green Belt is assessed below. Given these are generally small sites

incapable of providing a significant boost to the Boroughs housing supply

or help deliver the spatial strategy, the exceptional circumstances tests of

Section 2 do not apply.

116

4.3.6. Instead, exceptional circumstances are deemed to exist for the purpose of

small sites where the modest amendments proposed could clearly improve

the Green Belt boundary and provide a strong resultant boundary. Should

this be demonstrated on these sites, they will be removed from the Green

Belt and allocated as Residential Policy Area, which would mean limited

development could occur on these sites in future, subject to conformity with

other policies, but not constrained by the need to demonstrate “very special

circumstances” (NPPF para. 143 & 144).

4.3.7. It is not generally the case that the sites proposed here are of such a size

that they could drastically impact on the purposes of the Green Belt, or

change from how the built area and the Green Belt interact. Their size and

any incursion into the Green Belt would be unlikely to change from what

has already occurred in their respective locations. However, where any

small site is proposed to be removed from the Green Belt, then a further

assessment will be made of the Stage 1 Green Belt Review to check for the

impact on the Green Belt purposes.

4.3.8. Should the site be able to demonstrate that its removal from the Green belt

would result in an improved boundary which is likely to be permanent, and

furthermore that its removal will not impact on the Green Belt purposes,

then the site will be proposed for release from the Green Belt and

reallocated as Residential Policy Area.

4.3.9. The assessment of the Small proposed allocations and other proposed

Green Belt amendments are provided overleaf.

117

Green Belt Small Sites Assessment

Site no

Source Location Area Summary Would the site replace a poorly defined boundary

with a stronger one?

Conclusion

021 Call for Sites

Land adjacent to Scawthorpe Cottages, Scawthorpe

MUA Area of unutilised grassland which is informally used for car-parking at the end of Charter Drive / The Sycamores. Site bounded by tall dense hedgerow. Current Green Belt boundary is at property boundaries.

The boundary is defined by the edge of The Sycamores and then is slightly indented to conform to the property boundary of adjacent dwelling. The Sycamores is referred to in the Stage 1 Green Belt Review as being part of an area with an irregular and indented boundary (along with the B6422). This boundary is in itself slightly indented and part of a larger indentation in the location. The new boundary would be a dense tall hedgerow, which runs to the north of the road, but also encloses the site. This could constitute an equally strong boundary, more so if the remaining land to the east of this site was also removed from the Green Belt to form a linear edge.

On balance, removing this site from the Green Belt (alongside other land not submitted to the east at Call for Sites stage, would create a strong and defensible linear boundary, which is more likely to be permanent than the existing boundary and not in conflict with the methodology for selecting settlement limits.

118

074 Call for Sites

Robin Hood Golf Course, Owston Lane

Owston / Carcroft

Thin strip of woodland to the north of Owston Lane, Carcroft. Boundary currently defined along Owston Lane, although this has been extended northwards to the west along Lodge Road.

The current boundary is strongly defined by Lodge Road / Owston Lane, although there is an indentation to the north of this to the west. The site would not provide a strong boundary, would create another indentation into the Green Belt and subsequently weaken a strong boundary in this location.

Reject – site would weaken a currently strongly defined boundary.

206 Call for Sites

Tan Pit Lane, Clayton

Clayton

Site to the north of dwelling on Tan Pit Lane (un-adopted).

The boundary is indented and excludes this site, however it is defined by the perimeter of dwellings on Tan Pit Lane, and were the site to be removed from the Green Belt, represent a poorly defined boundary that is unlikely to be permanent – being an unmade road and a field boundary with no on the ground boundary to the east.

Reject - this proposal would weaken the boundary and be poorly defined by features lacking durability.

119

320 Call for Sites

Rear of Victoria House, High Melton

High Melton

Site is a large rear garden to the south of High Melton.

The proposed boundary would result in an indented Green Belt in this location. Although the boundary is not linear as it is, it is relatively straight and would be weakened by the proposed sites’ intrusion into the Green Belt.

Reject – the site would result in a larger area of garden land being removed, creating an indented Green Belt boundary.

336 Call for Sites

Bareilly Garden, Ivy House / Greenland View, Windmill Balk Lane

Adwick – Woodlands

Site is to the east of dwellings on Doncaster Lane and includes grassland between two residences. The residence to the east on the B1220 is in the Green Belt however. It could be argued the logical boundary lies beyond this dwelling, and that there is a marked difference on the ground between the dwelling and site 336, and the open countryside to the east and south.

The proposed boundary is reasonably well defined, and although there is a deviation in ground conditions between this site and the wider adjacent countryside, there is no reason to amend this at this time.

Reject – this site would not improve the Green Belt boundary and would further indent it in this location.

120

344 Call for Sites

The Coach House, Owston Hall, Owston

Owston

The site is Owston Hall Hotel Coach House, and only marginally falls within the Green Belt.

The site is only marginally in the Green Belt.

Site is only marginally in the Green Belt (1.3%). No amendment necessary.

447 Call for Sites

Land off The Green, Old Denaby

Old Denaby

Site includes overgrown area south of The Green.

The boundary is currently defined by a highway which constitutes a strongly defined boundary. Although the site in question is delineated by different ground conditions to the field beyond, it the two are not separated by ground features, rather a low fence. Therefore, a strong linear boundary would be replaced by a weaker and less linear one.

Reject – this proposal would replace a strongly defined boundary with a weaker one.

121

456 Call for Sites

Land off Cockhill Close, Bawtry

Bawtry The site is a paddock / agricultural land to the south of Bawtry which is not clearly defined by ground features to the east. The site has been assessed as part of Site 786 in the Green Belt Review.

The wider site (786) was assessed as potentially replacing a strong boundary with another strong boundary, however given this site would only be a portion of this site, it would lead to a strong boundary being replaced with a weaker indented one. The alternative option would be to allocate 786, however this site is not a preferred option, and furthermore has access issues for development.

Reject - Falls partially within site 786 which was assessed in the Stage 3 Green Belt Review. Boundary was assessed as strong and purposes strong (moderate overall), however this boundary would be more angular than that assessed and less based on ground features. Purposes would remain strong in this location. Weaker option than 786.

