Doncaster Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) Update 2011

Transcription

1 Doncaster Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) Update 2011 Development Economic & Planning Policy March

2 Executive Summary This is the updated March 2011 Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA). Doncaster published its first SHLAA, as required by Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing (PPS3) (DCLG, 2006), in March 2009, although the report had a base date of December 2008 and an update to this was undertaken in December The SHLAA replaced the Doncaster Urban Potential Study Consultation Draft (DMBC, May 2004). The Government advocates the need in PPS3 for a more flexible and responsive approach to land supply locally, in response to the national shortage of new homes. To this end, Local Authorities are advised to prepare a SHLAA, which identifies a 15- year supply of housing land made up of deliverable and sites. This Doncaster SHLAA Report March 2011, and the 2 previous versions, have been prepared in accordance with the DCLG Practice Guidance (July 2007), guidance from the Planning Advisory Service (PAS) and more detailed Regional Practice Guidance prepared by Arup for the Yorkshire and Humber Assembly (May 2008). The preparation process has involved a stakeholder group including representatives from the Environment Agency, Natural England, CPRE, SYPTE, Regional Assembly, Transform South Yorkshire and the Home Builders Federation (please see Stage 1 of Methodology for full list). The report forms part of the evidence base for the LDF, informing the preparation of the Core Strategy on how Doncaster will meet its housing requirement and aiding the Site Allocations Development Plan Document, in that the SHLAA will assist in making decisions on possible housing allocations alongside the outcomes of an appraisal of site-specific sustainability factors. The SHLAA examined sites of 0.4 hectares and above from the following sources: LDF/SHLAA representations from developers and landowners Unused UDP housing allocations Large sites with planning permission (but not started) Urban potential sites Potentially surplus employment sites DMBC landholdings. Sites with a capacity of 108,581 have been identified (although this includes sites found to be unsuitable and only beyond the plan to which needs to be added planning permissions on smaller sites. Of this 108,581, suitable sites with a capacity of 9,333 have been found to be deliverable within 5 and a further 36,892 within the plan period (up to 2026). This compares to a 5- year requirement of 6,617 and a plan period requirement of 18,450 as per the LDF Core Strategy. Furthermore, the distribution of this potential land supply will enable the LDF housing distribution strategy to be achieved as there is more than sufficient capacity at all towns to meet their proposed LDF housing allocations. 2

3 Figure 3.2: Summary of Doncaster SHLAA Land Supply by Achievability Main Urban Area Principal Towns Potential Growth Towns Renewal Towns Sub- total Conservation Towns Villages Isolated Sites Borough Total First 5 Years (Deliverable Supply) 6-10 Years () (5 Years) Remainder of Plan Period () (5 Years) Total Deliverable/ Land Supply Beyond Plan Period ( ) 4,806 6,614 5,370 16,790 3,802 2,315 7,854 3,959 14,128 6,537 1,139 2,739 5,294 9,172 12, ,513 1,644 3,720 2,864 8,823 18,720 16,267 43,810 25, ,134 1, ,281 16, ,858 9,333 20,200 16,692 46,225 62,356 - Local Development Framework Core Strategy DPD proposes 1,230 net additional homes each year (18,450 in total). The main SHLAA table of sites is set out in Appendix 7.1. Individual site assessment sheets for each site have been separated into batches for ease of locating and downloading purposes as described at Appendix 7.2. Around 70% of planning permissions capacity is on sites assessed through SHLAA, but there is an additional supply on a large number of generally smaller sites, as at 31 st March 2010, which have not and this is an additional land supply of 2,249 units (See Appendix 7.3). The SHLAA has identified sites with a capacity in excess of 15 supply, in accordance with PPS3, as such, there is no need to assess further broad locations or make assumptions on likely windfall rates (as advocated in DCLG Practice guidance when under 15 yrs). The SHLAA will be updated annually with latest information on permissions, completions, representations etc through the AMR process. DMBC would like to thank the members of the following organisations for their contribution to the SHLAA Stakeholder Group and for their work in putting the first SHLAA, the December 2009 Update, and the March 2011 Update together: Environment Agency Transform South Yorkshire Home Builders Federation Natural England Yorkshire & Humber Assembly South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive Campaign to Protect Rural England Yorkshire Water Severn Trent Water National Grid 3

4 Contents Pg. 1.0 Introduction 2.0 Methodology - What is a SHLAA? 05 - National and regional guidance 05 - Role of SHLAA in Doncaster LDF process 06 - Core requirements of assessment 07 - Stage 1 Planning the Assessment 10 - Stage 2 Determining the sources of sites 12 - Stage 3 Desktop review of existing information 14 - Stage 4 Determining which sites and areas will be surveyed 15 - Stage 5 Carrying out the survey 16 - Stage 6 Estimating housing potential 16 - Stage 7 Assessing when/whether sites likely to be developed 17 - Stage 8 Review of assessment 21 - Stage 9 Identifying/assessing potential of broad locations 22 - Stage 10 Determining the housing potential of windfall Summary of potential supply provision and conclusions Monitoring Sources Disclaimer Appendices - Appendix 7.1: Main SHLAA Table of Sites 31 - Appendix 7.2: Site Sheet Reports 63 - Appendix 7.3: Planning Permissions as at 31 st Mar Appendix 7.4: Housing Renewal Major Sites 65 - Appendix 7.5: SHLAA Stakeholder Group Meeting Agendas & Minutes 66 - Appendix 7.6: Scope of Search 79 - Appendix 7.7: SYPTE LUTI Methodology & Headline Findings 82 - Appendix 7.8: Additional Sites Search Exercise 89 4

5 1.0 Introduction What is a SHLAA? This is the updated March 2011 Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA). Doncaster published its first SHLAA, as required by Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing (PPS3) (DCLG, 2006), in March 2009, although the report had a base date of December A subsequent update was undertaken in December The SHLAA is prepared in line with national and regional guidance which includes the concepts of suitable, deliverable, achievable and. The first SHLAA, as well as both updates, have been developed using a methodology as recommended, and in accordance with the guidance, and agreed through the SHLAA Stakeholder group. The fundamental objective of SHLAA is to recognise and assess housing potential through identifying as many sites as possible, in and around settlements, that could be suitable for housing development, coupled with assessing when these sites are likely to be developed. The guidance encourages SHLAA to find sufficient sites that are and deliverable for at least the first 10 of the plan, from the date of adoption, but ideally for the whole 15 year plan period. The principal purpose of the SHLAA therefore is that it exists as a key part of the evidence base and will be imperative for informing the preparation of the Local Development Framework (LDF) Core Strategy Development Plan Document (DPD), and the subsequent Site Allocations DPD. To be considered as deliverable PPS3 states that potential housing sites should, at the point of adoption of the relevant Local Development Document, be available now, suitable in terms of location for development and contributing to sustainable mixed communities, and achievable within the timeframes identified. The SHLAA is substantially different to the Urban Potential Study (UPS) that was previously a requirement of PPG3. Even where an up-to-date UPS is in place there is a need through SHLAA to review and build on this work to: determine whether identified sites are still available and to review assumptions on housing potential; identify additional sites with potential for housing which were not required to be investigated by UPS, such as sites in rural settlements, brownfield sites outside settlement boundaries and suitable greenfield sites, as well as broad locations (where necessary); carry out further survey work within settlements to identify additional brownfield sites that have come forward since the UPS was carried out; and assess the deliverability/developability of all sites. National and Regional Guidance PPS3 was published in November 2006 and sets out national planning polices and objectives for housing. PPS3 was developed as a response to the Barker Review of Housing Supply (March 2004), as such there is a strong emphasis on increasing the rate of housing supply in order to meet growing demand. PPS3 stresses the importance of: building a strong evidence base to support housing delivery strategies; ensuring a continuous deliverable supply of housing, and 5

6 taking a collaborative approach in devising housing strategies. Para. 53 states that LPAs should set out in Local Development Documents their policies and strategies for delivering the level of housing provision, including identifying broad locations and specific sites that will enable continuous delivery of housing for at least 15 from the date of adoption, taking account of the level of housing provision set out in the RSS. Para. 54 & 55 advises that LPAs should, by drawing on information from the SHLAA and or other relevant evidence, identify sufficient specific deliverable sites to deliver housing in the first five of the development plan. To be considered deliverable, sites should, at the point of adoption of the relevant Local Development Document, be available, suitable and achievable. Annex C of PPS3 states that a SHLAA should: assess the likely level of housing that could be provided if unimplemented planning permissions were brought into development. assess land availability by identifying buildings or areas of land (including previously-developed land and greenfield) that have development potential for housing, including within mixed use developments. assess the potential level of housing that can be provided on identified land. where appropriate, evaluate past trends in windfall land coming forward for development and estimate the likely future implementation rate. identify constraints that might make a particular site unavailable and/or unviable for development. identify sustainability issues and physical constraints that might make a site unsuitable for development. identify what action could be taken to overcome constraints on particular sites. To help deliver the national polices and objectives set out in PPS3, the Government published its SHLAA Practice Guidance (July 2007). Para. 6 states that the primary role of the SHLAA is to identify sites with potential for housing, assess their housing potential, and assess when they are likely to be developed. Para. 8 goes on to say that the SHLAA is an important evidence source to inform plan-making, but does not in itself determine whether a site should be allocated for housing development. The Yorkshire & Humber Assembly commissioned Arup to produce regional practice guidance on SHLAA (April 2008) following discussions with all the regions LPAs to identify common issues and early experiences of the process to date. The purpose of this document is to add value at the regional level to understanding SHLAA, and not therefore just a duplication of the DCLG guidance. Role of SHLAA in Doncaster LDF Process The report forms part of the evidence base for the LDF, informing the preparation of the Core Strategy, and aiding the Site Allocations Development Plan Document, in that the SHLAA will assist in making decisions on possible housing allocations alongside the outcomes of an appraisal of site-specific sustainability factors. The Planning Advisory Service (PAS) has published guidance on SHLAA and Development Plan Document Preparation (Jan/Feb 2008). Para. 11 identifies that the SHLAA may provide information about potential housing sites which are not 6

7 early or within the plan period because of identified constraints, together with information on how these constraints could be overcome. The SHLAA could therefore be a valuable trigger for thinking about how the plan can seek to overcome the constraints, and a helpful lead into consideration of delivery strategy and infrastructure planning. Core requirements of the Assessment DCLG set out a number of core outputs in Figure 1.1 and a process checklist in Figure 1.2 of the SHLAA Practice Guidance (July 2007), to guide Local Authorities in producing a SHLAA. It is suggested that these requirements should be met as a minimum to be robust and credible in accordance with soundness tests in Planning Policy Statement 12 (DCLG 2008). The tables below outline how the Doncaster SHLAA has met these requirements. FIGURE 1.1: DCLG SHLAA CORE OUTPUTS DCLG Guidance Doncaster SHLAA 1. A list of sites, crossreferenced to maps showing locations and boundaries of specific sites (and showing broad locations, where necessary) The main sites table at Appendix 7.1 contains a list of all sites featuring in the SHLAA other than current planning permissions and housing renewal/demolitions sites which are summarised or listed at Appendix 7.3 and Appendix 7.4 respectively. Each site in the main sites table has a unique site reference number that corresponds with the relevant site sheet 1. These site sheets include plans showing site boundaries and can be found at Appendix Assessment of the deliverability/ developability of each identified site (i.e. in terms of its suitability, availability and achievability) to determine when an identified site is realistically expected to be developed 3. Potential quantity of housing that could be delivered on each identified site or within each identified broad location (where necessary) or on windfall It was not considered necessary to identify broad locations as the SHLAA findings have revealed in excess of a 15-year supply of housing land. All sites identified in the main sites table have been assessed for their deliverability/developability by determining their suitability/availability/achievability as required by PPS3 and the DCLG practice guidance 1. This assessment can be found in the individual site sheet reports, and their deliverability/developability yearbracket estimates of when the sites could come forward are referred to both on the site sheet and in summary form in the main table. An estimated site capacity has been calculated based on 38 dwellings per hectare for the majority of sites. Where more information is available on a site i.e. as part of a submitted planning application or masterplan work, the latest up-to-date net figure has been included. The capacities on a number of sites have been revised by the HBF volunteer group based on their knowledge of the 1 Sites considered to be unsuitable are the exception to this rule. It was agreed by the stakeholder group that it was impractical to undertake further work on non-runner sites, and this is supported by PAS guidance (PAS, 2008) and the Regional Practice Guidance (Arup, 2008). Please see Suitability in Methodology section. 7

8 sites (where justified) 4. Constraints on the delivery of identified sites 5. Recommendations on how these constraints could be overcome and when market. The net area of large sites has been reduced in accordance with PPS3. It was not considered necessary to identify broad locations and windfall sites as the SHLAA findings have revealed in excess of a 15-year supply of housing land. Site constraints have been identified on each site sheet, based on the findings of the site appraisal work undertaken for the Site Allocations DPD, and any fundamental constraints identified by stakeholders i.e. presence of power lines on-site (please see Methodology). The HBF members were also able to add their own identified constraints when assessing deliverability/developability of the sites. Two fields were inserted into the deliverability forms issued to the HBF volunteer group asking for their views on how the identified constraints could be overcome and whether the issues could be rectified in the plan period. 8

9 FIGURE 1.2: DCLG SHLAA PROCESS CHECKLIST DCLG Guidance Doncaster SHLAA 1. The survey and Assessment should involve key stakeholders including house builders, social landlords, local property agents and local communities. Other relevant agencies may include the Housing Corporation and English Partnerships (a requirement in areas where they are particularly active). 2. The methods, assumptions, judgements and findings should be discussed and agreed upon throughout the process in an open and transparent way, and explained in the Assessment report. The report should include an explanation as to why particular sites or areas have been excluded from the Assessment. The Council set up a stakeholder group in December 2007 including representatives of the Environment Agency, Natural England, Yorkshire and Humber Assembly and HBF (HQ representative). A full list is provided on page 11 of methodology. This group was widened in July 2008 to include Home Builders Federation members (hereon in referred to as HBF volunteer group ) after a meeting with their representatives in April 2008 at the HBF Head Office in Leeds. The Council also held a meeting to discuss the scope of the SHLAA with the HBF in November The Council has worked closely with members of the stakeholder group to iteratively work through the process of compiling information on sites by holding meetings and contacting members by phone and/or . A HBF volunteer group, made up of six members from across the Yorkshire and Humber region, in addition to the original stakeholder group members, were asked to assess the sites for their deliverability/developability in July 2008, and contacted again in November 2009 and February 2011 as part of the Updates. The volunteer group members were selected by the HBF and represented the organisation as a whole in their responses. Please see Methodology section for further details. Sites that were considered unsuitable and/or had considerable constraints to development were placed beyond the plan period and this was agreed by the stakeholder group. This is explained further in the Methodology section. 9

10 2.0 Methodology Stage 1: Planning the Assessment Work of SHLAA stakeholder group In the interests of undertaking a partnership approach, as advocated in the DCLG Practice Guidance, and in seeking endorsement of the approach to be taken, a stakeholder group was set up in December 2007 which comprised the following organisations: LDF and Housing Regeneration Team, Doncaster MBC Environment Agency Transform South Yorkshire Home Builders Federation Natural England Yorkshire and Humber Assembly South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive The following organisations could either not attend, made comments after the inception meeting, or wished to be kept informed: Campaign to Protect Rural England Government Office for Yorkshire and Humber South Yorkshire Housing Association Yorkshire Water National Grid Planning Officers from the adjoining Authorities of Wakefield, Selby, East Riding, North Lincolnshire and Bassetlaw Councils and the remaining South Yorkshire Authorities of Sheffield, Rotherham and Barnsley Councils were also invited to meetings and offered opportunities to comment, although the majority preferred to be kept informed of progress rather than offer contributions. HBF involvement and setup of member volunteer group Meeting on 22 nd November 2007, Danum House Present: DMBC Officers from LDF & Strategic Housing Teams, 6 HBF members Amongst other housing policy/ldf issues, this meeting introduced the concept of the SHLAA process and gave an overview of the requirements and work that needed to be undertaken. See agenda and minutes from this meeting in Appendix 7.5 for more details. Meeting on 24 th April 2008 at Leeds HBF office Present: Richard Mckone & Michael Whitehead (DMBC LDF Team), Carol McCann & Gina Bourne (HBF) Resolved to set up a volunteer group of HBF members to assess the sites on behalf of the HBF. DMBC to distribute site info to GB, who will organise info into batches for each member prior to meeting. Assessments to be submitted to DMBC, DMBC to host and lead meeting with GB providing support. 10