776 Call for Sites

Plot 2, Adwick upon Dearne

Adwick – upon - Dearne

Small grassland area adjacent to properties on Crow Tree Lane.

The current boundary is defined by the curtilage of the adjacent dwellings on Crow Tree Lane. Whilst this indents around this to Crow Tree Lane, removing this site would further indent the Green Belt boundary making it stepped in the process. The site does however appear to be brownfield, although it has the appearance of a paddock.

Reject – amending the Green Belt boundary to include this site would created a slightly indented boundary, when the existing boundary here is linear and sufficient,

122

779 Call for Sites

Land north of Green Roofs, Spring Lane, Sprotbrough

Sprotbrough

Garden to the north of dwelling off Spring Lane.

This site would replace a relatively strong boundary with a weaker and more irregular one, which would protrude northwards in a manner which would weaken the boundary considerably.

Reject – boundary is angular here due to dwelling, but incorporating the dwellings large garden would exacerbate the protrusion into the Green Belt in this location.

881 Call for Sites

Land off Beancroft Close, Wadworth

Wadworth

Residential garden of dwelling to the east of Beancroft Lane.

The current boundary is linear and related to the edge of the properties on Beancroft Road and Ratten Row. This site would make the Green Belt less linear in this location by including a large piece of garden land, when the existing boundary is sufficient here.

Reject – would replace a strongly defined boundary with a weaker one and would incorporate a large garden into the settlement.

1022 Informal Consultation

Land North of Church Field Road

Clayton

Paddock between Village Shop and two dwellings in the Green Belt.

The proposed site could deliver a more linear boundary, although a feature of the Green Belt in Clayton is its irregular pattern which also sees the Green Belt separate the settlement into three. The proposed boundary is not defined by a strong boundary, being a low wooden fence only, which would form a weak Green Belt boundary.

Reject - Site is a paddock which would not be strongly defined to the north, being a small fence only. The Green Belt resultant boundary would be less angular but is not defined by a strong durable feature. The site also contributes to the rural setting and character of the village, which includes intermittent built form.

123

Subsequent amendments following Small Site Assessment

Site no



Conclusion

N/A Green Belt Topic Paper

Land adjacent to site 021 (Land north of The Sycamores)

MUA With Site 021 proposed for release from the Green Belt, in order to create a linear boundary defined by a consistent boundary, this land is also proposed to be release from the Green Belt.

The current boundary is defined by The Sycamores, an adopted highway which forms a strong boundary. However, with Site 021 proposed for release from the Green Belt, this would make the subsequent boundary in isolation indented. Therefore, if this land were also to be released from the Green Belt, the boundary would become linear and strongly defined by a tall hedgerow which forms a natural barrier between the extent of The Sycamores housing estate and the open countryside to the north.

Given the changes to the Green Belt in this location, the resultant boundary for both this site and site 021 would be the strongest and most linear option.

124

Requests to Amend Green Belt

Site no



Conclusion

195 Informal Consultation

Askern Miners Welfare

Askern Please see Section 5 – changes as a result of Planning Permissions

N/A Informal Consultation

Strikers Garden Centre

Conisbrough

The site of a garden nursery adjacent to the Green Belt boundary in Conisbrough. Such sites are generally considered an acceptable rural / urban fringe use.

The current Green Belt boundary is well defined and linear, lying to the curtilages of properties on Saxon Row, which aligns with the Green Belt limit to the west of this site. This proposal would create an indented and irregular angular extension into the Green Belt that would replace an existing logical boundary. Furthermore, the adjacent Site (1000) has been assessed in the Stage 3 Green Belt Review Addendum, scoring moderately weak and also being noted as crating an angular protrusion into the Green Belt, so there is limited scope to include adjacent land and create a

Reject – the site would replace a strongly defined boundary with a weaker one.

125

larger and more acceptable site in Green Belt terms.

N/A Informal Consultation

Land south of Swan Syke Drive, Norton

Norton The proposed amendment includes a number of gardens and meadowland to the rear of Swan Syke Drive and protrudes into the Green Belt, with a newly proposed boundary at Stream Dike to the south - a small water feature.

The Green Belt boundary in the south of Norton is slightly indented as it conforms to property extents and curtilages which themselves are not linear. However, whilst non – linear, such features do constitute strong boundaries, and furthermore the Green Belt is tightly drawn to the built form in this location. The Green Belt in this specific location does indent slightly more and is drawn to property limits rather than the curtilages or meadowlands to the south, given the size of the rear gardens and adjacent land. However, the proposed new Green Belt boundary would still result in an indented boundary, albeit one where the settlement incurs more into the Green Belt rather than the Green Belt into the settlement. Furthermore, it would incorporate large back gardens and some meadowland into the

Reject – the site would not improve the boundary in this location and would incorporate open land into the Green Belt in a location where the limit is otherwise tightly drawn to property limits and curtilages.

126

settlement which would conflict with the ‘Identifying Development Limits’ methodology. On balance, the proposal would not improve the existing Green Belt boundary, which is suitably drawn to the development limit in this location.

Conclusions – Amendments to the Green Belt from the Small Sites Assessment

Proposed Amendment

Impact on the Green Belt purposes Conclusion

Site 021 and adjacent land

The site is part of Adwick le Street 5 and falls within what is deemed an “essential gap” between Bentley and Highfields. However, this is more related to the land between Highfields and the B6244, which lies to the north of the site in question. The assessment of site 494 in the Stage 3 Review, which is of the land immediately north of the site in question clarifies that removal of this site would make “no discernible contribution to the separation of these settlements”, as Site 494 would not extend further along the A638 than the existing built form. Therefore, whilst the site is part of a general area which is important to preventing neighbouring towns merging, in isolation, this site does not contribute to this purpose, as it lies south of the existing built form to which the separation perception relates. Against the other purposes, the site does not constitute ribbon development. It is a small encroachment into the countryside / Green Belt, but one which could

Although within the general area of Adwick le Street 5 this site falls within is part of an “essential gap” between Highfields and Bentley, this site does not in isolation contribute to the importance of this gap. The other purposes of the Green Belt would not be adversely impacted by this land being removed from the Green Belt, and coupled with the

127

help create a defensible boundary and on land which is clearly related to the built form of the estate rather than the wider countryside, which it is severed from by the high hedge to the north. There is no impact on the historical character or on historical views, and the site is already screened from the wider area by a substantial hedgerow. The assessment of unrestricted sprawl in Adwick le Street 5 notes that features in the general area are lacking durability and vulnerable to sprawl. The allocation of this site could create a strong linear boundary in this location.

opportunity to create a strong, linear and defensible boundary here, it is felt that the removal of Site 021 and land to the east is justifiable, and exceptional circumstances exist to warrant this amendment.