11 Meeting on 2 nd July 2008, Danum House The meeting updated the stakeholder group on progress with the SHLAA to date and sought agreement on the way forward for sites where issues were identified following the HBF s deliverability assessments, such as missing information etc. See agenda and minutes from this meeting in Appendix 7.5 for more details. Arup Consultants meeting Meeting on 17 th December 2007, Danum House Present: Richard Mckone & Michael Whitehead (DMBC LDF Team) & Richard Crabtree (Arup). RC confirmed that DMBC s proposed methodology was very much in line with the emerging Arup guidance. RC confirmed that village extension sites could be designated as unsuitable (RSS conformity issue etc) particularly if the stakeholder group agreed. All representation sites should be included in SHLAA but bad sites (e.g. village extensions) will fall at first hurdle and do not require further detailed work. Utilities information is not so important in the context of SHLAA. The door to new SHLAA sites is not closed; SHLAA is a live pool of sites updated annually. Consultation dates Fri 21 st December 2007 Friday 11 th January 2008 (3 weeks). Site table layout: Seeking agreement on columns to be used, options available etc. Fri 22 nd February 2008 Thursday 21 st March 2008 (4 weeks). Deadline then extended to Friday 4 th April 2008 at request of HBF (therefore 6 weeks in total). Sites information consultation 1: Using large table and agreed sites table layout, CD sent out in post to all those expressing an interest by reply to e- mail. Sites information consultation 2: CD sent to Gina Bourne on 2 nd June 2008, HBF members worked on sites in June 2008 before meeting on 2 nd July 2008 at DMBC (3-4 weeks). Sites information consultation 3: Remaining site issues not covered in the July 2008 meeting and sites where information not put forward (2 members of the HBF volunteered to look through these after Gina ed HBF volunteer group on Tuesday 22 nd July 2008). Friday 8 th August 2008 Friday 29 th August 2008 (3 weeks). Continued to get further comments through in September and October Wednesday 11 th November 2009 Tuesday 1 st December 2009 (3 weeks). Contacted SHLAA stakeholder group with proposed amendments to existing sites and asked for comments/agreement on drafted site assessment sheets for new potentially suitable sites to be included in the updated SHLAA

12 Monday 7 th February 2011 Tuesday 1 st March 2011 (3 weeks). Contacted SHLAA stakeholder group with proposed amendments to existing sites and asked for comments/agreement on drafted site assessment sheets for new potentially suitable sites to be included in the updated SHLAA Stage 2: Determining the sources of sites An inception meeting was held on 10 th December 2007 at Danum House, Doncaster where stakeholders were presented with a scoping note (see Appendix 7.6) on how the SHLAA was to be carried out which included: a suggested approach for the sources of sites to be included information on what restrictions were to be placed on the search possible additional search for sites suggestion of a methodology for classifying the suitability of sites timescale for completion of the SHLAA The scoping note and methodology approach was broadly supported, particularly on the restrictions to be placed on the search and the suitability traffic light test which excludes sites not in conformity with the Regional Spatial Strategy. However, the group were of the view that sites deemed unsuitable should not be excluded from the SHLAA, but recorded as being beyond the plan period. This was supported by the representative from the Yorkshire and Humber Assembly, and also in the final Arup Regional Practice Guidance, published in April Comments and suggestions put forward at the meeting were recorded (see Appendix 7.5 for the agenda and minutes of this meeting) and a proposed sites table layout was circulated to the group in preparation for a master sites table to be developed and populated with site information. The group was then given three weeks to submit any comments on the layout and scoping note via , resulting in an agreed way forward for the study. 12

13 FIGURE 2.1: DETERMINING THE SOURCES OF SITES Source es Suitability comments UDP housing allocations and Mixed-Use Regeneration Projects with housing elements (unimplemented) Majority of these are Greenfield due to moratorium in place from Regarded as suitable by DCLG practice guidance Urban Potential Study Planning permissions (unimplemented) Representations Housing Market Renewal Draft completed in 2004, many have gained permission as are brownfield and within settlement limits. Informed by Residential Land Availability data All site-specific representations made to UDP Review, Urban Potential Study and LDF Pathfinder and other housing renewal initiatives. Other Sites promoted by DMBC Strategic Asset Management as suitable for disposal and sites in Council s Housing Revenue Account (HRA) land review Sites identified in additional site search Surplus sites identified in Employment Land Review Regarded as suitable by DCLG practice guidance Regarded as suitable by DCLG practice guidance Suitability varied according to site type. Please see below and Methodology. Replacement of housing in-situ through Government-funded housing renewal programmes. Therefore deemed suitable. Where unknown that a site could be developed, should be regarded as not currently (DCLG Practice Guidance) 13

14 FIGURE 2.2: SITE TYPE Classification es Urban-Potential (URB) Brownfield sites within UDP settlement boundaries Greenfield sites within UDP settlement boundaries provided they are also surrounded on all sides by development (i.e. there is no common boundary with Green Belt or Countryside Policy Area as defined in the UDP). However, all sites within the existing village boundaries of the 48 defined villages (listed in the emerging LDF) are classified as urban potential. Extension () Brownfield sites attached to a settlement and which are defined in the UDP as Green Belt or Countryside Policy Area Greenfield sites attached to a settlement and which are defined in the UDP as Green Belt or Countryside Policy Area Greenfield sites which are not defined as Green Belt or Countryside Policy Area but which share a common boundary with Green Belt or Countryside Policy Area as defined in the UDP (except in the case of villages see note above). Isolated (ISO) Site unattached to a settlement, this will in most cases be washed over by Green Belt or Countryside Policy Area. In a few cases sites will have an alternative development plan designation but the site is detached from the settlement (i.e. there is intervening Green Belt or Countryside Policy Area), and is therefore treated as an isolated site. Site may be in an Undefined Village (no village envelope as defined in UDP), which by their nature will be washed over by Green Belt or Countryside Policy Area. Stage 3: Desktop review of existing information The Council has been receiving housing site representations since the UDP Review 2003, consultation on the Urban Potential Study 2004, and as part of the new LDF planning system, as such a significant number of sites have been put forward for consideration. Much work had already been undertaken as part of the LDF housing site appraisals work which has involved both desktop assessments as well as actual site visits based on the LDF Housing Options: Site Selection Methodology (December 2005). The key findings from these have been included in the SHLAA, for example, distance to local services and employment opportunities or impacts on Green Belt or biodiversity. Other on site appraisal work includes information on impacts on trees and hedgerows or other site availability factors such as lack of appropriate access or evidence of contamination on site. The Residential Land Availability Assessment (RLA) 2009/10 contains information on the number of housing sites with planning permission as at 31 st March There are a number of sites assessed through SHLAA that have planning permission and are therefore included in the RLA also. In some cases the capacity in the RLA may differ to the SHLAA sheet, this is due to SHLAA being based on the more up-to-date information taken from subsequent reserved matters for example. To avoid double counting sites through both the SHLAA and RLA, the RLA permissions figure has 14

15 been discounted. As at 31 st March 2009 there were planning permissions for 7,568 units but the total, excluding sites which have been individually assessed through SHLAA, is 2,249 units. Flood Risk The information set out in SHLAA is based on the EA s Flood Zone maps. DMBC s updated Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) was signed off by the EA and published in March This provides delineation within the EA Flood Zones but does not actually change the EA zones. The Level 2 SFRA was completed in March 2010 and provides further detail on the current condition of flood defence infrastructure and assesses the consequences of breaches of defence infrastructure on potential development sites. Due to data limitations the SFRA contains more detailed information for the part of the Borough affected by the Don Catchment than that area affected by the Trent Catchment. It is envisaged that an addendum will be published for the area affected by the Trent Catchment once further information is available. The Council simultaneously worked on its Employment Land Review (ELR) alongside the 2009 SHLAA Update. The ELR has identified a handful of potentially surplus employment sites that were included in SHLAA as part of the 2009 Update. As part of this 2011 SHLAA Update, the public transport accessibility of all sites has been assessed by the SYPTE using the South Yorkshire Land Use and Transportation Integration (LUTI) Project which gives a RAG assessment of each site. Full details of the SYPTE LUTI methodology, with additional comments from DMBC, and the headline findings are available at Appendix 7.7 for reference purposes. Stage 4: Determining which sites and areas will be surveyed It was agreed by the stakeholder group at the meeting on the 10 th December 2007 that it would be a worthwhile exercise to identify any potentially sustainable extension sites that had not been subject to a LDF housing representation to date, or otherwise identified. National guidance for producing SHLAA s stipulates that the assessment needs to examine all potentially sustainable sites for housing in the authority area. It was agreed by the stakeholder group that for this exercise it was appropriate and sufficient to search for additional extension sites around the Doncaster Main Urban Area and six Principal Towns only to reflect the RSS and emerging LDF settlement strategy. A full version of this site search exercise, including the methodology and findings, can be found in Appendix 7.8. As a very brief summary, the exercise identified potentially four sustainable extension sites that had not been subject to a LDF representation, or otherwise identified, and these have been included within the SHLAA. Since that exercise was undertaken, one of the sites has had a representation made on it. At the July meeting it was agreed that the 4 SHLAA additional sites identified by DMBC at Mexborough (556), Conisbrough (557), Cantley (558) and Thorne (559) should be placed outside the plan period because of the uncertainty surrounding their availability and the lack of representations. The Mexborough (556) site that has since been subject to a representation has been assessed in light of this more up-to-date information and interest in the sites being pursued through the LDF. 15

16 A suitable minimum size threshold for sites based on the Regional Guidance recommendation, and agreed through the stakeholder group, of 0.4 hectares or above has been applied. Stage 5: Carrying out the survey As previously discussed, the site surveying process had already been undertaken as part of the LDF housing site Allocations DPD work, and it was agreed that the assessments were sufficient and appropriate for the requirements of the SHLAA guidance in order to determine whether sites were available and suitable. The LDF Housing Options Site Selection methodology (published December 2005) sets out the appraisal factors. Stage 6: Estimating housing potential Site Capacity In general, site capacity has been calculated on an assumed net density of 38 dwellings per hectare, unless information is available to suggest otherwise. For example, some sites have got a revised figure based on information from the planning permission, or pre-application discussions etc. In addition to this, the HBF volunteers were asked to provide comments on net density/capacity given the assumption above, coupled with any constraints information relevant to the site, and where appropriate some suggested higher/lower capacity s and provided justification for their reasoning. The net areas of some large sites were reduced in accordance with PPS3 guidance. Build Out Rates & Lead-in Times Deliverability estimates from stakeholders have had to be adjusted in some cases to take account of likely lead-in times and build out rates. For example, some sites (e.g. larger sites or sites with no current planning status) deemed achievable within 5 may not be wholly deliverable within 5. Where site-specific evidence of likely lead-in times and build out rates exists this will be used. Elsewhere, and following further consultation with the stakeholder group, the following assumptions have been made: assume average build out rate of 40 per annum per developer per site (being an average based on an assumption of dwellings or where an element of flats is involved) assume larger sites (200+ units) will be built out by 2+developers and that the average build out rate will be doubled i.e. 80 per annum Lead-in times will be influenced by planning status and by size of site; the following assumptions are made: site with permission (6 months) small urban potential site or allocation without permission (up to 50 units) (1 year) larger urban potential site or allocation without permission (50+ units) (18 months) 16

17 urban extension site with no planning status (2 ) Stage 7: Assessing when/whether sites likely to be developed Approach The plan period is up to 2026 in line with the emerging LDF Core Strategy DPD. Therefore the year bracket assumptions for availability, achievability and overall deliverability have worked on a 15-year supply as a base first five, 6-10 and remainder of plan period. The approach to assessing when/whether sites are likely to be developed in the plan period has broadly been as follows: HBF stakeholder representatives selected six additional HBF members to form a volunteer group and gave each member a batch of sites each to assess. DMBC sent out information on each site including a location plan, photo, source etc as well as potential opportunities and constraints which had been identified from site visits as part of LDF site appraisal work. The HBF volunteer provided comments on availability, achievability and deliverability/developability based on their visits to the sites, on the information given to them and their knowledge of housing markets. These comments were either accepted or debated at the July meeting and/or via to ensure consistency of approach. Generally HBF comments have been accepted, although where more up-todate information has been obtained i.e. latest planning applications or advocacy statements, then this has been noted in the site sheet comments box. Deliverability/developability has also been amended where necessary to reflect the standard lead-in times and build-out rates in the methodology. Identifying and overcoming constraints It is assumed that existing UDP housing allocations and sites with planning permission are generally suitable, although the DCLG Practice Guidance states that it may be necessary to assess whether any circumstances have changed on these sites that may constrain development. Some UDP housing allocations have been assessed as not in the plan period. Site constraints have been identified from the LDF site appraisal work and these have been expanded upon in light of comments from the stakeholder group. Where constraints have been highlighted then the actions needed to remove these barriers, e.g. infrastructure investment, have been identified. In addition to this, the stakeholder group agreed that it would be useful to have a site opportunities section also and this has been included accordingly. Assessing suitability The PAS guidance acknowledges that only those sites with the best housing potential should have resources concentrated on them in terms of site surveying etc. The guidance goes on to say that where large numbers of possible sites have been forwarded as representations to the LDF it is not necessary to assess them all as the LPA should go through a sieving process to identify those which are not considered realistic propositions based on the decisions taken through the LDF Core Strategy e.g. settlement hierarchy sites over village extensions and isolated sites. 17

18 DCLG Practice Guidance (Para. 38) identifies that existing allocations and planning permissions will generally be classed as suitable, although it may be necessary to check whether circumstances have since changed that would affect their suitability. For other sites, factors that need to be considered for assessing suitability are: Policy restrictions such as designations or protected areas. Physical problems or limitations such as access, flood risk or contamination. Potential impacts including effect upon landscape features and conservation The environmental conditions which would be experienced by prospective residents. At the December inception meeting the Stakeholder Group considered the issue of site suitability and agreed that an unsuitable site should be automatically placed beyond the plan period and not assessed in any more detail. This ensured efficient use of resources and is supported by the Regional Guidance that advises that suitability should be considered before availability and achievability. It was agreed that a basic traffic light system of suitable (green), possibly suitable (amber), and unsuitable (red) should be adopted. Further, it was agreed that whilst existing and emerging local development plan policy (including Countryside Policy Area and Green Belt) should not be used to classify a site as unsuitable, likely national and/or regional policy conflict should. Consequently, sites attached to settlements which in RSS terms are Local Service Centres, Principal Towns or the Sub-Regional Centre are classified as possibly suitable even if they currently lie within Green Belt or Countryside Policy Area (the decision on their suitability as allocations is a matter for the LDF). Urban extensions to settlements that don t function as service centres or sites which are not physically attached to any settlement (isolated sites) are classified as unsuitable. DCLG practice guidance supports this approach and emphasises the role of sites in contributing to sustainable communities. Sites in Flood Zone 3b or those likely to adversely affect SSSI or Scheduled Ancient Monuments (for example) are also classed as unsuitable. 18

19 Figure 2.3 Site Suitability Suitability Type of Site Suitable (Green) Sites with planning permission UDP Housing Allocations (and the housing elements of mixed use allocations) without permission Replacement housing as part of housing renewal schemes. Possibly Suitable (Amber) Brownfield and Greenfield urban potential sites (not currently allocated for housing) in all settlements Brownfield and Greenfield urban extensions (involving land in the Green Belt or Countryside Policy Area) to settlements which function as Local Service Centres (or higher) Unsuitable (Red) Urban extensions to settlements which do not function as Local Service Centres (or higher) Sites not physically attached to settlements (isolated sites) Sites in flood zone 3b or likely to adversely affect a SSSI or SAM or otherwise be in national policy conflict The SHLAA tables break down the sites by settlement and settlement type as set out in the emerging Doncaster LDF as follows: Figure 2.4: Emerging Doncaster LDF Settlement Types LDF Settlement RSS Category Settlement Designation Main Urban Area Sub-Regional Centre Doncaster Main Urban Area Principal Towns Principal Towns Thorne, Mexborough, Conisbrough, Armthorpe, Adwick/Woodlands, Askern Potential Growth Towns Local Service Centres Rossington, Stainforth/ Hatfield/ Dunscroft/ Dunsville Renewal Towns Local Service Centres Edlington, Moorends, Denaby, Carcroft/ Skellow Conservation Towns Local Service Centres Bawtry, Tickhill Larger Defined Villages Rural area 48 villages listed Smaller Undefined Villages and isolated sites Rural area listed 19