128

4.3.10. In addition to the assessment of these sites, there are a number of other

small sites submitted for consideration which are in the Green Belt, but

isolated from existing settlements. These sites were originally assessed in

the Small Sites and Settlement Boundary Review. There are deemed to be

no exceptional circumstances that warrant the release of, or allocation of

these small sites in the Green Belt:

Site no

Source Location Area

266 Call for Sites Gate House, Robin Hood Golf Club / Owston Hall

Owston

267 Call for Sites Main Entrance, Owston Hall, Owston

Owston

269 Call for Sites Holme Lane Farm, Holme (Site 1)

Owston

270 Call for Sites Holme Lane Farm, Holme (Site 2)

Owston

271 Call for Sites East Farm, Little Owston (Site 2)

Owston

335 Call for Sites Birch Lodge, Denaby Lane, Old Denaby

Old Denaby

338 Call for Sites Lucarne, Green Lane, Scawthorpe

MUA

775 Call for Sites Plot 1, Harlington Road Adwick – upon - Dearne

4.4. Conclusions

4.4.1. A number of sites have been submitted to the Council in the course of the

Local Plan which are too small to consider for allocation. These sites were

originally assessed in the 2017 Small Sites Settlement Boundary Review

which concluded that in the case of the sites submitted in the Green Belt,

none demonstrated any exceptional circumstances to justify their release.

4.4.2. In the intervening time, consultants Arup have completed a Green Belt

Review for the Council, which enables a more detailed assessment of these

sites. Therefore, any which fall within the Green Belt have been reassessed

to review whether there are any exceptional circumstances to justify their

release

4.4.3. As part of the Informal Draft Policies and Proposes Sites consultation in

2018, new sites which were too small to be allocated, or other suggested

Green Belt amendments were put forward to the Council. These sites have

129

all been assessed to test for exceptional circumstances for removal from

the Green Belt.

4.4.4. In the first instance, sites are tested to see whether they could contribute to

creating a stronger or more defensible boundary than the existing. Out of

twelve, only one site (Site 201 plus small additional land) was noted as

being able to fulfil this purpose.

4.4.5. Following this, the site was assessed to check it would not have an adverse

impact on the Green Belt, using the findings of the Stage 1 and Stage 3

Green Belt Review. As the site was found to be able to both provide a strong

linear boundary in this location and not adversely impact on the Green Belt,

exceptional circumstances exist to justify the release of this land from the

Green Belt. In other cases, including sites assessed as being “isolated” in

the HELAA, there are no exceptional circumstances to justify the release of

these sites.

4.4.6. The removed site (201) will be removed and allocated as Residential Policy

Area. To the east, land is also proposed to be removed to help create the

defensible boundary to the Green Belt.

5. Amendments Related to Planning Permissions


5.1.1. NPPF paragraph 133 states that “the essential characteristics of Green

Belts are their openness and their permanence”. Paragraph 143 and 144

of the NPPF establish that development in the Green Belt should not be

approved except in “very special circumstances”. These do “not exist

unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness,

and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by

other considerations”.

5.1.2. Paragraph 145 establishes the exceptions to this, including buildings for

forestry and agriculture, small extensions and alterations to buildings,

limited infilling in villages, limited affordable housing for local community

needs, and infilling or redevelopment of previously developed land where

this would not impact or cause substantial harm to the openness of the

Green Belt. Paragraph 146 notes the certain other forms of development

which are not inappropriate in the Green Belt providing they preserve its

130

openness and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it.

This includes minerals extraction, engineering operations, local transport

infrastructure amongst others.

5.1.3. These paragraphs advise on how to assess applications for land within the

Green Belt. To justify the use of Green Belt land for development, it must

conform to Paragraphs 143 – 147, and demonstrate very special

circumstances.

5.1.4. The notion of “very special circumstances” and appropriate development

within the Green Belt was also covered in both the 2012 NPPF (paragraphs

87 – 92), and Planning Practice Guidance 2 (1995 – 2012) (chapter 3). This

national policy therefore covers the period since the UDP was adopted and

which planning applications in the Green Belt in the intervening years will

have been judged against.

5.2. Summary of the Issue

5.2.1. Since the UDP formally designated the extent of the Green Belt in the

Borough, there has been the approval of planning applications on land

within the Green Belt. Depending on the point in time, these will have

needed to conform policies related to development within the Green Belt in

PPG, the 2012 NPPF or the 2018 NPPF. If an application has been granted

on land within the Green Belt, the decision maker has to have been satisfied

that very special circumstances exist to justify this, or that the use is

acceptable. This was also covered by Doncaster UDP Policy ENV3.

5.2.2. When applications are granted on land in the Green Belt, they remain within

the Green Belt and subject to Green Belt policy for any subsequent

applications. Altering the Green Belt is a matter for the Local Plan or

Neighbourhood Plans only.

5.2.3. In some cases, the development of Green Belt land may subsequently

effectively change the status of Green Belt. In particularly, development can

contradict the aims of Paragraph 133 regarding openness.

5.2.4. As part of work looking at reviewing the Green Belt boundaries for the Local

Plan, it is now appropriate to consider planning applications that have

occurred in the Green Belt in the intervening years to assess whether

development in the Green Belt now means that the site no longer

contributes to the purposes of the Green Belt. Sites that no longer meet the

purposes of the Green Belt will be considered for removal from the Green

Belt and reallocation as another purpose.

131

5.2.5. In practice, the number of planning applications which have been permitted

in the Green Belt for non – appropriate Green Belt uses (subject to very

special circumstances) has been very limited. This shows that the Green

Belt has generally served its purposes well in Doncaster.

5.3. Proposed Approach

5.3.1. Development on sites which has led to the purposes of the Green Belt being

conflicted and meaning that the existing boundary is now clearly

indefensible will be considered for removal from the Green Belt, with a new

boundary being formed to exclude these sites.

5.3.2. In order to assess this, the following approach is proposed:

i) Planning Permissions for sites which fall under exceptions in NPPF

Paragraph 145 a; b and d; or NPPF paragraph 146.

5.3.3. Where a site has been granted permission for a use which is acceptable in

the Green Belt (NPPF Paragraph 146 – mineral extraction; engineering

options; transport infrastructure; re-use of established permanent buildings;

material changes to land9); or for buildings of agriculture and forestry,

appropriate facilities such as cemeteries or for sport, or the replacement of

a building already within the Green Belt (NPPF paragraph 145), then the

Green Belt boundary will not be amended to incorporate these as these are

acceptable Green Belt uses.

ii) Planning Permissions which have been fully developed, completed

and delivered, including those which fall under NPPF Paragraph 145

e; f and g; and are related to settlements.

5.3.4. Where Planning Permissions for housing schemes (not single units) and

employment development have been granted and have been fully

developed, and are both adjacent to an physically connected to / integrated

with an existing defined settlement, then consideration will be given as to

whether the site now is functioning as the Green Belt is designed to

function.

5.3.5. Where it is decided that the site no longer serves the purposes of the Green

Belt, including its openness, and is clearly now part of the urban fabric as

opposed to land which should be kept permanently open, then the

9 Paragraph 146 f) deals with Community Right to Build Orders or Neighbourhood Development Orders – these are not a feature in the Borough at this time.

132

boundary will be redrawn to establish a new boundary which is

representative of the actual situation on the ground. Insofar as is possible,

this will be to a strong boundary feature to help create a new permanent

boundary.

iii) Planning Permissions which are isolated or unattached to a

settlement.

5.3.6. Where Planning Permissions have been granted for any use in a location

unattached to an existing defined settlement, then there will be no Green

Belt amendment to remove such permissions from the Green Belt.

iv) Planning Permissions for housing or employment which are

connected to defined settlements but which are outline, have not

started or not been fully developed.

5.3.7. Where Planning Permissions have been granted for housing sites and

employment purposes, but have yet to fully be developed or delivered, then

they will not be considered for removal from the Green Belt.

5.3.8. Whilst a partially developed site could demonstrate that there has been

changes on the ground, until the site has been fully developed and

completed, it is not possible to draw an accurate boundary that will not be

subject to further change.

5.3.9. Similarly, it is not suitable to draw a boundary around the extent of the

permissions boundary, as firstly, if undeveloped, this may not exist in a form

which makes it possible to definitively say where the best or most suitable

boundary is; and secondly, this would remove land from the Green Belt that

could potentially be developed more freely when released from Green Belt

constraints for other reasons as opposed to those assessed as contributing

towards very special circumstances in the planning permission.

5.3.10. As such, the Council believes that any permission granted in the Green

Belt has been granted subject to very special circumstances, and therefore

the permission should be fully delivered in accordance with the decision

before it is considered for removal from the Green Belt. As the very special

circumstances exist for specific locations and uses, not removing a partially

developed or un-commenced site from the Green Belt will not prejudice the

development in any way, as permission exists which means the desired

outcome can happen regardless of the Green Belt designation.

Furthermore, in the case of undeveloped sites where permission never

starts, the land will simply remain as Green Belt, with the boundary as it

currently is.

133

5.3.11. In future, when the Green Belt comes to be reviewed again, this matter

can be revisited when an up to date position can be established. If a site is

fully developed then there may be a more compelling case to remove the

site from the Green Belt, as per point ii, however until that point the land will

remain as it currently is – a green belt site with a planning permission which

has demonstrated very special circumstances.

5.3.12. It is considered that this is the most consistent and fair approach to

planning permissions which will ensure the final Green Belt boundary is as

defensible as possible.

5.3.13. For brevity, only sites which fall under point ii and iv above will be listed

in the following conclusions table, overleaf:

134

Application ref. Location Summary Status Conclusion

17/00095/FULM Askern Application for housing at Askern Miners Welfare, which was approved at Planning Committee in 2019 and subsequently not called in by the Secretary of State.

Not started Development yet to commence and therefore land will remain in the Green Belt.

16/00756/FULM (and other iterations thereof)

MUA Application for 12 dwellings on former reservoir in the Green Belt at Scawthorpe.

Complete Site was completed in 2017 – 18 and no longer contributes to the purposes of the Green Belt. The site will be removed from the Green Belt and allocated as Residential Policy Area.

09/00190/OUTA (and other iterations thereof)

Rossington Application for construction of an inland port (now commonly known as the iPort development)

Under construction

The development has commenced and is currently approximately half complete. Therefore, until complete the land will remain in the Green Belt.

14/02683/REMM (first parcel of Rossington Colliery re-development); part of 12/01107/OUTA

Rossington Land developed for first phase of housing

Complete The phase is complete and the site does not contribute to the openness of the Green Belt. A logical boundary can be established, being redrawn to the west, forming a

https://planning.doncaster.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?keyVal=P67GK7FXLW900&activeTab=summary

135

strong and linear Green Belt boundary in this location.

97/1613/P Sprotbrough Houses to the south of Melton Road Sprotbrough – accounted for as part of the amendments related to site 929 (see section 2).

Complete Amendment has been made as part of changes related to the allocation of site 929.

136

6. Minor Amendments


6.1.1. NPPF Paragraph 135 states that “new Green Belts should only be

established in exceptional circumstances…” Paragraph 136 states that:










6.1.2. Paragraph 139 b) states that “When defining Green Belt boundaries, plans

should: not include land which it is unnecessary to keep permanently open”,

and paragraph 139 f) states that “When defining Green Belt boundaries,

plans should: define boundaries clearly, using physical features which are

readily recognisable and likely to be permanent.”

6.1.3. As with the small submitted Green Belt sites, whilst it is clear that

exceptional circumstances are required to make even a minor amendment

to the Green Belt, it is also clear that boundaries are required to have a

degree of permanency.