20 In the SHLAA site sheets likely national policy conflict or RSS conformity is set out as follows: FIGURE 2.5: NATIONAL POLICY CONFLICT Rating Sites affected Likely Sites of Special Scientific Interest Scheduled Ancient Monuments Sites within Flood Zone 3b according to the 2009 Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Unlikely All other sites FIGURE 2.6: RSS CONFORMITY Rating Sites affected Likely All URB -type sites in all settlements (i.e. urban potential sites) Unlikely All ISO -type sites and village extensions Possible All other sites Assessing availability DCLG s Practice Guidance definition (Para. 39) of a site being available is that there is confidence that there are no legal ownership problems, such as multiple ownerships, ransom strips, tenancies or operational requirements of landowners. This means that it is controlled by a housing developer who has expressed an intention to develop, or the land owner has expressed an intention to sell. The availability of sites has been assessed using the following breakdown: First Remainder of plan period Beyond plan period Availability information derives from LDF/SHLAA/UPS representations, knowledge of the HBF representatives, planning applications and pre-application enquiries, and other knowledge of the Council, particularly in respect of its own land holdings. Assessing achievability The DCLG Practice Guidance (Para. 40) defines achievable as being that there is a reasonable prospect that housing will be delivered at a particular point in time. Again, the HBF stakeholder group assessed sites achievability using the following breakdown: Deliverable In some cases HBF members did not complete the breakdown of units for the achievability section and here the standard lead-in times and build out rates methodology as per section 2 has been applied. There have been a few cases where HBF members chose more than one option for availability and achievability, reflecting 20

21 uncertainty as to the likely timescales for some sites. Where this has occurred it has been agreed that the following assumptions are reasonable: For availability it was agreed to take the earlier of the options chosen as it can be reasonably assumed that this will be the earliest point at which the site should become available. For achievability it was agreed to retain the multiple options, as this will reflect the uncertainty surrounding whether the site is achievable and therefore its deliverability. Overall deliverability/developability Following the assessment of the site s suitability, availability and achievability, the HBF stakeholder has made an informed assessment as to the overall deliverability and developability of the site broken down as per the following year brackets: Site deliverable (first 5 ) Site (6-10 ) Site (remainder of plan Site not (beyond plan Where necessary this has been adjusted in line with the standard lead-in times and build-out rates. Time periods for SHLAA March 2011 Update The base date of this SHLAA Update is 31 st deliverability periods considered in this update are: March Consequently the Site deliverable in first 5 i.e. 1 st April st March 2016 (5 year Site 6-10 i.e. 1 st April st March 2021 (5 Site i.e. 1 st April st March 2026 (5 year Achievability/deliverability for individual sites in the previous SHLAA has not been revisited as part of this update, with the exception of some sites that have been amended as identified through the update process and specifically refereed to on the site sheet. Each site has been moved into the relevant SHLAA Update March 2011 period e.g. a site shown as deliverable in next five in the previous SHLAA is now shown as deliverable in next five to 2016 in this update. Stage 8: Review of assessment In accordance with the guidance, the SHLAA will be updated on an annual basis as part of the Annual Monitoring Report (AMR). It is likely that this will record, for example, whether planning applications have been granted on SHLAA sites, or, whether any constraints to development, and the site s subsequent developability/deliverability, have been removed. 21

22 Stage 9: Identifying/assessing potential of broad locations (where necessary) Following the site assessment stage the national SHLAA guidance recommends that broad locations for future housing development are identified and estimates of their potential housing supply considered if insufficient sites have been found to meet the plan period. At present, the SHLAA has identified more than sufficient sites for the plan period requirement and as such this stage is not considered necessary. Stage 10: Determining the housing potential of windfall (where justified) Similarly, if insufficient sites have been identified through the SHLAA then the guidance calls for an informed view on the potential supply of housing that could be delivered through windfalls. Again, as sufficient sites have been identified in the SHLAA this stage is not considered necessary at present. 22

23 3.0 Summary of potential supply provision and conclusions Figure 3.1: SHLAA Summary Table by Site Type & Major Constraints 1 Total Capacity of Sites BF Urban Potential Sites GF Urban Potential Sites BF Urban Ext Sites GF Urban Ext Sites No identified Major constraint Green Belt Flood Zone 2&3 Other identified Major Constraint Main Urban Area 20,592 (19%) Principal 20,683 Towns (19%) Potential 21,330 Growth Towns (20%) Renewal 6,584 Towns (6%) Sub- total 69,189 (63%) Conservation 2,320 Towns (2%) Villages 18,214 (17%) Isolated 18,858 Sites (17%) Borough 108,581 Total (100%) 8,542 (41%) 3,358 (16%) 2,727 (13%) 424 (6%) 15,051 (22%) 185 (8%) 598 (3%) 1,595 (8%) 291 (1%) 140 (1%) 35 (1%) 2,061 (3%) 19 (1%) 165 (1%) 0 (0%) 201 (1%) 24 (0%) 0 (0%) 225 (0%) 0 (0%) 1,192 (7%) 10,455 (51%) 16,833 (81%) 18,439 (86%) 6,125 (93%) 51,852 (75%) 2,116 (91%) 16,259 (89%) 8,942 (43%) 8,837 (43%) 8,458 (40%) 599 (9%) 26,836 (39%) 376 (16%) 3,152 (15%) 4,073 (20%) 8,249 (39%) 1,254 (19%) 16,728 (24%) 1,944 (84%) 7,214 (35%) 6,282 (30%) 4,623 (22%) 4,180 (63%) 22,299 (32%) 0 (0%) 1,284 (6%) 1,491 (7%) 0 (0%) 551 (8%) 3,326 (5%) 0 (0%) ,834 (15%) 2,245 (2%) 1,417 (1%) 70,227 (65%) Figure 3.2: Summary of Doncaster SHLAA Land Supply by Achievability Main Urban Area Principal Towns Potential Growth Towns Renewal Towns Sub- total Conservation Towns Villages Isolated Sites Borough Total First 5 Years (Deliverable Supply) 6-10 Years () (5 Years) Remainder of Plan Period () (5 Years) Total Deliverable/ Land Supply Beyond Plan Period ( ) 4,806 6,614 5,370 16,790 3,802 2,315 7,854 3,959 14,128 6,537 1,139 2,739 5,294 9,172 12, ,513 1,644 3,720 2,864 8,823 18,720 16,267 43,810 25, ,134 1, ,281 16, ,858 9,333 20,200 16,692 46,225 62,356 - Local Development Framework Core Strategy DPD proposes 1,230 net additional homes each year (18,450 in total). Figure 3.1 above summarises the SHLAA (March Update 2011) findings for settlement type and breaks the information down by greenfield/brownfield, by urban potential/urban extensions and by identified major constraints. Figure 3.2 breaks the information down by achievability. Figure 3.3 then shows achievability for sites identified for growth and breaks the information down by site type and major site constraints. The key finding is that suitable land identified is more than sufficient to meet the plan period housing requirement and in accordance with the 1 See supporting notes at the end of this section for more details. 23

24 LDF settlement and development distribution strategy. 65% of SHLAA site capacity (the majority of which are LDF representation sites) comprises urban potential or urban extensions to towns being promoted for growth through the LDF. A greater than 5- year supply of deliverable land is also identified. Figure 3.3: SHLAA Summary Table for Settlements Identified for Growth by Achievability, Site Type & Major Constraints Total deliverable/ land supply BF Urban Potential Sites GF Urban Potential Sites BF Urban Ext Sites GF Urban Ext Sites No identified Major constraint Green Belt Flood Zone 2&3 Other identified Major Constraint Main Urban Area 16,790 7,753 (46%) 1,332 (8%) 136 (1%) 7,569 (45%) 7,105 (42%) 1,952 (12%) 6,583 (39%) 1,150 (7%) Principal Towns 14,128 2,908 (21%) 390 (3%) 0 (0%) 10,830 (77%) 5,421 (38%) 2,857 (20%) 4,585 (32%) 1,265 (9%) Potential Growth Towns 9,172 1,437 (16%) 52 (1%) 0 (0%) 7,683 (84%) 4,954 (54%) 1,897 (21%) 2,321 (25%) 0 (0%) Renewal Towns 3, (9%) 20 (1%) 0 (0%) 3,382 (91%) 493 (13%) 1,254 (34%) 1,422 (38%) 551 (15%) Sub- total 43,810 12,416 (28%) 1,794 (4%) 136 (0%) 29,464 (67%) 17,973 (41%) 7,960 (18%) 14,911 (34%) 2,966 (7%) Conservation 1, Towns Villages 1, Isolated Sites Borough Total , Borough-wide capacity totals 108,581 1 units of which 15% are brownfield urban potential (infill) sites and 82% comprises greenfield extensions to towns and villages or isolated sites. Excluding extensions to villages and isolated sites (neither of which would conform to the LDF housing distribution strategy) the capacity is 72,272. Excluding extensions to Conservation Towns (for the same reason) the figure reduces to 70, % of this capacity (25,379) is assessed through SHLAA to be only beyond the plan period reducing the supply for the plan period to 43,810 compared to the plan period requirement of 18, However if all sites in Green Belt, flood zones 2 & 3 or with other identified major constraints are also discounted (for the purposes of analysis) the supply is about 97% of the plan period requirement and the distribution of these sites would not support the sustainable settlement strategy and the growth ranges. This indicates the need to rely on constrained sites such as urban potential sites in flood zones 2 /3. There is a large supply of these otherwise sustainable sites that benefit from flood defences. Doncaster Main Urban Area capacity on sites with no major constraints is 8,942 compared to the proposed growth range of 9,225-11,808 indicating the need to allocate sites in flood zones 2 or 3 or possibly Green Belt. 82% of the total capacity is deliverable within the plan period. Capacity on urban potential sites (e.g. Doncaster Waterfront) in the plan period is 10,137 indicating that the lower end of the growth range could theoretically be achieved without the need for urban extensions to the Main Urban Area (although this would increase the scale of urban 1 This excludes an additional 2,282 units on sites with planning permission that will also contribute. 2 Local Development Framework Core Strategy DPD proposes 1,230 net additional homes each year (18,450 in total). 24

25 extensions necessary at the Principal Towns whilst other considerations such as deliverability will determine the extent to which this urban potential supply can contribute to the overall allocation). Of this urban potential, 72% is on sites in flood zones 2 or 3. LDF distribution strategy prioritises sustainable deliverable urban potential sites. Excluding Green Belt sites and sites with other major constraints (but not excluding sites in flood zones 2 or 3) the capacity is 37% above the top end of the growth range indicating that the release of Green Belt sites would not be necessary (unless they were demonstrably more sustainable than non-green Belt alternatives). Principal Towns capacity on sites with no major constraints is 8,837 compared to the proposed growth range of 3,874-5, % of the total capacity is deliverable within the plan period. However the proposed distribution strategy requires at least 645 dwellings in each of the 6 towns. Urban potential (3,649 in total of which 32% of that deliverable within the plan period is on sites within flood zones 2 or 3) is less than 645 except in Mexborough and Conisbrough meaning that greenfield urban extensions would be necessary at the other 4 towns. At Adwick this would require land currently designated as Green Belt; at Thorne it will require land within flood zone 3. A significant % of the urban potential capacity at Mexborough and Conisbrough is on sites previously used for, or allocated for, employment/mixed use. Potential Growth Towns capacity is 21,330 compared to the proposed allocation of 2, % of the capacity is only deliverable beyond the plan period. The capacity at Stainforth/Hatfield Triangle (for which a nominal capacity figure only is included in SHLAA) and at Rossington Colliery is significantly greater than the proposed allocations. At Rossington it is possible to accommodate the allocation wholly on brownfield urban potential site(s) (but possibly requiring a small Green Belt area). At Stainforth/Hatfield the site lies wholly within flood zone 2 or 3. Renewal Towns capacity is 6,584 (although 43% is only beyond the plan compared to a growth range of However just 7% comprises urban potential whilst the total on unused UDP allocations and significant permissions is 785. Urban extensions to address the shortfall would require land currently designated Green Belt at Edlington, Carcroft/Skellow and Denaby or land within flood zone 3 at Moorends. Conservation Towns capacity is 2,320 and of this 91% comprises greenfield urban extensions (virtually all Green Belt) but this is not an issue given the proposed growth range of 0-1% confined to urban potential (infill). Identified urban potential opportunities total 204 but windfall opportunities on sites below 0.4ha are likely to add to this significantly Larger (Defined) Villages capacity totals 18,214 (17% of the SHLAA total) of which 89% is greenfield extensions. Again this is not an issue given the proposed restriction to urban potential of which identified opportunities total 763; windfall opportunities on sites below 0.4ha are likely to add to this supply significantly. It is worth noting that capacity of sites at Auckley/ Branton/ Blaxton/ Finningley/ Hayfield Green is 7,346. Isolated sites capacity totals 18,858 (17% of the SHLAA total). Representation sites that are detached from towns or villages have been defined as isolated even if they are connected to the town by another representation site. 25

26 Additional Land Supply The SHLAA land supply set out in the main report excludes: Any allowance for a projection of windfalls on unidentified sites; All sites below 0.4 Ha; Most sites with planning permission as at 1 st April 2010, although most of the planning permissions capacity is on sites assessed through SHLAA. The total additional capacity of sites with permission (excluding those larger sites which have been subject to detailed SHLAA analysis) is 2,249 units (See Appendix 7.3). Any net increase as the result of housing renewal programs. Current schemes are set out at Appendix 7.4. es for Figure 3.1 Constraints: Some sites fall within a mixture of flood zone designations. Sites have not been split; where 50%+ of a site lies within flood zone 3 the whole capacity has been included in flood zone 3; where 50%+ of a site lies within flood zone 1 the whole capacity has been included in flood zone 1. There are a small number of cases where a site is split between greenfield and brownfield or in respect of another constraint and a similar approach has been applied. The individual site SHLAA sheets detail the constraints accurately. Other Major Constraints: this includes sites that are both green belt and flood zone 2 or 3. It also includes other constraints that are expected not to be resolved (for example major access issues or biodiversity constraints). No identified Major Constraint: some sites will have some constraints affecting some or all the site but it is assumed they can be overcome. 26

27 4.0 Monitoring The SHLAA can be updated annually through the AMR process with latest information on permissions, completions, new representations etc. 27

28 5.0 Sources ARUP (2008) Understanding Yorkshire & Humber s Strategic Housing Land Availability: Regional Practice Guidance. DCLG (2006) Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing. DCLG (2007) Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessments: Practice Guidance. DCLG (2008) Planning Policy Statement 12: Local Spatial Planning. DMBC (1998) Doncaster Unitary Development Plan: Adopted DMBC (2004) Doncaster Urban Potential Study. DMBC (2005) Doncaster Local Development Framework Housing Options: Site Selection Methodology. DMBC (2005) Doncaster Local Development Framework Core Strategy Preferred Options. DMBC (2007) Doncaster Local Development Framework Core Strategy Further Options. DMBC (2010) Doncaster Local Development Framework Core Strategy Revised Preferred Options. DMBC (2011) Doncaster Local Development Framework Core Strategy Publication Version. DMBC (2007) Doncaster Local Development Framework Housing, Transport, Retail, Employment & Local Waste Allocations & Detailed Policies Issues & Options. DMBC (2007) Doncaster Landscape Character & Capacity Assessment Study. DMBC (2010) Doncaster Landscape Character & Capacity Study: Further Investigations Employment & Housing Sites. DMBC (2008) Doncaster Residential Land Availability Report 2010/11. DMBC (2009) Doncaster Employment Land Review Environment Agency Flood Zone Maps & DMBC Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (Level 1 published March 2009, Level 2 published March 2010). Whilst this further delineates Flood Zones it does not change Flood Zones as shown in SHLAA. PAS (2008) Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment & Development Plan Document Preparation. SYPTE (2011) South Yorkshire Land Use and Transportation Integration Project; this was carried out by SYPTE. YHA (2008) The Yorkshire & Humber Regional Spatial Strategy to Representations made in respect of SHLAA, LDF, UDP Review and UPS. Contributions of the SHLAA Stakeholder Group including findings from site visits and desk-top review work. 28

29 6.0 Disclaimer In relation to the information contained within this report (and any other report relating to the findings of Doncaster s SHLAA), the Council makes the following disclaimer, without prejudice: The identification of potential housing sites, buildings or areas within the SHLAA does not imply that the Council would necessarily grant planning permission for residential development. All planning applications incorporating residential development will continue to be treated against the appropriate development plan and material planning considerations; The inclusion of potential housing sites, buildings or areas within the study does not preclude them from being developed for other purposes. For example, some of the sites identified are still in employment use and the redevelopment of these for further employment use would generally be considered appropriate; The boundaries that are attached to sites, buildings and areas are based on the information available at the time. The SHLAA does not limit an extension or contraction of these boundaries for the purposes of a planning application; The exclusion of sites, buildings or areas from the study (either because they were never identified or have been discounted) does not preclude the possibility of planning permission for residential development being granted on them. It is acknowledged that sites will continue to come forward (particularly small sites) that will be suitable for residential development that have not been identified in the SHLAA; The categorisation of sites in terms of when they may come forward (short, medium or long term) is based on stakeholder group views held at the time of the study. Circumstances or assumptions may change which may mean that sites could come forward sooner or later than originally envisaged. The SHLAA does not prevent planning applications being submitted on any sites identified or excluded within it at any time; The information that accompanies the SHLAA is based on information that was available at the time of the study and there may be some omissions and/or factual inaccuracies that the Council does not take liability for. Therefore, users of the study findings will need to appreciate that there may be additional constraints on some sites that were not identified at the time of the survey and that planning applications will continue to be treated on their own merits at the time of the planning application rather than on the information contained within the assessment. Likewise, some of the identified constraints may have been removed since the information was compiled. Issues may arise during the course of a detailed planning application that could not be/ were not foreseen at the time of the study. For example, the SHLAA may identify a site as having no contamination but detailed ground investigations identifies that it has during the preparation of a planning application. Applicants are therefore advised to carry out their own analysis of sites to identify any constraints or other information for the purposes of a planning application and not rely solely on the findings of the SHLAA; 29

30 The capacity identified on the sites either relates to the numbers granted within a planning permission (where applicable) or is an estimate based on an appropriate density for the site in question. In arriving at these densities, the stakeholder group have taken into account locational and sustainability factors along with issues around local character and general views on the site. However, the capacities identified do not preclude densities being increased on sites, subject to details. Nor does it mean that the densities envisaged within the assessment would be appropriate and these would need to be assessed through the normal planning process when submitting a planning application; The study has a base date of 31 st March 2011 and the findings are only a snapshot of information held at that time. Therefore, some of the information held on the database will be subject to change over time. For example, sites that are identified as not having planning permission may have secured permission since the information was compiled, whilst planning permissions may have lapsed on other sites. The Council intends to use the SHLAA as a living document that will be continuously updated with a comprehensive overall update each year. 30

31 7.0 Appendices Appendix 7.1: Main SHLAA Table of Sites SUB-REGIONAL CENTRE (MAIN URBAN AREA) BALBY URB Site Ref Address Suitability Availability Achievability Capacity (units) Deliverable (First 5 ) (6-10 ) (Remainder of plan (Beyond plan 1 R/O Roberts Road/Orchard Street, Yes Beyond plan Balby period 27 Littlemoor Lane/Orchard Street, Balby Yes First five Phase 2 & 3 (Site 1) 29 Ivor Grove, Balby Yes Land off Cross Bank, Balby Yes First five deliverable Stevens Road, Balby Yes First five deliverable Sandford Road, Balby Yes First five deliverable Land off Woodfield Road, Balby Possible BALBY 466 Littlemoor Lane/Orchard Street, Balby Phase 2 & 3 (Site 2) No Beyond plan period BENTLEY 400 Land off Alverley Lane, Balby Possible First five Deliverable/ URB 5 Land off Churchfield Lane, Bentley Yes Beyond plan period 12 12

32 BENTLEY BESSACARR Site Ref Address Suitability Availability Achievability Capacity (units) 9 Dons Rugby Ground, Bentley Road, Bentley Deliverable (First 5 ) (6-10 ) Yes (Remainder of plan 10 The Avenue, Bentley Colliery Yes First five deliverable Daw Wood Lane, Bentley Colliery Yes First five deliverable Skanska Bentley Works, off Jossey Lane, Bentley Possible (Beyond plan 33 Phase 1, Rostholme, Bentley Yes First five Phase 2 (b), Rostholme, Bentley Yes First five Phase 3, Rostholme, Bentley Yes First five Norwood Drive, Bentley Yes Remainder of plan period 249 Rear of Bentley Road, Bentley Possible Land at Stockbridge and east of The Avenue, Bentley Possible 6-10 / not URB BESSACARR 224 Bawtry Road, Bessacarr Possible Beyond plan period Land off Rosehill Rise, Bessacarr Yes Beyond plan period 30 Manor Farm, Bessacarr Yes First five Deliverable/

33 CANTLEY DONCASTER Site Ref Address Suitability Availability Achievability Capacity (units) 436 Land fronting Golf Club, off Bawtry Road, Bessacarr (Site 3) - Possible First five 516 South of Doncaster Road, Cantley Possible Beyond plan period Deliverable (First 5 ) (6-10 ) (Remainder of plan (Beyond plan URB 211 North East of North Bridge Road, Doncaster (Marshgate) North Bridge Road & land adj, Doncaster (Marshgate) 213 Cherry Lane/Marshgate, Doncaster (Marshgate) Possible Possible Possible Remainder of plan period Remainder of plan period Remainder of plan period 214 Greyfriars Road, Doncaster Possible First five 215 Doncaster Waterfront Possible First five deliverable Deliverable/ / not Scarborough House, Chequer Road, Possible First five Doncaster 331 Athron Street, Doncaster Possible Land at The Ings, off Power Station Possible Road, Doncaster 389 Land off Power Station Road, Doncaster Possible Civic & Cultural Quarter, Waterdale, Doncaster 442 Land at Willow Bridge Caravan Park, near Doncaster Yes Possible First five First five Deliverable/

34 EDENTHORPE Site Ref Address Suitability Availability Achievability Capacity (units) Deliverable (First 5 ) (6-10 ) (Remainder of plan (Beyond plan 479 Land at Batleys, north of Chappell Drive, Possible Doncaster 480 Land at Batleys, south of Chappell Possible Drive, Doncaster 481 Land off Friars Gate and adjacent St Possible George's Bridge, Doncaster 503 Church View, Doncaster Possible First five St Sepulchre Gate West, Doncaster Possible URB EDENTHORPE 48 Church Balk 1, Edenthorpe Yes First five 49 Church Balk 2, Edenthorpe Yes First five 384 Land at Hungerhill Lane, Edenthorpe Possible First five 604 Land off Doncaster Road & Hungerhill Possible First five Lane, Edenthorpe deliverable deliverable Deliverable/ HHORPE 431 Land at Grange Farm, Edenthorpe Possible First five 529 Land off Mere Lane, Edenthorpe Possible First five Deliverable/ Deliverable/ / not URB HYDE PARK 333 Kirk Street, Doncaster (Bombardier site) Yes First five Deliverable/

35 URB Site Ref Address Suitability Availability Achievability Capacity (units) Deliverable (First 5 ) (6-10 ) (Remainder of plan (Beyond plan KIRK SANDALL URB LAKESIDE URB RICHMOND HILL 239 Belle Vue Stables, Carr House Road, Doncaster 241 Doncaster Rovers Ground, Bawtry Road, Doncaster 383 Allotments site adj. 'Six Streets', Hyde Park, Doncaster 307 Land off Doncaster Road, Barnby Dun Yes First five 394 Land at Grove Farm, Kirk Sandall Yes First five 242 Adj Lakeside Boulevard, Doncaster Yes First five 243 Plots 8 & 9, Gliwice Way, Doncaster Yes First five 483 Plot 13/14, off Gliwice Way, Lakeside, Yes First five Doncaster 489 Plot 5a, off Carolina Way, Lakeside, Yes First five Doncaster 493 Herten Triangle, Lakeside, Doncaster Yes First five 606 Plot 5b, off Carolina Way, Lakeside, Yes First five Doncaster 140 Land off Melton Road/Ings Lane, Sprotbrough 399 Land off Challenger Drive, Richmond Hill Possible First five Possible Possible deliverable deliverable deliverable deliverable Possible Possible First five

36 SCAWSBY Site Ref Address Suitability Availability Achievability Capacity (units) Deliverable (First 5 ) (6-10 ) (Remainder of plan (Beyond plan URB SCAWSBY 610 Depot site, off Barnsley Road/York Road, Scawsby Yes Beyond plan period SCAWTHORPE URB WOODFIELD 80 Land at Broad Axe Field, off York Road, Possible First five Scawthorpe 83 Land off Back Lane, Cusworth Possible Remainder of plan period 532 Land east of Scawsby Lane, Scawsby Possible Remainder of plan period 84 Doncaster Industry Park, off Amersall Yes First five Road, Bentley 444 Land at Doncaster Industry Park, North Possible First five of Watch House Lane, Scawthorpe 511 Off Raymond Road, Bentley Possible First five 597 Land adjacent York Road, Scawthorpe Yes First five / not / not deliverable Deliverable/ deliverable Woodfield Plantation, Balby Yes First five Deliverable/ / not

37 Site Ref Address Suitability Availability Achievability Capacity (units) Deliverable (First 5 ) (6-10 ) (Remainder of plan (Beyond plan WHEATLEY URB PRINCIPAL TOWN ADWICK-LE- STREET URB ADWICK-LE- STREET ARMTHORPE 72 Land off Wheatley Hall Road, Doncaster Possible Worcester Avenue/Wheatley Hall Road, Possible Doncaster 496 McCormicks/Riverdale Business Park, Wheatley Hall Road Yes First five Deliverable/ Brodsworth Colliery, Adwick-le-Street Yes First five Deliverable/ Land off Lutterworth Drive, Adwick-le- Street Possible Land off Red House Lane, Adwick-le- Street 86 Land off Doncaster Lane, Adwick-le- Street 87 Land off Church Lane, Adwick-le-Street Possible First five 616 Former Paddington Bear Factory, Possible Beyond plan Redhouse, Adwick-le-Street period Possible 6-10 / not Possible URB 37

38 Site Ref Address Suitability Availability Achievability Capacity (units) Deliverable (First 5 ) (6-10 ) 302 Barton Lane, Armthorpe Possible (Remainder of plan (Beyond plan 303 White House Farm, Church Street, Armthorpe Yes First five deliverable ARMTHORPE 170 Land R/O Parkway, Tranmoor, Armthorpe Possible ASKERN 422 Land at the Lings, off West Moor Link Road, Armthorpe Possible First five 474 Land west of Hatfield Lane, Armthorpe Possible 6-10 / not 513 West of Nutwell Lane, Armthorpe Possible First five 514 East of Nutwell Lane, Armthorpe Possible First five 525 Land off Barton Lane and R/O Possible Remainder Horsehills Lane, Armthorpe of plan period 528 Land adj. Oak Wood and off Barton Lane, Armthorpe Possible Remainder of plan period First five 596 Land south-west of Armthorpe, Armthorpe Possible 602 Land adjacent A630, Armthorpe Possible First five / not / Deliverable/ URB 62 Askern Colliery (BF part) Yes First five deliverable

39 Site Ref Address Suitability Availability Achievability Capacity (units) 154 Askern Industrial Estate, Moss Road, Askern 293 Former Council Offices, Doncaster Road, Askern Possible Possible First five Beyond plan period Deliverable (First 5 ) (6-10 ) Saw Mills, Askern Possible (Remainder of plan (Beyond plan ASKERN 609 Askern Industrial Estate (Western part) Moss Road, Askern Possible Beyond plan period Off Spa Terrace, Station Road, Askern Yes R/O Greenacres, Highfield Road, Askern Yes Land R/O King s Terrace/Eastfield Drive, Askern Possible Land adjacent to railway line, near Spa Possible Terrace, Askern 376 Land off Churchfield Road, Askern Possible Askern Colliery (GF part) - Agricultural Yes field 420 Askern Colliery (GF part) - Former Yes allotments 421 Askern Colliery (GF part) - Former Yes First five deliverable playing fields 482 Land to the south of Saw Mills, Askern Possible Land to north of Moss Road and south Possible of Sewage Works, Askern 527 Land to north of Moss Road and east of Possible Sewage Works, Askern 540 Land off Sutton Road, Askern Possible Land adj Saw Mills and railway line, Askern Possible Remainder of plan period

40 CONISBROUGH URB CONISBROUGH Site Ref Address Suitability Availability Achievability Capacity (units) 381 Car park adjacent former Earth Centre Yes First five and station, Conisbrough (Area B1) 382 Land south of canal opposite Earth Possible First five Centre, Conisbrough (Area B2) 390 Land east of Earth Centre car park, Yes First five Conisbrough (Area B3) 551 Garage, off Sheffield Road/Clifton Hill, Possible First five Conisbrough 611 Off Sheffield Road, Conisbrough Yes Beyond plan period 612 Kearsly Brook, off Sheffield Road, Yes Beyond plan Conisbrough period Deliverable (First 5 ) deliverable (6-10 ) (Remainder of plan Deliverable/ deliverable (Beyond plan Land off Drake Head Lane, Conisbrough 120 Land off Windgate Hill (west), Conisbrough 133 Land at Sheffield Road/Old Road, Hill Top, Conisbrough 135 Land adj Garage, off Sheffield Road, Conisbrough Possible Possible Possible Possible First five First five First five First five Deliverable Land off Clifton Hill, Conisbrough Possible First five Ravens Walk (Phase 2), Conisbrough Yes First five deliverable Land adj Cemetery, off Sheffield Road, Possible First five Conisbrough 550 Land off Windgate Hill (east), Possible Conisbrough 557 Land off Drake Head Lane and R/O Rye Possible Remainder Croft, Conisbrough of plan period 40

41 MEXBOROUGH Site Ref Address Suitability Availability Achievability Capacity (units) 573 Land adj. Conisbrough Lock, near Minneymoor Hill, Conisbrough Possible First five Deliverable (First 5 ) (6-10 ) (Remainder of plan (Beyond plan URB MEXBOROUGH 14 Garden Street, South, Mexborough Yes First five 43 Part of Schofield St. Allotments, Yes Beyond plan Mexborough period 44 Park Road Allotments, Mexborough Yes First five 61 Bull Green, Mexborough (BF part) Yes Remainder of plan period 283 Coltran Products Works and R/O 1-21 Yes First five Market St, Mexborough 285 Council Depot, Leach Lane, Mexborough 286 Junction of Station Road/Doncaster Road, Mexborough 290 Former Power Station site, Doncaster Road, Mexborough Yes Yes Yes First five First five First five 338 Land north of Pastures Road, Possible First five Mexborough 374 Former coal depot, Pastures Road, Possible Remainder Mexborough of plan period 428 Land off Pitt Street, Mexborough Possible First five 603 Land Between Cliff Street & Canal, Yes Beyond plan Mexborough period 614 Sewage Pumping Station, Pastures Road, Mexborough Yes Beyond plan period deliverable Deliverable deliverable deliverable deliverable deliverable Deliverable/ Deliverable/

42 Site Ref Address Suitability Availability Achievability Capacity (units) 45 Clayfield Avenue, Mexborough Yes First five 416 Bull Green, Mexborough (GF part) Yes First five 430 Land adjacent Sewage works, west of Possible First five Pastures Road, Mexborough Deliverable (First 5 ) (6-10 ) (Remainder of plan (Beyond plan deliverable Land off Wath Road and Highwoods Road, Mexborough Possible First five THORNE URB 20 St. Nicholas Road, Thorne Yes First five Field Road, Thorne Yes First five deliverable R/O Wyke Well, South End, Thorne Yes R/O Rising Sun/2 Hatfield Road, Thorne Possible Remainder of plan period 321 R/O The Victoria, South End, Thorne Possible Junction of Coulman Road/Street, Possible First five Thorne 344 Land to west of Brewer House, Nicholas Road, Thorne Possible 408 Land adj. Peel Hill Motte, off St Nicholas Possible Road, Thorne 409 Land adjacent Thorne South Station, off Possible South End, Thorne First five First five First five deliverable THORNE 59 White Lane/Union Road, Thorne Yes