6.2. Local Circumstances

6.2.1. In some cases, Green Belt boundaries as defined in the Borough more than

twenty may now need to be slightly amended,

6.2.2. The Doncaster UDP was accompanied by a “master map” in paper form.

This was digitised around 15 years ago, however it was not possible to fully

replicate the original maps, and some errors have become apparent.

Examples relevant to the Green Belt include some housing allocations or

other designations being incorrectly also recorded as Green Belt.

137

6.2.3. Therefore, when reviewing and re-plotting the Green Belt for the Local Plan

policies map, the original paper maps have been used for digitising the

Green Belt.

6.2.4. Green Belt boundaries may now need to be slightly amended due to

account for digitising errors and better mapping techniques. Advances in

mapping technology since the Green Belt was originally defined has led to

minor anomalies which do not follow or meet the intended boundary

feature, or features are more clearly identifiable on the digital map than on

a paper map. This helps create a more defensible boundary and removes

ambiguity from the interpretation of where the Green belt boundary is. Over

time very small changes may have occurred that means the existing

boundary is no longer reflected by conditions on the ground, and therefore

does not comply with the NPPF requirement for boundaries to be drawn

using “physical features that are readily recognisable and likely to be

permanent”. Again, this is partially a result of now being able to map more

accurately using digital technology and thus being able to plot to the

intended boundary with accuracy.

6.2.5. Whilst ideally the Green Belt should follow strong boundary features, it may

not always be possible, and it is not the intention of, nor is it practical for,

the boundary to be redrawn in all areas to a likely permanent feature. Doing

this could lead to major amendments to the boundary which require

justification akin to the exceptional circumstances tests, and could

potentially lead to the removal of large areas of urban / rural fringe being

removed from the Green Belt and left open to development. This is not the

intention of such amendments.

6.2.6. Instead, the intention here is that where very small amendments can be

made as a result of improved mapping techniques or very minor

amendments on the ground which make the boundary stronger, more

recognisable and to more likely permanent features, the opportunity is

taken to do so. By “small”, it is intended that this means not of a sufficient

size to allow development within the amendment, rather a small shift to

improve or correctly define the boundary (i.e. a small amendment to reflect

a feature such as a wall or property limit).

6.2.7. We do not believe it is the intention of national policy or exceptional

circumstances tests to keep in perpetuity land as Green Belt which has

minor mapping errors or digitising issues. Rather, the intention is that

boundaries are strong insofar as it is practical to make them so. If these

minor amendments were not made now, there is a risk that replicating

faithfully all mapped UDP Green Belt boundaries could undermine the

purposes of the Green Belt, and furthermore the Boroughs Green Belt

138

would follow clearly illogical and untidy limits at the expense of accurate

and clear boundaries that provide clarity to the public and officers alike.

6.2.8. However, the intention is not to remove anything large from the Green Belt

when looking at minor amendments (i.e. of a scale that could incorporate

development), rather just make good some small anomalies where ever

possible. Larger areas (including small sites submitted at Call for Sites

stage), are reviewed in Section 5. The extent of the Green Belt remains and

the amendments are small and logical ones from a mapping point of view.

6.3. Proposed Minor Amendments

6.3.1. In order to do this, planning officers have undertaken a review of the

Boroughs Green Belt boundaries to identify minor anomalies and

irregularities.

6.3.2. Planning officers have undertaken a desk based assessment of the

Boroughs Green Belt, using both the original UDP paper maps and

subsequent electronic formats to identify and correct where appropriate

these minor Green Belt boundary anomalies.

6.3.3. Rather than assessing the exceptional circumstances on a case by case

basis, it is deemed prudent to decide that exceptional circumstances exist

to slightly correct the Green Belt boundary as per the UDP map if:

There is a clear feature that the Green Belt boundary can be drawn to

/ was intended to be drawn to, without altering the extent of the Green

Belt or incorporating land of such a size that it could lead to

development (tidying and digitising). This helps create strong

defensible boundaries;

To correct any digitising errors or clear original mapping errors, such

as when the Green Belt boundary cuts across a feature instead or

around it, without altering the extent of the Green Belt or incorporating

land of such a size it could lead to development – in doing so leading

to unambiguous Green Belt boundaries insofar as is possible.

6.3.4. The exceptional circumstance for doing this is in order to ensure their long

term permanence, as per NPPF para. 136, and to ensure that, in making

these small changes, that the Green Belt boundaries are clearly defined,

using physical features that are readily recognisable and likely to be

permanent, as per NPPF para. 139f, which avoids any doubt for all involved.

Furthermore, the amendments will be in line as far as is reasonable with the

139

‘Identifying Development Limits’ methodology, which guides what should

and should not usually fall inside development limits. Changes to

development limits will also be undertaken outside of the Green Belt where

necessary, in accordance with this methodology, but not subject to the

exceptional circumstances test.

6.3.5. Minor amendments have been made when undertaking the policies map for

the Local Plan, meaning the Green Belt boundary for the Borough is now

logically drawn wherever possible and to its intended boundaries. Such work

has not impacted on the extent of the Green Belt and will ensure a clearly

defined and easily interpreted boundary that reflects the intended Green

Belt limits.

7. Adding Land into the Green Belt


7.1.1. The Local Plan is not only concerned with removing land from the Green

Belt. In drawing new boundaries, consideration must also be given as to

whether there is justification to incorporate land into the Green Belt.

7.1.2. National Policy is clear (NPPF paragraph 136) that boundaries should only

be altered in “exceptional circumstances”, which covers alterations to add

or remove land from the Green Belt.

7.1.3. Paragraph 135 of the NPPF states that:

The general extent of Green Belts across the country is already established.

New Green Belts should only be established in exceptional circumstances,

for example when planning for larger scale development such as new

settlements or major urban extensions. Any proposals for new Green Belts

should be set out in strategic policies, which should:

demonstrate why normal planning and development management

policies would not be adequate;

set out whether any major changes in circumstances have made the

adoption of this exceptional measure necessary;

show what the consequences of the proposal would be for sustainable

development;

140

demonstrate the necessity for the Green Belt and its consistency with

strategic policies for adjoining areas; and

show how the Green Belt would meet the other objectives of the

Framework.

7.1.4. This stipulates that new Green Belt should only be created in “exceptional

circumstances”. Doncaster as a Borough is only half covered by Green Belt

designation, and so there has been some consideration given as to whether

this should be amended to surround the east of the Borough too.