43 Site Ref Address Suitability Availability Achievability Capacity (units) 64 South End Marina, Thorne Yes First Land off Wike Gate Road, Thorne Possible First five 180 Land off Ivy Road and R/O Willow Possible First five Avenue, Thorne 181 Land off Marshland Road and R/O Willow Grove, Thorne 182 Land at Burgar Common, off Tudworth Road, Bradholme, Thorne 183 Land off Tudworth Road/Burgar Road, Thorne Possible Possible First five First five Deliverable (First 5 ) (6-10 ) (Remainder of plan (Beyond plan / not Possible Land at Swanlands, Burgar Common, South End, Thorne Possible Land off Moor Road and St. Michael s Drive, Thorne Possible First five 191 Land at Kirton Lane, Thorne Possible First five 362 Land off Coulman Road, Thorne Possible First five 375 Land at King Edward Road, Thorne Possible First five 391 Land off Wike Gate Road/Moor Edges Possible First five Road, Thorne 418 Alexander Street/North Eastern Road, Yes First five Thorne (GF part) 437 Land at rear of Bryson Close, Thorne Possible First five (Site 1) 451 Land at Snake Lane, Thorne (Site 1) Possible First five 559 Land off Moor Edges Road, Thorne Possible Remainder of plan period 561 Land adjacent Thorne Golf Course, Possible First five Kirton Lane, Thorne Deliverable/

44 LOCAL SERVICE CENTRE - POTENTIAL GROWTH TOWN DUNSCROFT URB Site Ref Address Suitability Availability Achievability Capacity (units) Deliverable (First 5 ) (6-10 ) 52 Land R/O Broadway, Dunscroft Yes (Remainder of plan (Beyond plan DUNSCROFT DUNSVILLE 186 York Road Recreation Ground, Dunscroft 411 Land near Hatfield & Stainforth Station, Stainforth (PGS urban extension) Yes Possible First five First five / not 490 Land north of Station Road, Dunscroft Possible 6-10 / not 517 Doncaster Road/Woodhouse Lane, Dunscroft Possible First five 572 Land at Back Ingram Road, Dunscroft Possible First five Deliverable/ / not R/O High Street, Dunsville Yes Land off Broadway, Dunscroft No High Street, Dunsville Possible Remainder of plan period 398 Land off Westminster Drive, Dunsville Possible First five Deliverable

45 Site Ref Address Suitability Availability Achievability Capacity (units) 455 Land at rear of Orchard Drive and Broadway, Dunsville Possible 6-10 Deliverable (First 5 ) (6-10 ) (Remainder of plan (Beyond plan Land at St Mary s Road, Dunsville Possible First five HATFIELD ROSSINGTON URB 350 Land at Epworth Road/Old Thorne Possible First five Road, Hatfield 452 Land off Back Field Lane, Hatfield (Site Possible First five 2) 468 Land at Doncaster Road, Hatfield Possible First five 471 Land to west of Lings Lane, Hatfield Possible First five 484 Land R/O 17 Lings Lane, Hatfield Possible First five 509 Adj. Bow House, off Manor Road, Possible First five Hatfield 510 Adj. 'The Leylands', off Manor Road, Hatfield Possible First five 581 Land off Manor Road, Hatfield Possible First five 583 Land at High Street, Hatfield Possible First five 607 Land adjoining Half Acres House, Manor Possible First five Road, Hatfield 642 Land west of Carr Side Lane, Hatfield Possible First five Deliverable Deliverable Deliverable Deliverable/ Land east of Bankwood Lane, Rossington Possible 6-10 / not

46 ROSSINGTON Site Ref Address Suitability Availability Achievability Capacity (units) 537 Rossington Colliery Possible First five / not Deliverable (First 5 ) (6-10 ) (Remainder of plan (Beyond plan Land off Stripe Road, Rossington Possible First five 68 Land at Stone Hills, R/O Hall View Road, Rossington 70 Land off Tranquil Walk/Grange Lane, Rossington Possible Possible First five First five 73 Land off Sheepbridge Lane, Rossington Possible First five 397 Land at R/O Keepers Close, Littleworth, Rossington Possible First five / / / STAINFORTH URB 592 Land at Churchfield & east of Railway Line, Rossington Possible First five 628 Land at Littleworth Lane, Rossington Possible First five 638 Land to the south of Rossington, Rossington Possible First five / Deliverable/ / Deliverable/ / not Adj Holme Leigh, East Lane, Stainforth Yes First five Deliverable Meadow Court Stadium, Station Road, Stainforth Possible

47 STAINFORTH Site Ref Address Suitability Availability Achievability Capacity (units) Deliverable (First 5 ) (6-10 ) (Remainder of plan (Beyond plan 486 Poultry Packing Station, off Briars Lane, Possible Stainforth 506 North of Railway Station, Stainforth Possible Off East Lane, behind PH, Stainforth Possible First five Doncaster Road, Stainforth Yes LOCAL SERVICE CENTRE - RENEWAL TOWN CARCROFT 56 R/O Finkle Street, Stainforth Yes First five 505 Stainforth Marina, Stainforth Possible First five / not DENABY 60 Owston Road, Carcroft Yes First five 569 Land at Owston Park, Carcroft Possible First five Deliverable/ EDLINGTON 41 Hill Top (phase 4), Denaby Yes First five deliverable

48 URB EDLINGTON Site Ref Address Suitability Availability Achievability Capacity (units) 66 Land off Broomhouse Lane, New Edlington Yes First five 225 Off Broomhouse Lane, Edlington Possible Remainder of plan period 227 Dixon Road/Thompson Avenue, Yes First five Edlington 615 Council Depot, Oaklands Terrace, Edlington Yes Beyond plan period Deliverable (First 5 ) deliverable deliverable (6-10 ) (Remainder of plan (Beyond plan MOORENDS URB MOORENDS 78 Land off Tait Avenue, New Edlington Possible First five 458 West of Howbeck Drive (Phase 2), Yes First five Edlington 21 Adj. 46 Marshland Road, Moorends Yes First five 342 Land to rear of St Wilfrith s Church, West Road, Moorends Possible First five deliverable deliverable North Common Nurseries, Marshland Road, Moorends Yes Beyond plan period East View Farm, Marshland Road, Moorends 179 Land off Bloomhill Road/Ferndale Drive, Moorends Yes Possible Beyond plan period First five

49 SKELLOW Site Ref Address Suitability Availability Achievability Capacity (units) 188 Land off Marshland Road/The Avenue, Moorends 201 Land R/O Bloomhill Road and Darlington Grove, Moorends 438 Land to east of recreation ground, Moorends (Site 2) 439 Land at and to NE of Micklethwaite's Farm, Moorends (Site 3) 462 Land at Thorne Colliery, Moorends Possible First five 554 Land adj Playing Fields, North Common, Moorends Deliverable (First 5 ) (6-10 ) (Remainder of plan (Beyond plan Possible First five Possible First five Possible First five Possible Possible First five 570 Land off Marshland Road, Moorends Possible First five / / not Land off Ings Lane, Skellow Possible Land off Crabgate Lane, Skellow Possible Land south of Hampole Balk, Skellow Possible LOCAL SERVICE CENTRE - CONSERVATION TOWN BAWTRY URB 564 Land at Mill Lane & Crabgate Lane, Skellow Possible First five Land off Great North Road, Bawtry Yes Doncaster Road, Bawtry Possible Beyond plan period

50 BAWTRY TICKHILL URB Site Ref Address Suitability Availability Achievability Capacity (units) Deliverable (First 5 ) (6-10 ) (Remainder of plan (Beyond plan 257 Junction of Thorne Road/Narrow Lane, Possible Bawtry 258 Between Church Street, Bawtry Possible Beyond plan period 624 Land off Russet Road, Bawtry Yes First five Deliverable Land off Tickhill Road and Martin Lane, Bawtry 127 Land at north-west Bawtry: near to Martin Lane, Ingham Road and Great North Road Possible Possible Remainder of plan period First five 618 Land south-west of Bawtry Hall, Bawtry Possible First five 619 Land at Mennagerie Wood, Bawtry Possible First five 625 Land off Narrow Lane, Bawtry Possible First five / not R/O Sunderland Street/Nettle Croft, Tickhill Possible Beyond plan period TICKHILL 111 Land off Common Lane, Tickhill Possible Land off Greystone Lane, Tickhill Possible Land off Sunderland Street, Tickhill Possible Land at Worksop Road/Lindrick Lane, Tickhill Possible

51 Site Ref Address Suitability Availability Achievability Capacity (units) Deliverable (First 5 ) (6-10 ) 454 Land off Meadow Drive, Tickhill (Site 4) Possible (Remainder of plan (Beyond plan 485 Land west of Dadsley Road, Tickhill Possible OTHER - DEFINED AUCKLEY 100 Land off Bell Butts Lane, Auckley No Land at Hanson Quarry, Auckley No ARKSEY AUSTERFIELD URB AUSTERFIELD 124 Land adjacent to 21 Main Street, Auckley 387 Land adjacent Vicarage, Main Street, Auckley 425 Land at Mosham Road/Hurst Lane, Auckley 91 Land off Station Road/High Street, Arksey No No No No Land to north of plant, Austerfield Possible Brick Works, off A614, Austerfield Possible Beyond plan period Land south of plant, Austerfield No Land adjacent to Bawtry Road, Austerfield No

52 Site Ref Address Suitability Availability Achievability Capacity (units) Deliverable (First 5 ) (6-10 ) (Remainder of plan (Beyond plan 587 Land adjacent Newington Road, No Austerfield 626 Land off Bawtry Road, Austerfield No BLAXTON 119 Land off Blaxton Balk. Blaxton No Poor's Land, Blaxton No BARNBY DUN 543 Bryce Boarding Kennels, off Thorne Road, Blaxton No Land off Hatfield Lane, Barnby Dun No White House Farm, Barnby Dun No Land at Park Hill, Barnby Dun No Land off The Grove, Barnby Dun No BARNBURGH BRANTON URB 142 Former railway cutting, off Hollowgate, Barnburgh 518 Land north of Barnburgh Primary School, Barnburgh 519 Land south of Barnburgh Primary School, Barnburgh 99 Land off Doncaster Road/The Close, Branton No No No Possible

53 BRANTON Site Ref Address Suitability Availability Achievability Capacity (units) 635 Land at Branton House Farm, Branton Possible First five Deliverable (First 5 ) (6-10 ) (Remainder of plan (Beyond plan 114 Land off New Road, Branton No Land at Garden Centre, Doncaster No Road, Branton 494 Land at Kilham Lane, Branton No Land at Greenacre, Doncaster Road, No Branton 634 Land north west of Branton, Branton No BRAITHWELL URB 37 Land off Ashton Lane, Braithwell Yes First five deliverable Land north of Cardwell Court, Braithwell Yes BRAITHWELL 131 Land at Cedar Farm, Holywell Lane, No Braithwell 352 Land to rear of Hall Farm, Braithwell No Land at rear of Holywell Crescent, No Braithwell 565 Land west of Doncaster Road, No Braithwell 644 Land south of Ashton Lane, Braithwell No BURGHWALLIS 53

54 CAMPSALL URB CAMPSALL FINNINGLEY URB FINNINGLEY Site Ref Address Suitability Availability Achievability Capacity (units) 582 Land at the Sycamores, The Abbes Walk, Burghwallis Deliverable (First 5 ) (6-10 ) (Remainder of plan (Beyond plan No Land at Poplar Farm, Campsall Possible Land off Sutton Road, Campsall No Land off Campsall Balk/Church Field Road, Campsall No Off St. Oswalds Drive, Finningley Yes First five deliverable Rear of Glebe Bungalows, Old Bawtry Possible Road 354 Land off Bell's Close, near Station Possible Road, Blaxton 357 Land at Bury Farm Paddock, off Yes First five deliverable Blenheim Drive, Finningley 396 Land adjacent former station (west), Possible Finningley 605 Manor House Farm, Finningley (RPA Part) Possible First five deliverable Land off Station Road, Blaxton No Land off Bawtry Road, Finningley No Land adjacent to Gatesbridge Park, off Wroot Road, Finningley No

55 Site Ref Address Suitability Availability Achievability Capacity (units) Deliverable (First 5 ) (6-10 ) (Remainder of plan (Beyond plan 359 Land adjacent to Depot, off Old Bawtry No Road, Finningley 508 Manor House Farm, Finningley No Land adjacent former station (east), No Finningley 567 Land east of Bawtry Road, Finningley No Land north-east A614, Finningley No FISHLAKE 175 Land off Trundle Lane, Fishlake No Land at and R/O 'The Firs', Sour Lane, No Hay Green, Fishlake 472 Land off Dirty Lane, Fishlake (site 1) No Land north of Trundle Lane, Fishlake No HATFIELD WOODHOUSE 176 Land at rear of The Firs, off Bawtry Road, Hatfield Woodhouse 177 Land off Cemetery Road, Hatfield Woodhouse 194 Land at Mosscroft Lane/Main Street, Hatfield Woodhouse 198 Land R/O Somerton Drive, Hatfield Woodhouse (Site A) 199 Land R/O Somerton Drive, Hatfield Woodhouse (Site B) 204 Land off Slay Pit Lane and Main Street, Hatfield Woodhouse 351 Land to rear of 12a and 18 Cemetery Road, Hatfield Woodhouse 560 Land at rear of Main Street, Hatfield Woodhouse No No No No No No No No

56 HAYFIELD GREEN Site Ref Address Suitability Availability Achievability Capacity (units) 577 Land adjacent Old Epworth Road, Hatfield Woodhouse Deliverable (First 5 ) (6-10 ) (Remainder of plan (Beyond plan No Land off Gatehouse Lane, Auckley No Land off Hayfield Lane, Auckley No HIGH MELTON 499 Off Hurst Lane and proposed link road, Hayfield Green 536 Land south of Hayfield Lane, Hayfield Green Yes First five Deliverable/ No University Centre, High Melton No Land at Melton Lodge, High Melton No HIGHFIELDS LOVERSALL MOSS 82 Brodsworth Quarry No Land at Loversall Farm, The Cott, Loversall No Land off Trumfleet Lane, adjacent Pear No Tree Farm, Moss. 157 Land off Old Lane, Moss No Land off Moss Road/Trumfleet Lane, No

57 Site Ref Address Suitability Availability Achievability Capacity (units) Moss Deliverable (First 5 ) (6-10 ) (Remainder of plan (Beyond plan 166 Land off Moss Road/London Lane, No Moss 456 Land off Brick Kiln Lane, Moss No NORTON URB NORTON 301 Junction of Station Road/New Road, Norton Possible Land at Poplar Farm, off Campsall Balk, No Norton 164 Land R/O Hall Farm, Norton No Land off Ryecroft Road, Norton No Land off West End Road, Norton No Land at New Road, Norton No Land off Spittlerush Lane, Norton (Site No ) 449 Land west of Back Lane/Priory Road, No Norton (Site 2) 450 Land east of Back Lane/Priory Road, No Norton (Site 3) 579 Land off Cliff Hill Road, Norton No OLD EDLINGTON 627 Land r/o Turpin s Lodge, off Swan Syke Drive, Norton 640 Land east off settlement, off North Common Road, Norton No No

58 Site Ref Address Suitability Availability Achievability Capacity (units) Deliverable (First 5 ) (6-10 ) (Remainder of plan (Beyond plan 75 Manor Farm, Old Edlington No OWSTON SPROTBROUGH STAINTON 571 Land adjacent North Park Lane, Owston No Land north of Melton Road and west of No A1, Sprotbrough 524 Land off Spring Lane, Sprotbrough No Land south of Toecroft Lane, Sprotbrough No Land off Raw Lane, Stainton No Manor Farm, School Lane, Stainton No SYKEHOUSE TOLL BAR URB 122 Land off Stainton Lane/The Avenue, Stainton No Ash Hill, Sykehouse No Land off Askern Road, Toll Bar Possible TOLL BAR 58