7.1.5. Paragraph 138 notes that strategic policy making authorities should “…set

out ways in which the impact of removing land from the Green Belt can be

offset through compensatory improvements to the environmental quality

and accessibility of remaining Green Belt land”.

7.1.6. Paragraph 141 also states that “Once Green Belts have been defined, local

planning authorities should plan positively to enhance their beneficial use,

such as looking for opportunities to provide access; to provide opportunities

for outdoor sport and recreation; to retain and enhance landscapes, visual

amenity and biodiversity; or to improve damaged and derelict land.”

7.1.7. These paragraphs introduce the notion that harm to the Green Belt can

potentially be offset by compensatory improvements to the Green Belt.

Opportunities should also be sought to improve the remaining Green Belt,

including derelict land, and increase recreational opportunities within it.

7.1.8. Finally, paragraph 140 states that:

“If it is necessary to restrict development in a village primarily because of

the important contribution which the open character of the village makes to

the openness of the Green Belt, the village should be included in the Green

Belt. If, however, the character of the village needs to be protected for other

reasons, other means should be used, such as conservation area or normal

development management policies, and the village should be excluded from

the Green Belt.”

7.1.9. Planning Practice Guidance has recently been updated to include new

direction on offsetting the removal of land with compensatory improvements

and ensuring compensatory improvements are secured.

7.1.10. Compensatory improvements may include enhanced green

infrastructure; woodland planting; landscape and visual enhancements;

141

biodiversity enhancements; new or enhanced walking or cycle routes; and

improved access to new, enhanced or existing recreational playing field

provision.

7.1.11. Consideration will need to be given to land ownership, the scope of work

needed to implement improvements and whether conditions, section 106

obligations or CIL could secure improvements where possible.

7.2. Case Law

7.2.1. The aforementioned Gallagher Homes Ltd vs. Solihull Borough Council

[2014] case law is of importance to the question of adding land into the

Green Belt (see section 2).

7.2.2. This ruling stated that simply because a land use, in this case housing, was

not suitable on the site was not in itself exceptional circumstances for

including land within the Green Belt. There must be a higher test for adding

land into the Green Belt than it simply not being suitable for a certain use.

7.3. Land to the East of the Borough

7.3.1. There has long been debate about whether the Green Belt should be

extended to the east of the Borough, and the point is occasionally put to the

Council during consultation. As the general extent of the Green Belt is

established, doing so would require exceptional circumstances.

7.3.2. As part of their assessment of the Boroughs Green Belt, consultants Arup

undertook a study of the Countryside Protection Policy Area and published

their findings in a Technical Supporting Note This looked at the success of

countryside polices in the UDP and Core Strategy in protecting the

countryside in the Borough, before assessing whether the test for

establishing new Green Belt, as set out in the NPPF (now contained in para.

135) could be met, and the whether land in the east of the Borough meets

the five Green Belt purposes (now para. 134).

7.3.3. This report concluded that:

Countryside Protection Policy Area has performed relatively well in

protecting countryside to the east of the Borough from inappropriate

development.

142

The required exceptional circumstances to amend the Green Belt

eastwards cannot be demonstrated, specifically:

o Existing development management policies have been

successful in this location;

o The Council will need to assess whether there has been a major

change in circumstances in the east that warrant the extension of

this designation. The Council does not believe that there has

been.

o That extending the Green Belt would not meet with the original

aims of the South Yorkshire Green Belt, by virtue of not falling

within a gap between the other built up areas of South Yorkshire.

o Land to the east of the Borough does not meet the five tests of

the Green Belt. Specifically and importantly, there is no large built

up areas to the east of Doncaster for the Borough to sprawl

towards.

o Surrounding neighbouring authorities to the east of the Borough

are not generally covered by Green Belt designation, and

therefore designating Green Belt in this location would be

inconsistent with these areas.

There are other policy options available to the Council in this location,

rather than designating Green Belt.

7.3.4. In light of this report, the Council are in agreement that there is no justifiable

reason or exceptional circumstances to extend the Green Belt further to the

east, and although it is important to protect the countryside, this can be

done through policy, rather than via an extension of the Green Belt.

7.3.5. The Councils approach to countryside is contained within Policy 2 and 3 of

the Local Plan. The general extent of the Green Belt will therefore remain

as established.

7.4. Defined Village Approach

7.4.1. The UDP defined a number of settlements within the Borough, including

many small villages – some of which received allocations.

143

7.4.2. As part of the preparation for the emerging Local Plan, both settlement

boundaries and the approach to the “defined villages” (i.e. villages that

could support some infill development) has been reviewed. This was

covered in the Settlement Background Paper, published in September

2018 as part of the informal consultation on draft policies and proposed

sites.

7.4.3. The 40 previously “defined villages” were critically re-appraised in order to

ascertain which settlements were deemed to be the most sustainable

locations for limited development such as infill.

7.4.4. At the informal consultation stage of the Local Plan (September – October

2018), a new approach to the Defined Villages was proposed. The larger

and more sustainable villages were proposed to remain defined, and the

smaller and less sustainable villages were proposed to be washed over by

either countryside or Green Belt respectively, based on their location.

7.4.5. Out of 40 defined villages, it was proposed that 12 would remain as “defined

villages”. The remaining 28 were no longer proposed to be defined, of these

20 were wholly or partially within the Green Belt:

Adwick – upon – Dearne

Brodsworth Burghwallis

Cadeby Clayton (with Frickley) Clifton

Hampole Hickleton High Melton

Hooton Pagnell Loversall Marr

Micklebring Old Denaby Old Edlington

Owston Pickburn Skelbrooke

Stainton Sutton

7.4.6. This approach was relatively well received in the informal consultation

amongst those who commented on the proposed method, particularly rural

parish Council’s.

7.4.7. However, further work on this and whether or not this approach, and the

wide scale changes it would result in for the Boroughs Green Belt, is

justified in planning policy terms has led to the conclusion that we do not

feel there is sufficient justification or exceptional circumstances to cover

these settlements with Green Belt designation.

7.4.8. The new approach to smaller Defined Villages is now set out in Policy 2

and Policy 3 of the Local Plan. The new approach does not result in any

settlements being placed into the Green Belt, rather the boundaries of the

144

Green Belt villages remaining and land outside of these limits subject to

national Green Belt policy.

7.5. Undeveloped UDP Sites

7.5.1. When the UDP was drafted and published in 1998, it supported a number

of allocations which have not subsequently been developed. This includes

land on the edge of or adjacent to Green Belt, which remains undeveloped

for reasons such as flood risk.

7.5.2. As such land remains undeveloped and cannot be allocated in the Local

Plan due to the aforementioned flood risk issues, consideration needs to

be given as to what the approach would be to such land.

7.5.3. One of the considerations has been whether some sites could be placed

within the Green Belt. As with all amendments to the Green Belt,

exceptional circumstances would need to be demonstrated to do so.

7.5.4. Sites include:

Site ref Site name Location Issue / why can’t the site be allocated?

303 Highfield Road Askern Flood Risk

398 Owston Road, Carcroft

Carcroft - Skellow

Flood Risk

256 South of Canal, Opposite Earth

Centre

Conisbrough Flood Risk

399 Pickering Road, Bentley

MUA Flood Risk

495 Rostholme, Bentley MUA Flood Risk

7.5.5. Of key importance here is case law related to Gallagher Estates v Solihull

MBC (2014). Amongst this judgement, it is inferred that Green Belt

boundaries are intended to endure and not be altered simply because

current policy means that development of sites is unlikely or impossible.

7.5.6. Exceptional circumstances are required to demonstrate any revision (be it

to increase or decrease) the Green Belt. But it is inadequate to, nor would

the Council wish to, argue to put land back into the Green Belt simply

because development of it currently looks unlikely.

145

7.5.7. When assessing these sites, which cannot be allocated due to flood,

consideration was given as to whether they could be added back into the

Green Belt. However, it was deemed that in doing this, the Council would

fall foul of the Solihull ruling.

7.5.8. Rather than include the land in the Green Belt, it is felt that apart from flood

risk, these sites would otherwise be suitable allocations. Therefore, it is

deemed more prudent to allocate these sites, along with other urban land

as ‘Reserve Development Sites’, and instead recognise their potential,

subject to flood risk being overcome or the designation changing. In doing

this, the Green Belt boundary will remain drawn around these reserve sites,

meaning no boundary amendment is necessary.

7.6. Compensatory Green Belt

7.6.1. It is acknowledged that decisions made in the Local Plan will ultimately

have an impact on the Green Belt, as land will be removed from this

designation and allocated for housing. Whilst it is deemed that exceptional

circumstances exist that justify this release, and that the overall release of

land is relatively modest and only proposed where it is absolutely

necessary, the cumulative impact is that the Green Belt will be diminished

in the Borough.

7.6.2. Furthermore, since the Green Belt was defined, permission has been

granted on occasion on land in it. Whilst each case will have been judged

on its merits and will be subject to “very special circumstances” being

demonstrated, these by their nature may have, are having or have had an

impact on the Green Belt and its purposes.

7.6.3. Paragraphs 138 and 141 of the NPPF highlight that compensatory

improvements to the Green Belt, including environmental improvements,

biodiversity enhancement, increasing accessibility, improving opportunity

for outdoor sport and recreation, retaining and enhancing landscapes and

visual amenity and improving damaged or derelict land might ways in which

harm to the Green Belt can be offset or the remaining Green Belt improved.

Updated Planning Practice Guidance also relates to this.

7.6.4. As such, a scheme has been identified which the Council believe can offset

harm to the Green Belt by simultaneously addressing and reducing the

overall loss arising from the removal of sites for allocation, improving the

146

quality of Green Belt in the Borough, improving recreational opportunities

and access to the Green Belt and improving derelict land.

7.6.5. As part of the ongoing redevelopment of the former Rossington Colliery for

housing (including a small amount of Green Belt land), and the adjacent

iPort development, which is in the Green Belt, former colliery land which

lies both inside and outside of the Green Belt has been granted permission

for (once the existing spoil has been excavated) restoration back to new

habitats and public open space (see application 11/02305/MINA and

subsequent applications 14/02187/WCCC and 18/01186/COND).

7.6.6. The application proposes to bring land south of the Rossington Colliery

‘Torne Park’ redevelopment into use as a country park. This includes land

which is both Green Belt and non-Green Belt, but which has all been

previously utilised as part of the colliery for spoil.

7.6.7. It is proposed that the land in figure 3, pp. 150, is added into the Green Belt,

meaning that the entirety of the proposed open space which is related to

the restoration permission will fall within the Green Belt. In doing this, and

in line with the NPPF, it is justified as it provides:

Environmental and Biodiversity improvements

7.6.8. The proposals will improve and “green” degraded land used for colliery

spoil, and include a number of specific environmental and biodiversity

enhancements. These include wildflower areas, woodlands, new hedgerow

and an area set aside for wetland habitats. The proposals also include the

reversion of land used for soil storage to green land. In addition to new

habitat creation, the proposals will lead to improved habitat

interconnectivity.

Enhanced accessibility

7.6.9. At present the land is not public and is related to the former colliery. The

proposals include a new footpath network with access points both to the

north and south of the site (and therefore accessible to a number of people

across Rossington and the Borough, as well as residents of the new homes

on the former colliery to the north). It is also noted that the bridleway which

stretches east to west from established points will also be reinstated,

increasing accessibility further to the west in the Green Belt.

147

Boundaries

7.6.10. A new Green Belt boundary will be created to the south of the proposed

housing development on the former colliery. This will mean that the Green

Belt is extended northwards in this location to incorporate new land which

has been used for colliery spoil, in addition to existing land in the Green

Belt which has also been used for this purposes and will also be restored.

7.6.11. The existing Green Belt boundary in this location is defined by the

southern extent of Holmes Carr Great Wood, and the limit of Grange Road

and the bridleway this turns into, which has been lost as part of the works

in question, but is proposed to be restored. However, in order to create a

newly defensible boundary and ensure the harm to the Green Belt is offset,

a new boundary is proposed as per figure 3. This boundary, once the site

is complete, will be defined by the point at which the flat development

platform of site 247 (allocated site) meets the foot of a hill to the south of it.