59 WADWORTH Site Ref Address Suitability Availability Achievability Capacity (units) 95 Land at Allotments, off Adwick Ave, Toll Bar Deliverable (First 5 ) (6-10 ) (Remainder of plan (Beyond plan No Land south of Church Road, Wadworth No Land north of Church Road, Wadworth No Land r/o Church View, Wadworth No WARMSWORTH URB OTHER - UNDEFINED ALMHOLME GREEN LANE OTHER - ISOLATED 620 Land off New Road/Rear of Manor House Carr Lane, Wadworth 477 Land at former reservoir, Warmsworth Halt, Warmsworth 96 Land at Almholme Grange Farm, Almholme nr. Arksey 79 Land off Green Lane at Trevarrian, Scawthorpe 93 Land off Green Lane/Scawsby Lane, Scawthorpe No Possible No No No Bristol Works, Arksey Lane, Bentley No Land at Scawsby Hall, off Barnsley No Road, Scawsby 104 Land at Auckley Common, Eastfield No Lane, Auckley 110 Stud Farm, Castle Gate, Tickhill No

60 Site Ref Address Suitability Availability Achievability Capacity (units) Deliverable (First 5 ) (6-10 ) (Remainder of plan (Beyond plan 118 Land off Wilsic Road, Tickhill No Land off Melton Road, Sprotbrough No Former Sprotbrough Station, Nursery No Lane, Sprotbrough 150 Land off Chapel Lane, Thurnscoe No The Maltings, off Bramwith Lane, No Barnby Dun 173 Thorpe Marsh Power Station No Land off Old Thorne Road, Hatfield (Site No B) 197 Land off Old Thorne Road, Hatfield (Site No C) 202 Land R/O Moss Terrace, Marshland No Road, Moorends 205 Land at Tudor Rose, Kirton Lane, No Stainforth 206 Land off Mosscroft Lane, West End, No Hatfield Woodhouse 207 Land at Doncaster Road, Stainforth No The Old Inn, Moss Road, Moss No Land at Moor Road/South End, Thorne No Land at former Moss Brickworks, Moss No Land between River Don and rail line, No adjacent former Power Station, Mexborough 424 Land at Mosham Road/Gatehouse No Lane, Blaxton 427 Land off Denaby Lane, Old Denaby No Land at Doncaster Golf Club, nr Rossington (Site 1) 435 Land at Doncaster Golf Club, nr Rossington (Site 2) No No

61 Site Ref Address Suitability Availability Achievability Capacity (units) Deliverable (First 5 ) (6-10 ) (Remainder of plan (Beyond plan 453 Land east of New Mill Field Road, No Hatfield (Site 3) 459 Land at Blaxton Common, off Wroot No Road, Blaxton 469 Land off Waterside Road, Thorne No Land at Old Mill Field, adjacent M18, No Hatfield Woodhouse 478 Land at Hill Top, Mosscroft Lane, West No End, Hatfield 531 Land south of Barnsley Road and No adjacent A1, Scawsby 533 Land west of Scawsby Lane, Scawsby No Land east of Sheep Walk Lane, No Scawsby 535 Land north of Hayfield Lane, Hayfield No Green 547 Land off High Levels Bank, nr. Thorne No Land east of Meadow Drive, Tickhill No Land south side of Sheepwash Lane, No Tickhill 568 Land at East Farm, Owston Lane, No Owston 574 Land east of Bridge Lane, Maltby No Land behind The Park, Manor Road, No Hatfield 585 Land at Mosham Road, Blaxton No Land west of Bridge Lane, Maltby No Land north of Lawn Lane, Fenwick No Acres Ranch, off Warning Tongue Lane, No Cantley 600 Land adjacent A614, Finningley No West of A614, Austerfield No

62 Site Ref Address Suitability Availability Achievability Capacity (units) Deliverable (First 5 ) (6-10 ) (Remainder of plan (Beyond plan 621 Land off Hurst Lane, Hayfield Green No Land south of Almholme Lane, Almholme 639 Land to the south east of Rossington, Rossington 643 Gardens to the south of Green Lane, Green Lane No No No

63 Appendix 7.2: Site Sheet Reports Due to the large number of sites within the SHLAA the individual site assessment sheets have been separated into batches for ease of locating and download purposes. These files can be found, alongside this report, on the Council s Local Development Framework Housing Evidence Base Reference List on the internet, available via the following link Framework/LDF_Evidence_Base_Reference_List/Evidence_Base_-_Housing.asp, and are labelled as per the table below. PDF File Name Main Urban Area 1 Main Urban Area 2 Main Urban Area 3 Main Urban Area 4 Main Urban Area 5 Principal Towns 1 Principal Towns 2 Principal Towns 3 Principal Towns 4 Principal Towns 5 Potential Growth Towns 1 Potential Growth Towns 2 Renewal Towns Conservation Towns Villages Site sheets included in this file for the following settlements Balby & Bentley Bessacarr Cantley & Doncaster Edenthorpe, Hexthorpe, Hyde Park, Kirk Sandall, Lakeside & Richmond Hill Scawsby, Scawthorpe, Wheatley & Woodfield Adwick-Woodlands & Armthorpe Askern Conisbrough Mexborough Thorne Dunscroft, Dunsville & Hatfield Rossington & Stainforth Carcroft, Denaby, Edlington, Moorends & Skellow Bawtry & Tickhill All Defined Villages

64 Appendix 7.3: Planning Permissions as at 31 st March 2010 Planning permissions granted as at the 31 st March 2010 totalled 7,532 units as published in the Council s Residential Land Availability Report 2009/10. This document can be found on the Council s website via the following web-link: nt_framework/ldf_evidence_base_reference_list/evidence_base_-_housing.asp Since publication of this report, an amendment has been identified as detailed in the table below: Residential Land Availability Report 2009/10 Amendment to RLA 2009/10 post publication Sites assessed through SHLAA as well as having planning permission in RLA 2009/10 See separate RLA 2009/10 report tables 3b 3e for full list of these sites Bentley Colliery 3 sites in the RLA have combined capacity of 111 units, but planning permission is for 180 units (+69 units). In addition to the Bentley Colliery sites above, there are a further 22 sites that have been assessed through SHLAA as well as having planning permission as per the RLA. The combined capacity of these sites is 5,352 units. Dixon Rd/Thompson Ave, Edlington, site has since had its permission reduced from 151 units to 118 units (-33 units) Planning Permission for 7,532 units +69 units 5,319 units In summary, the updated figure for planning permissions as at 31 st March 2010 is 7,601 units (derived from the 7,532 figure published in RLA 2009/10 plus additional 69 units as per amendment detailed above). Of this figure, 5,319 units are accounted for through having detailed site assessment sheets as part of the SHLAA and thus need to be discounted to avoid double counting. As such, as at the 31 st March 2010 there were planning permissions granted for 2,282 units on sites not assessed through SHLAA. 64

65 Appendix 7.4: Housing Renewal Major Sites - Demolitions & New Build Stats (31 st March 2011) MAJOR SITES Area Demolished No of New Extra Clearance New Build Project P/F Units Builds Units * Start Date Start Date Comp Date Area * Thompson & Dixon Edlington e e 2015e Yes Hyde Park - 6 streets Doncaster Mar e No Granby Estate Edlington e e e Yes Kirby Street Mexborough Mar e Yes Kingsway Stainforth e e e No Windhill - Phase 1 Mexborough 69 TBC TBC e e Yes Windhill - Phase 2 (Avenue) Mexborough 11 TBC TBC e e Yes Windhill - Phase 3a (Terrace) Mexborough 0 TBC TBC Deferred Deferred Deferred Yes * No of units above previously existing units TBC to be confirmed P/F Pathfinder Area e Estimated figure

66 Appendix 7.5: SHLAA Stakeholder Group Meeting Agendas & Minutes HOME BUILDERS FEDERATION & DONCASTER MBC DEVELOPMENT & PLANNING MEETING 22 nd November 2007, 10:00 11:30, Danum House AGENDA 1) Welcome & Introductions (Bill Cooper, LDF Housing & Regeneration Manager) 2) Doncaster LDF Update (Bill Cooper) 3) Interim Planning Position Statement for Housing (Richard Mckone, Principal Planner, LDF Housing Team) 4) Interim Planning Position Statement for Affordable Housing (Shirley Gordon, Senior Planner, LDF Housing Team) 5) Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (Michael Whitehead, Senior Planner, LDF Housing Team) 6) Any Other Business

67 HOME BUILDERS FEDERATION & DONCASTER MBC DEVELOPMENT & PLANNING MEETING ATTENDEES: - Thursday 22 nd November 2007 Danum House, Conference Room, 10:00 11:30 Bill Cooper DMBC Shirley Gordon DMBC Jonathan Clarke DMBC Victoria Murray HBF Nick Leuchars HBF Jonathan Collins HBF Richard Mckone DMBC Michael Whitehead DMBC Carol Johnson DMBC Paul Thornton HBF Howard Gray HBF Ian Collis HBF 1. WELCOME & INTRODUCTION Bill Cooper 2. DONCASTER LDF UPDATE Bill Cooper Handout of the LDS timetable circulated and update given to Doncaster s LDF and evidence base. 3. INTERIM PLANNING POSITION STATEMENT FOR HOUSING Richard Mckone Handout of the IPPS circulated. Reasons/ implications of lifting the Greenfield Moratorium & deliverability of new RSS housing figures/ 5 year supply summarised. HBF Appreciate the need for the IPPS and their content and generally support their proposals, but is it actually a policy change and what weight will be attached to it? Richard Mckone The IPPS will release Greenfield allocations so policy will still stem from the UDP. However, national and regional policies in the form of PPS3 & PPS25 require demonstrating a 5 year supply of deliverable sites/ sequential testing etc so this is the argument/ need for the changes. Any thoughts on the RSS requirement of delivering 1230 units per annum from April 2008? HBF There is no shortage of demand for housing but the level of affordable housing asked for is a major factor in whether land will be released for development. Expected that the supply of land will start to dry-up for economic reasons such as a levelling off in house prices and increasing requirements/ costs relating to providing sustainable homes and renewable energies etc. Still an expectation that land values are around 1m per acre. Landowners will not be prepared to sell at prices that may realistically be as low as half this expected figure. Richard Mckone Any thoughts on the need to demonstrate a 5 year supply of deliverable sites? HBF HBF can not guarantee sites. People have got land but are not forced to sell as expectations of land values are not realistic at present. Greenfield sites deliverable as long as the policy is in place to support this. Unclear what the attitude to windfall sites is until the LDF is in place and what are the settlement boundaries referred to in the Statement? Richard Mckone Windfalls will be additional to the sites identified in the 5 year supply and settlement boundaries are generally not within the Green Belt or Countryside Policy Area. Bill Cooper What is the overall feel and general vibe regarding IPPS/ deliverability? HBF Concerns relating to the specifications and costs involved in meeting the standards set out in the Code for Sustainable Homes and achieving these requirements on a mass level. 67

68 particularly well on the way to resolving this at present. The HBF is split into 2 parts, current development and future development, and the 2 areas are sometimes in conflict with one another. However, it is always good to see an increase in housing allocations & numbers. Carol Johnson In reference to the Code for Sustainable Homes, how do the HBF decide what levels to build to on a site-to-site basis? HBF Up until now it is generally a case of developing to meet the requirements of Building Regulations. Too many standards/ requirements before development even commences risks that land will never be acquired in the first instance. 4. INTERIM PLANNING POSITION STATEMENT FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING Shirley Gordon Overview of the affordable housing section of the IPPS given and new requirements set out. Doncaster falling well short of the number of units needed on the ground. Housing Needs/ Market Assessment Study now adopted and available via the link below: ans/local_housing_assessment.asp Richard Mckone The Housing Corporation is open for business in Doncaster and are prepared to gap fund. HBF How much money is in the bank from commuted sums funded by developers on previous sites? Richard Mckone entirely certain as to the exact amount but it is safe guarded and will be spent accordingly. HBF When will the IPPS be formally adopted? Richard Mckone All being well they will be determined after Full Council on January 21 st Any thoughts on the percentage of units to be provided on site? HBF How will you measure/ decide the level of contribution on site? Richard Mckone GVA Grimely have been commissioned to produce an Affordable Housing SPD. HBF The levels of contribution will be crucial. Richard Mckone we should be receiving transfer values from social housing anytime now. HBF This figure will be crucial, if the figure is too high then there is the risk that housing will not be delivered. How will units on site be dictated e.g. size/ type of dwelling? Richard Mckone looking to dictate this; it will be dependant on actual need in the specific area and in line with the Government s mixed communities agenda. 5. STRATEGIC HOUSING LAND AVAILABILITY ASSESSMENT Michael Whitehead Handout and overview given summarising the requirements/ stages involved in compiling a SHLAA. Hoping to form a stakeholder group either attend around 3 meetings or, if preferred, kept in a loop via s etc. HBF Sheffield are suitably progressed with their LDF that they are proposing to exclude Greenbelt from their 5 year supply. A joint South Yorkshire methodology would be very useful. Is it possible to fulfil the 5 year supply without building in Greenbelt/ flood risk etc? 68

69 Richard Mckone No, too many tensions between constraints so something will need to give. Any thoughts on how the HBF would like to be involved, bearing in mind the timescale are tight in order to inform the LDF process? HBF the HBF representatives and see if any would like to attend the stakeholder group. 6. AOB None 69

70 DONCASTER SHLAA DELIVERABILITY MEETING Wednesday 2 nd July :30 16:30 (Conference Room, Danum House) AGENDA 1. Welcome and introductions 2. SHLAA Process so far 3. UDP allocations and 5 year supply 4. SYPTE accessibility findings Issue sites (inc min break) 6. Sites where information not put forward 7. LDF update and next steps 8. AOB 70

71 DONCASTER SHLAA DELIVERABILITY MEETING Wednesday 2 nd July 2008 Danum House 13:30 16:30 ATTENDEES:- Michael Whitehead (DMBC) - MW Richard Mckone (DMBC) - RM Jonathan Clarke (DMBC) - JCla Michael Long (SYPTE) - ML Peter O Brien (TSY) PO B Gina Bourne (HBF) - GB Clive Brook (HBF Rep - Dacre Son & Hartley) - CB Jonathan Collins (HBF Rep - Hallam Land Mgmt.) - JCol Paul Bedwell (HBF Rep - Spawforths) - PB Roland Bolton (HBF Rep - DLP) - RB Lindsay Ramsden (HBF Rep - David Wilson Homes) - LR Victoria Cole (HBF Rep - Miller Homes) - VC 1. WELCOME & INTRODUCTIONS MW An agenda distributed that included a list of sites with issues to be discussed further, and some site-specific notes showing SYPTE accessibility comments. 2. SHLAA PROCESS SO FAR MW Outlined the work on the SHLAA undertaken to date. 3. SYPTE ACCESSIBILITY FINDINGS ML Gave a brief overview of the methodology used for the accessibility findings and explained they are based on RSS guidance and DfT accession modelling indicators. These findings have several caveats attached to them, such as they only take into consideration existing public transport routes and not therefore potential additions to the network. Also, the findings are based on the 2001 census which is now dated, and access to schooling provision is based on existing and not proposed/ future school sites. Headline results show that 30% of the sites score favourably against all the RSS indicators, whilst 10% scored zero. The findings are based on RSS conformity and will be monitored, SYPTE will encourage DMBC to bring forward sites that have scored favourably first, or developers will be expected to contribute to improvements. MW Are there any sites that the accessibility findings virtually rule-out? ML Woodfield Plantation scores poorly at present but SYPTE would support the proposed link road that the development would deliver, as this would create an attractive transport corridor. CB There is a danger that sites fall out of the SHLAA because of current transport access, and not potential for access to transport networks in the future. RB Sites of 400+ units would encourage bus routes to penetrate into the new development. ML SYPTE will always support sites with the least intervention needed where comparable sites exist. Developers will need to be prepared to support services in the short-term (first 1-2 ) before the bus operator takes over. RB Is there scope to have 2 columns/ scores within the SHLAA table, one based on existing transport networks and another for potential access in the future? If not then you are limiting your aspirations of what can be achieved and rough-fitting sites as oppose to having a wider 71

72 strategy. Allowances are made for the potential to mitigate for flooding but why not for transport? RM We can include a mitigation column if the HBF agree? JCol Consistency is the key ISSUE SITES Discussion regarding the first 19 sites from the list attached to the agenda (up to site 557 Conisbrough), and site deliverability sheets updated accordingly following agreement by all. Site-specific comments are shown at the end of this note. PO B In the context of the growth point bid and higher housing numbers, only sites with significant constraints should be deemed undeliverable e.g. are walls really an access constraint? VC Such constraints are common when considering the viability of proposals. Discussion on whether the suitability section and therefore policy designation e.g. Green Belt/Countryside Policy Area/SSSI should affect the placing of a site in the deliverability section of the SHLAA. All parties agreed that SHLAA should adopt a policy off stance and that the final deliverability should therefore reflect the market view on when it could come forward. CB Expectation that upper market and executive housing needs to be developed in Countryside Policy Area/ Greenbelt. CB & RB In terms of build rates during good we usually factor for around 50 completions per year as oppose to 100, or 1 a week. Large sites with several developers can achieve similar completions, as long as there is sufficient/ several access points per site. Discussion regarding the importance of high-grade agricultural land, and whether such sites should be ruled out due to this. General agreement that this is a policy issue that needs to be addressed through the LDF, and should not affect deliverability for SHLAA purposes. 5. SITES WHERE INFORMATION NOT PUT FORWARD RM Due to the lack of time to complete the discussion for the whole of the 60 sites, and any further sites with information outstanding, there are 2 options available either prepare a draft report and fill in the gaps once distributed or a second short meeting? VC Probably best to go away and look at the issues remaining now that we have a feel for some of the reoccurring problems highlighted from the discussion of sites so far, and then if need be come back and discuss further at a second short meeting. PO B Sheffield s SHLAA released a draft list of sites; only 5 with issues and 4 of these were related to capacity. MW Sheffield held a similar meeting to this one in April to discuss inconsistencies in the information provided, so this could explain why there are so few objections. All - General discussion regarding Evidence Base, and what level of consultation is appropriate for the SHLAA. CB PPS12 talks about strategic sites and you should consider what constitutes such a site 72

73 PO B There is a need to identify sufficient sites in Housing Market Renewal/ Pathfinder areas. 6. LDF UPDATE & N STEPS RM We will be updating our Local Development Scheme this summer, but at the moment the key dates are a Pre-Submission Draft of the Core Strategy out to consultation in October 2008, with a view to submit in March The timescales for the Allocations DPD have slipped 12 months from the current LDS, we are now consulting in September 2009, but this does not have a knock-on effect for the rest of the programme and the aim is to still submit July AOB None 73

74 DONCASTER STRATEGIC HOUSING LAND AVAILABILITY ASSESSMENT STAKEHOLDER GROUP INCEPTION MEETING Monday 10 th December :00 15:30 Conference Room, Development & Planning, Danum House, Doncaster AGENDA 1. Welcome and introduction 2. Membership of stakeholder group 3. Timescales/Arup study 4. Scope of site search 5. Level of detail 6. Next steps 74

75 DONCASTER STRATEGIC HOUSING LAND AVAILABILITY ASSESSMENT STAKEHOLDER GROUP INCEPTION MEETING ATTENDEES: - Monday 10 th December 2007 Development & Planning, Danum House, Conference Room, 14:00 15:30 Richard Mckone Doncaster MBC Michael Whitehead Doncaster MBC Jonathan Clarke Doncaster MBC Sam Kipling Environment Agency Peter O Brien Transform South Yorkshire Linda Wright Home Builders Federation Tim Kohler Natural England Harriet Fisher Yorkshire & Humber Assembly Michael Long South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive 1. WELCOME & INTRODUCTION Richard Mckone Round the table introductions & a brief outline of what the SHLAA requires. LW Worry that SHLAAs will be too prescriptive and caught up in too much detail. Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council flagged up as a best practice example/ benchmark SHLAA. 2. MEMBERSHIP OF STAKEHOLDER GROUP Richard Mckone Is there anybody else that should have been invited to sit on the stakeholder group? TK The Council s internal ecologists should have an input. ML Highways Agency would be worthwhile having on board. HF It would be good to have neighbouring LAs involved. 3. TIMESCALES/ ARUP STUDY Richard Mckone & Michael Whitehead It is envisaged that there will be 3 meetings, including today, in order to meet the tight timescales needed to inform the LDF (Detailed Policies & Allocations Preferred Options September 2008). Looking for the Assessment to be completed by March 2008, any thoughts on these timescales? All sounds fine, no point having unnecessary meetings. RM Changes in Government guidance relating to housing figures being included within Core Strategies means the Detailed Policies & Allocations Issues & Options only really has content relating to detailed design policies. MW The YHA have commissioned ARUP to conduct a regional study/ produce best practice guidance for completing SHLAAs. HF ARUP are meeting with LAs at the moment and hoping to finish by Christmas. Meeting in February 2008 to discuss findings/ whether there will be a need to produce any additional guidance on SHLAAs? 4. SCOPE OF SITE SERACH Richard Mckone Can t use emerging LDF policy to guide selection of sites. The RSS is at a sufficiently advanced stage that it s pointless to consider sites not in conformity with it e.g. little merit in looking at isolated sites or sites around the villages. Any thoughts on this approach? 75

76 HF Ideally you would look at every site but in reality policy will say otherwise so make informed and sensible choices accordingly. PO B - Happier with this approach than Sheffield & Rotherham as LDF not in as advanced stage. Warning that these sites are not confirmed Housing Allocations yet putting them in the Assessment will give hope value to people. Does the traffic light system propose that once the requirement has been met that all other sites will be put at stage red? RM Traffic light system explained. Expect more sites to be included at the amber stage than actually needed so proposed to bring these remaining amber sites forward through the LDF. MW Scope to add section within Housing Options Site Selection Methodology in relation to sites stage in the Assessment. 5. LEVEL OF DETAIL HF It would be useful to show individual site constraints and how they will be overcome e.g. flooding. RM Almost certain that sites within Flood Zone 3 will need to be allocated in order to meet increased housing numbers. Should be some key messages coming out of the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment in February Sites within Flood Risk Zone 3b could be moved from the amber section to red. PO B How/ when will you demonstrate the 5 year supply of deliverable sites? RM The Interim Planning Position Statements, recently out for consultation, showed that the supply could be met through lifting the Greenfield Moratorium. Jumped the gun in terms of identifying the 5 year supply due to pressure now to demonstrate sufficient land is available. It has been proposed through the Modifications that LPAs need only demonstrate a 10 year, instead of the 15 year, supply of land i.e. from RM - Housing Sites map tabled. In terms of the scope of the site search it is proposed to look at the Main Urban Area, Principal Towns, Potential Growth Towns, Renewal Towns & Conservation Towns. Have been receiving representations for over 2 now and will continue to do so through the Allocations & Detailed Policies Issues & Options stage currently out for consultation. Is there any merit in searching for additional sites other than those put forward to the LDF? HF Would be some merit for identifying extra sites around the settlements higher up the hierarchy. RM Will send out updated map with housing reps put forward so far in advance of the next meeting for people to identify any potentially good sites which have not been subject of a representation to date. MW - Distributed Doncaster SHLAA Next Steps handout for comments. RM The table so far only really addresses the negative site constraints so maybe some merit in flagging up positives or site strengths? LW A column in relation to any current applications submitted on the site would be a good indicator as to its likeliness of deliverability. Need to be careful when discounting sites, ensure every site has been considered and ensure a robust evidence base with criteria for why a site has been excluded. There needs to be a starting point so LDF representations seem sensible for now. PO B Why does Doncaster need a different methodology to Sheffield & Rotherham? 76

77 RM Sheffield & Rotherham are proposing not to include Green Belt sites. LW SHLAA must be flexible and easily updatable in order to accommodate any significant changes through an early review of the RSS in relation to settlement hierarchy & constraining development in rural areas. MW Can review as part of the Annual Monitoring Report. A complete review not needed until reviewing Allocations & Detailed Policies document or if the LPA can not demonstrate a 5 year supply. RM Still seeking clarification as to which are Doncaster s Principal Towns. HF an annual update seems sensible and changes made if and when necessary. LW Needs to say something in relation to types of housing needed and in which areas? RM Can we really say anything sensible in relation to housing need in 2021? HF necessarily that specific e.g. a small site in the Main Urban Area would be suitable for high density etc. PO B Capacity on Greenfield sites artificially created using estimated dwellings per hectare calculations. RM How will HBF members be involved? Happy for them to offer input but needs to be in a controlled way due to sensitivity of the issue. LW Has previously chaired meetings between HBF members to discuss sites on an individual basis and is happy to do the same for Doncaster. RM Would be very useful, particularly for sites that need infrastructure investment. HF & LW Developers could say what would be needed in the way of further infrastructure. ML Would support development located where existing infrastructure exists first before looking at other sites. LW There will come a point where additional infrastructure will have to be delivered in order to meet the wider political agenda regarding housing numbers delivered on the ground. RM Any comments on what information should be recorded in the SHLAA back to MW please. Additional information on sites will be available in January. PO B Will you be putting a capacity figure to each site? RM All we need is an estimate on land supply and ensure we have identified a sufficient supply. Net figures assume an average density of 40 dwellings/ hectare. Greenfield sites may well be developed at a lower figure but this is counter balanced by higher brownfield densities. HF Possible to have more specific densities than a figure for the Borough e.g. Sheffield Rotherham has categories/ types of site that are still general but more detailed than a Borough average. LW In relation to Para. 14 of the Practice Guidance and the core outputs of the SHLAA it is important to identify how and when site constraints could be overcome. Even if this involves an element of guess work it will be useful to engage dialogue with developers. 6. N STEPS 77

78 Table to be sent out and agreed Christmas/ early Send out list of sites and some form of the map showing representations received so far. 78

79 Appendix 7.6: Scope of Search Doncaster Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) e for House Builders Federation Meeting November 2007 The preparation of an SHLAA is a Government requirement. It will identify a list of probable and possible housing sites from which sufficient LDF allocations will be derived to meet the plan period housing requirement and an immediate 5-year supply of deliverable sites. Scope of search It is accepted that the new housing requirement will require new LDF housing allocations to be drawn from land currently designated as Countryside Policy Area (CPA) and possibly (subject to demonstrating very special circumstances) green belt. However LDF allocations will need to conform to the RSS and therefore it is proposed that some categories of land be excluded at this stage in the interests of avoiding unnecessary work, delay, unrealistic expectations and undue concern. It is anticipated that the supply of possible sites will still be far greater than the emerging housing requirement. It is proposed to include the following sites in the SHLAA: 1. Unimplemented Permissions (from DMBC RLA Report 2007) 2. Unimplemented UDP Allocations (from DMBC RLA Report 2007) 3. Unimplemented Urban Potential Study Sites (from DMBC Urban Potential Study 2004) And, subject to suitability assessment and under the heading Possible Housing Sites : 4. New Urban Potential * Sites including those which have been the subject of representations to the UPS or LDF (including sites currently designated for employment uses) 5. LDF representations in respect of sites attached to towns in the emerging settlement hierarchy And, possibly subject to agreement of stakeholder group: 6. Additional sites attached to the towns at the top of the emerging settlement hierarchy to be identified through survey * Urban Potential sites are defined as sites surrounded on all sides by development es: 1-3 above are straightforward and can be assembled as a desk exercise from existing data sets 4 is relatively straightforward but suitability needs to be established through site visit and desk-based exercises. In many cases this has been done. New examples are likely to emerge as the exercise progresses. Includes increased capacity in housing renewal schemes. Some employment sites may need to be retained for employment purposes; this will be established through the LDF process. 5 is more complex. CPA and Green Belt designation will not be a barrier to the inclusion of sites in the SHLAA at this stage. However given the advanced stage of

80 the RSS (and its urban centric core approach) with which the LDF needs to be in conformity there is little merit in exploring the housing potential of sites attached to villages or detached sites. Sites attached to the towns below the level of Principal Towns and Potential Growth Towns are (beyond relatively small scale to address local needs) also unlikely to be in conformity with the RSS and therefore need careful consideration by the Stakeholder Group. The list of Principal Towns/Potential Growth Towns could also change as the RSS/LDF progress. 6. It is proposed to search for such additional sites (i.e. ones which are not the subject of representations) only if the Stakeholder Group agrees to this and then to confine the search to the Main Urban Area and the Principal Towns. It should be noted that the Council will still be receptive to representations for new sites until the end of the consultation on the Allocations Options DPD (January 2008) and that any new representations received in respect of sites around the towns will be included in the SHLAA. The above is summarised in the Table below: Land Category Proposed Settlement Search** Possible additional Search** Permissions All N/A UDP Allocations All N/A Urban potential sites All N/A LDF Representations for Town extensions including land in green belt and countryside policy area Search for additional possible Town extensions including land in green belt and countryside policy area Main Urban Area Principal Towns Potential Growth Towns None Renewal Towns Conservation Towns Main Urban Area Principal Towns Village extensions & Detached sites None N/A **Please note that the terms used in these two columns are from the emerging Doncaster Core Strategy settlement hierarchy It is proposed that sites with absolute constraints be excluded from the Study although it is not proposed that sites in flood zones 2&3 should be excluded; such designations will affect their suitability or timing as allocations. Suitability classification Suggestion - traffic light system where green = deliverable (available, suitable, achievable) red = unlikely to be an LDF allocation (significant constraints in terns of deliverability in plan amber = everything else Stakeholder Group possible membership (meetings and/or s) HBF Transform South Yorkshire Yorkshire and Humber Assembly Adjoining LAs Rotherham, Barnsley and Sheffield CPRE 80

81 Environment Agency Natural England South Yorkshire Housing Association Forum SYPTE Government Office for Yorkshire and Humber Timescales Key dates for Allocations and Detailed Policies DPD: Issues & Options Consultation 3 rd December th January 2008 Preferred Options September 2008 Possible work programme: Planning the assessment Scoping consultation Determining sources of sites Desktop review Determining sites/areas to be surveyed Carry out survey Estimating housing potential Assessing deliverability/developability Review of assessment Agreement of HLAA NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR Materials Borough-wide plan of sites SWOT Sheet for each site with plan & photos List of all sites with ref no., size, source (planning status), suitability, availability and achievability 81

82 Appendix 7.7: SYPTE LUTI Methodology & Headline Findings. The following is an extract of the SYPTE s LUTI methodology with some additional DMBC commentary as indicated by the text in italics. Introduction SYPTE have been asked by DMBC to carry out a public transport analysis on the latest version of the 2011 SHLAA potential housing sites. DMBC intend to review this analysis as part of a wider forward planning and modelling process for transport as part of the LDF Allocations DPD. SYPTE perceive public transport accessibility to housing sites as an integral contributor and opportunity to reduce the individuals need to use the private car for their everyday journeys (to the shop, to work etc.). By ensuring that people have access to sustainable forms of transport, it can therefore have a significant impact on reducing congestion, improve local air quality and increase public transport patronage. By locating housing sites near the public transport network, this will help influence sustainable travel behaviour by providing residents with an opportunity to use public transport as a realistic mode of transport. It was agreed between officers that the method of analysis to measure public transport accessibility would be based on the approach used for SYPTE s South Yorkshire Land Use and Transportation Integration (LUTI) project. This approach has previously been applied to assess public transport accessibility for SHLAA s and Employment Land Reviews (ELRs) across all the South Yorkshire Districts, therefore maintaining a common approach across the sub region. The process has also been recognised by South Yorkshire Leader s as a suitable method to influence land allocation and transport integration. DMBC - LUTI will then be considered in conjunction with local and strategic network assessment through the Allocations DPD. This work will take into account a full transport appraisal and identify measures to meet local and national requirements. This will be supported by a Transport SPD where the public transport chapter will indentify standards for new development sites. There are five stages of LUTI. The following analysis takes us through the first three stages of that process where stages 4 and 5 will be activities we pursue through the future Allocations DPD. The five stages are: 1. Data Capture defining the core network, housing and employment representations. 2. Data Interpretations interpret the data for the transport and land availability. 3. Accessing Growth - this takes the output from stage 2 and compares against growth to give each allocation a score of Red Amber or Green in the SHLAA. 4. Intervention - this section looks at the site assessments for SHLAA as a whole and reviews what sites are most appropriate to take forward based on a number of criteria e.g. flood risk, Green belt, settlement hierarchy and transport. Where a site is desirable against the other criteria we will look towards transport interventions which will turn the sites to a green rating. 5. Funding - those interventions will be costed and a masterplanning exercise to attribute the costs each development should pay towards such interventions will be defined.