At present, the land is being prepared for development, but in future the

mapped line will be the foot of a hill.

7.6.12. With a new boundary defined, the Green Belt in this location will be

positively enhanced (in addition to the aforementioned environmental and

accessibility benefits), in line with NPPF paragraph 141 in the following

ways:

Recreation

7.6.13. The improvements to the environment and the presence of new

footpaths means that the public can access the site for recreational

purposes, and have access to a new walking network and newly accessible

countryside in Rossington. Furthermore, a memorial garden is also

earmarked which will be developed by the community, adjacent to the

cemetery on Grange Road.

Enhancing Landscapes / Visual Amenity / Visual Enhancements

7.6.14. Given its former use, the landscape of the site is degraded. The

improvements earmarked will lead to a “greening” of the site which will

improve the landscape and visual amenity, and provide a softer edge to the

remainder of the colliery re-development to the north of the open space.

This will also bring the site back into a use more akin to the neighbouring

countryside uses to the south and ultimately will ensure that all elements

related to the sites former use as a colliery will have been replaced or

restored to their former use. Notably, the Green Belt boundary will now be

148

on top of what will be a greened slope, and so long range views from the

south towards this area will improve.

Improving damaged land

7.6.15. The overall impact of the proposals for this part of the former colliery is

that degraded and damaged land is improved, be it by environmental

improvements, recreational and accessibility improvements or visually.

Reducing the overall loss of Green Belt

7.6.16. Ultimately, the inclusion of land in the Green Belt which was formerly

related to the colliery, for a community open space use means that, whilst

land is being removed from the Green Belt in the Borough, some of this is

being offset by increasing the amount of Green Belt in this location and also

ensuring that it is of a good quality. In terms of their usage by the wider

community, none of the Green Belt sites being removed for allocation

purposes can boast such uses. Therefore, whilst land is being removed

from the Green Belt, this is being offset by incorporating new land in to the

Green Belt elsewhere, and ensuring that both this and the existing Green

Belt which will also be developed for open space purposes which are

beneficial to both the public and enhance the Green Belt and its

environment.

7.6.17. In total, 55 ha of land is being removed from the Green Belt for the Local

Plan, which would be a loss of approx. 0.25% of the Green Belt, and leave

the Borough with 23,202ha of its land within the Green Belt. However, by

factoring in 19ha of new Green Belt land in this location, the overall loss is

tempered, meaning the net balance is 36ha of Green Belt loss, and the

overall Green Belt in the Borough measures 23,221ha – a reduction of

0.15% net of the Boroughs Green Belt overall. Additionally, given that the

land being added into the Green Belt will enhance the Green Belts

beneficial use, contributing to lessening the overall impact of the allocation

of sites in the Green Belt.

7.6.18. The Council believe that the enhancements that this can secure justify

the amendment of the Green Belt in this location, and there are exceptional

circumstances therefore for amending the boundary.

149

7.7. Summary

7.7.1. Like removing land from the Green Belt, adding land into the Green Belt

also requires exceptional circumstances. The Council has considered

opportunities to incorporate unused UDP sites, and land to the east of the

borough into the Green Belt, but decided that this cannot be justified, and

no exceptional circumstances exist for amending the Green Belt to the east

of the borough or to incorporate unused UDP sites.

7.7.2. However, a site has been found in Rossington that can contribute to

national Green Belt policy aims of compensating the harm to the Green

Belt, by virtue of providing a country park in the Green Belt to the south of

Rossington, as part of the colliery redevelopment. To fully reflect this and

capture all benefits, as well as offset the overall loss of Green Belt land in

the borough, the Council are proposing to move the Green Belt boundary

north in this location and ensure the entirety of the proposed country park

is within the Green Belt.

150

Figure 3 - Green Belt amendment at Rossington

151

8. Summary and Conclusions

8.1.1. Doncaster Council acknowledges the strategic importance of the Green

Belt. Throughout the Local Plan process, we have endeavoured to protect

the Green Belt, and as such will only make amendments to this where fully

justified and evidenced.

8.1.2. There are exceptional circumstances for releasing land from the Green Belt

and amending the following parts of the Green Belt:

Site Ref

Location Reason

021 Main Urban Area Small site

033 Main Urban Area Allocation

040 Conisbrough & Denaby Allocation

115 Main Urban Area Allocation

141 Bawtry Allocation

165 Carcroft – Skellow Allocation

777 Barnburgh – Harlington Allocation

929 Sprotbrough Allocation

1028 Sunderland Street, Tickhill Allocation

8.1.3. Some minor modifications have been made when digitally mapping the

Green Belt and replacing the UDP maps, and other small modifications

have been made adjacent to some sites in order to ensure a strong and un-

indented Green Belt boundaries.

8.1.4. There are limited examples of where substantial permissions have been

granted in the Green Belt, but where sites have been and are adjacent to

defined settlements and complete, these have now been incorporated into

the Green Belt.

8.1.5. In total, Doncaster’s Green Belt will be reduced by 0.15%, or 36ha, from

23,257ha to 23,221ha (net). In doing this, all alternative options have been

explored and assessed. The Local Planning Authority has adopted a ‘Green

Belt last’ approach to allocations, whilst juggling a number of other

constraints in the Borough, and striving to deliver the preferred spatial

strategy for the Borough, which is deemed to be a sustainable one and is

a result of consultation.

8.1.6. There is no current justification for safeguarding Green Belt land, so no land

is being proposed for release for safeguarding purposes. It is deemed this

would be premature, and that Doncaster’s spatial spread may lend itself to

152

alternative options in the future. The Council wish to reserve the right to

assess the Borough fully for future iterations of the plan, and believe it is

likely Green Belt will need reviewing in the future, despite respecting the

intentions of national policy.

8.1.7. To offset the harm to the Green Belt, and provide compensatory

improvements, land at Rossington will be placed into the Green Belt to

support the development of a country park, and thus environmental and

social benefits to the Green Belt will also be made.

8.1.8. With regards to future planning applications on land within Green Belt,

these will remain subject to ‘very special circumstances’ being

demonstrated, and the Council will continue to be guided by national

planning policy on such matters.

doncaster local plan topic paper 3: green belt... · green belt, flood zones 2 & 3, or both,...

Documents