83 Currently LUTI does not account for a viability assessment when comparing the cost of interventions to the potential site values. We may undertake this as an exercise through the wider master planning works. Methodology SYPTE welcomes development sites that are located on the existing public transport network as this makes efficient use of current resources. By allocating sites in these locations, a proactive approach to sustainable travel behaviour is being applied as public transport options are available to the site before development of the site has begun. DMBC - However it is understood that, for other land use planning considerations and for the commerciality of sites, this is not always possible. Therefore LUTI provides for an approach to work with the Local Planning Authority to deliver projects to ensure that where a site is not located in the CPTN the project can be implemented through the planning process to raise the level of accessibility. This is stages four and five of the LUTI process. LUTI Core Model Overview In order to score each site on its access to public transport, a red amber green assessment is carried out to help prioritise each site. This takes two different forms. The first aspect is the scoring on a strategic level whereby direct as the crow flies distances and buffers are applied. This quickly assesses the potential of a site and its proximity to the Core Public Transport Network (CPTN). The second assessment is a more local based score where by actual walking distances are applied. This level of analysis will help identify the local issues of transport integration and provide further analysis on the sites accessibility. The benefit of this level of detail is the localised severance is taken into consideration (i.e impact of rivers and the road network and the site access). When both versions of the assessments are complete, a combined score is created that takes into account both assessments. The combined score is the recommendation that SYPTE will use as the definitive red, amber, green score for the site. DMBC - Like with any modelling process there are limitations in some use of the data, for example as the process identifies; all large sites will automatically score red because their size means they will naturally be further than 400m from the CPTN. Stages Four and Five are the key elements of LUTI because they reflect a policy on scenario for the LDF and reflect what will happen at these sites as we apply the LDF policies. Public Transport Network All the sites are tested against the CPTN as defined by the SCR Transport Strategy. This includes the medium and high frequency bus corridors (6+ buses per hours) and the Railway Network. The CPTN has been used as this provides what is deemed to be an attractive public transport service and therefore focuses development in the areas where we can best utilise existing resources. Once the CPTN is mapped, a walking distances buffer is applied to the access points (railway station, medium and high frequency bus corridors) to create a catchment 83

84 area buffer. Institute of Highways and Transport (IHT) Guidance on walking distances to access public transport from new developments states that an individual is likely to walk 400m to access to a bus service and 800m to access a railway station. From the information above, the Department for Transport Accession software recommends that an accessibility value of 1.2 is applied to each walk distance to estimate a straight line walk distance factor. The walk factor is used because in many cases it is not possible for an individual to walk as the crow flies and diversions off a straight line are inevitable (see table 1). Table 1: Straight Line Walking Distance Factor IHT walking distance recommendation Straight line walking distance Walking distance to be applied to LUTI buffer Bus 400m m Rail 800m m Figure 1: Bus Corridor Walking Distance and Buffer Figure 1 shows the method used to measure the catchment area from the medium and high frequency bus network. The 333m walking distance is applied to the whole corridor not just the access points (bus stops). This is because theoretically a new bus can easily be constructed along any part and the network. However, the actual walking distance is applied to the existing stops. Upon classification for the combined score, SYPTE assume bus stops can be placed anywhere on the bus corridor to produce a more optimistic result. Figure 2: Railway Station Walking Distance and Buffer 84

85 Figure 2 shows the access to railways stations. A radius of 666m is applied around the station to emphasise its immediate catchment. The process does not include the likely catchment of multi modal journeys, therefore not counting the likely impact of people using the station as a park and ride facility. Core Model Site Classification (scoring) Each site has been given a centre point to which the calculated walking distance to the CPTN will be measured from. The centre point (centroid) is the exact centre of the site in order to reflect the majority site coverage. If any part of the site was used, this could be misrepresentative of the actual situation as a large site with a small proportion within the buffer may come out green or amber when in reality it would score red. The site classification process uses an allocations proximity to the CPTN as a scoring mechanism. The scores are ranged on a red amber green assessment reflective of the sites performance. As displayed in Figure 3 below, each site has been scored with a red, amber, green classification based on its access to the core network. The site marked manually changed with the purple ring around it shows where the combined score has been used. The as the crow flies catchment clearly shows that the site is within access of the CPTN. However, when the actual walking distance is applied, it shows that the train tracks provides a barrier which means that you can t access the site within the advised walking distance. This has therefore been given a red as access to the site (without intervention of a bridge over the train tracks) means the site is inaccessible. 85

86 Figure 3: Red Amber Green (RAG) Assessment Red The characteristics of a red site are that the site simply doesn t fall within the buffer of the CPTN. This means that development on this site is not desirable as the site has limited access to public transport as it is outside of the specified walking catchment area. However, SYPTE do not discourage development on these sites, it just highlights that land use or level intervention matches the requirement. SYPTE recognise that red provide an opportunity to unlock areas. Where there are a cluster of red sites, we would like to be involved in a masterplanning exercise to identify the best way to provide public transport options. It must also be noted that large sites will automatically be classed as red due to the distance away from the CPTN, even if the site is located along the CPTN. These sites will require discussion with SYPTE and transport providers to discuss the possibility of the amending existing services/routes. DMBC - It is acknowledged that the LUTI stages shown are not the full picture for the sites and the key mechanism will be stages 4 and 5 as described earlier. In addition there are the noted limitations that LUTI will automatically score a large site as red even if it is on the CPTN. Amber Amber sites are sites that are bridged over the CPTN buffer or have their centroid just outside of the walking threshold. These sites reflect the need that transport interventions need to be considered as the site has a degree of restriction to public transport use. Travel planning and direct walking distances with sympathetic site design to ensure that public transport is available. Green 86

87 Green sites are the those that fall completely within the CPTN buffer. In general, these sites require minimal (if any) public transport intervention. However, if there are deemed to be capacity restrictions, an intervention will need to be considered. Accessibility Analysis (Scoring) SYPTE recognise that there are other important public transport factors that need to be applied. In some instances, sites classed as red should not necessarily be discounted without further investigation. The Accessibility Analysis provides DMBC with an opportunity to see which key services people can access from the site within a given time threshold (at predetermined time of 7:00 am to 10:00am, Tuesday morning). The accessibility contours used to carry out the analysis has been created using the Accession modelling software. We have taken guidance from the annex technical guidance on accessibility planning for local transport plans produced by the Department for Transport to aid Local Authorities devise accessibility criteria for the Local Transport Plan. When the accessibility contour has been produced by accession, SYPTE perform a selection by location query within GIS to identify if the site is within the catchment of the amenity. The sites are scored with a 0 (not within the catchment), 0.5 (site boundary within the catchment) and 1 (site centroid within the catchment). The scores are tabulated in preparation for DMBC to provide a weighting (if required). Amenities and Accessibility Thresholds (distances) The tested amenities are as follows; Hospital is the site within a 60 minute public transport journey time from a hospital with A&E services Primary School is the site within a 30 minute public transport journey time from a primary school Secondary School is the site within a 40 minute public transport journey time from a State Broad Range Secondary School Local Centre is the site within a 30 minute public transport journey time from a Local Centre (defined by DMBC s UDP) Lower Public Transport Threshold is the site within a 333m straight line walking distance from a bus stop with 4 or more buses per hour. The guidance note with the recommended amenities and thresholds can be found here; ssibility/guidance/gap/nicalguidanceonaccessibi3641.pdf 87

88 Results Table 2: Outcome of Analysis Total Green Sites 64 Total Amber Sites Total Red Sites DMBC - The score does not necessarily indicate what sites will be supported through the Allocations DPD. Whilst the public transport scoring is useful the following needs to be considered: The LUTI scores do not reflect a policy on scenario for transport i.e. how will a site score after the interventions identified in the LDF Core Strategy transport policy are applied, which will turn some sites from red to green for LUTI purposes. The LUTI scoring does not take account of future transport master planning work that will be undertaken as part of the Allocations DPD. The LUTI scoring does not take account of other policy on and policy off consideration for other planning criteria i.e. is a green site for transport in the Green Belt. The role of LUTI in stages 1-3 is to demonstrate a baseline position for transport, but it in no way highlights LDF housing allocations. LUTI will be used as one of many site sustainability considerations and wider transport modelling to determine interventions for sites where the sites are deliverable and in the context of other policy considerations. 88

89 Appendix 7.8: Additional Sites Search Exercise SHLAA Additional Site Search Exercise - Unidentified Sustainable Extensions February Aim To identify any potentially sustainable extension sites that have not been subject to a LDF housing representation to date or sites previously identified such as unimplemented UDP allocations. 2.0 Reason National guidance for producing SHLAAs stipulates that the assessment needs to examine all potentially sustainable sites for housing in the authority area. It was agreed by the stakeholder group that for this exercise it is appropriate and sufficient to search for additional extension sites around the Doncaster Main Urban Area and 6 Principal Towns only to reflect RSS and emerging LDF settlement strategy. 3.0 Methodology Initially a desk based sieve mapping exercise was employed using GIS layers to identify any potential constraints to development or existing alternative/ inappropriate land uses. Existing UDP layers, LDF housing site representations, the Doncaster Landscape Capacity Study findings and physical constraints such as railways and rivers etc, were all combined to form the basis of each map. At this early stage in the search it was considered inappropriate to knock-out Green Belt sites given that settlement extensions in the west of the Borough would in most cases require Green Belt. Similarly, it was not considered appropriate to dismiss sites purely on their Flood Risk status at this point of the exercise. As such, neither will be used to dismiss potential sites as factors alone but will obviously form part of the discussion due to the importance of such constraints. Large scale maps of constraints were produced for the 6 Principal Towns of Adwick, Armthorpe, Askern, Conisbrough, Mexborough and Thorne. The Doncaster Main Urban Area was split into quarters for ease of identifying potentially sustainable sites. A brief discussion follows of the findings from each settlement and any potentially sustainable extension sites that appear to be relatively unconstrained and in need of further investigation through a site visit. 4.0 Findings 4.1 Doncaster Main Urban Area North East Quarter - Countryside Policy Area surrounds the settlements of Intake, Wheatley, Kirk Sandall and Edenthorpe. Land to the west has a low to no landscape capacity for housing, whereas the north, east and south has a moderate capacity. The residential areas are tightly bounded along their northern edge by long established employment sites (a small amount of which are the subject of reps) and beyond that the River and Canal. Much of the

90 land along the north of Kirk Sandall and Wheatley is within Flood Risk Zone 3 area, possibly 3b but awaiting results of SFRA, or is constrained by employment sites from further residential expansion. Armthorpe Lane & Hatfield Lane forms a logical and defensible boundary to the search area east of Kirk Sandall/ Edenthorpe. Any expansion to the north east of this quarter of the Main Urban Area would merge Kirk Sandall with Barnby Dun, although there may be scope for further investigation into the land that runs east up to Armthorpe Lane. Any potential expansion sites to Edenthorpe are already subject to large LDF housing representations. Expansion to the east of Intake is constrained by Sandall Beat Wood/ nature reserve and Wheatley Golf Course. North West Quarter Green Belt surrounds this quarter of the Main Urban Area and the landscape capacity study has identified the surrounding land as having low to no landscape capacity for housing. A large proportion of Bentley and Scawthorpe are identified as being in Flood Risk Zone 3 area; much of the land east of Bentley is possibly 3b area (wash land/ functional flood plain). Land west of Scawsby has, largely, already been subject to representations for potential LDF housing sites, or make up playing fields for Ridgewood Comprehensive School. Land to the east of Bentley and adjacent to the railway line (north east of rep 487 & east of rep 10) would appear to be worth further investigation but the SFRA may well confirm this area as being within Flood Risk Zone 3b area. A sewage works further constrains some of the land south of rep 87. Land adjacent to the River Don and the railway line (north of Bombardier rep) forms an attractive green wedge and maybe within Flood Risk Zone 3b area, dependent on SFRA results, also access could potentially be a constraint. South East Quarter - Countryside Policy Area surrounds the settlements of Cantley and the majority of Bessacarr with some Green Belt to the south west. Land to the north and east has a moderate landscape capacity for housing whilst the south has low to no landscape capacity. This quarter of the Main Urban Area is relatively unconstrained by Flood Risk. Doncaster Common & Sandall Beat constrains any further expansion to the north east and Potteric Carr nature reserve to the south west. Woodland and important open spaces, including Cantley Park and Cantley Hall, would render unacceptable expansion along most of the Cantley settlement edge. A potentially sustainable triangular extension site contained by the M18 Motorway/ Warning Tongue Lane/ Doncaster Road has partly been subject to a representation but the strip adjacent to Warning Tongue Lane may be worth further investigation as it is this section of land that adjoins the settlement. South West Quarter - The south west quarter of the Main Urban Area is surrounded by Green Belt and the land beyond the urban edge is identified as having low to no landscape capacity for housing. The River Don runs to the north of Warmsworth/ west of Hexthorpe and land adjacent is within Flood Risk Zone 3 area. The A1 (M) motorway forms a strong boundary for the south west main urban area edge at present, Warmsworth notwithstanding. Developing the land beyond the motorway would reduce the gap between the Main Urban Area and the settlement of Edlington. 4.2 Adwick 90

91 Adwick s settlement boundary is constrained by Green Belt on all sides and the land surrounding the settlement is identified as having low to no landscape capacity for housing. In terms of settlement edges, the northeastern edge has a moderate landscape capacity to absorb housing development whereas the south western edge has low to no capacity. The majority of the land along the north east settlement edge is within Flood Risk Zone 3 area. The B1220 road forms a compact boundary for the north eastern settlement edge at present whilst the southern and western edge is constrained via woodland/ open space policy area/ conservation area etc with a large employment site adjacent to the north east. Representations for extensions to the settlement have already been made (land off Red House Lane and Brodsworth Quarry). Possible justification for the A1(M) being a logical boundary for the settlement to the west, this being the case then land between the settlement edge and Motorway (in-between the Colliery & Quarry reps) would be looked at but this includes open space proposal/ Brodsworth Colliery reclamation site owned by The Land Regeneration Trust and managed by the Forestry Commission. 4.3 Armthorpe The settlement is contained by Countryside Policy Area; the whole of Armthorpe is surrounded by land that has been identified as having a moderate landscape capacity for housing. The northern and eastern settlement edges have a moderate landscape capacity for housing whereas the southern edge has low to no capacity. The potential southern and western extensions to the settlement are already identified through housing representations to the LDF, as is most of the land to the north, although Shaw Wood is a physical constraint for the north eastern edge. The extension sites to the west of Armthorpe have already been subject to employment representations for an extension to West Moor Park. Although part of the site at the Lings, off West Moor Link Road, is already a mixed use representation the remainder of the site maybe worth further investigation/ reasoning for residential as oppose to employment uses. 4.4 Askern The settlement of Askern has a tight settlement boundary and is constrained on all sides by Green Belt. The Landscape capacity study identifies all the land around Askern as having low to no capacity for housing, however, the northern settlement edge is identified to have a moderate landscape capacity for housing whereas the southern edge is low to no capacity for housing development. Numerous housing representations for Askern have already been submitted. Several Green Belt extension sites have already been submitted as housing site representations; many that have not been subject to a representation are currently constrained as there is relatively poor access due to the existing housing development. The most obvious site would be the land east of the Saw Mills and adjacent to the railway line, but this is Green Belt, in Flood Zone 2 and is proposed as part of the open space provision for the redeveloped Saw Mills site. The 2 employment sites that form the settlement 91

92 limits to the north of Askern, adjacent to either side of the A19, would be potentially sustainable extension sites but further information would be required as to there future use as important employment land for Askern. In conclusion, it is not proposed to undertake any additional site visits in Askern unless there is any indication that the 2 employment sites to the north of the settlement are potentially surplus. 4.5 Conisbrough The settlement is contained by Green Belt on all sides and the Borough boundary to the west; in addition the River Don forms a physical constraint along the north of the settlement, as does the railway line. Much of the land adjacent to the River Don is not surprisingly located in Flood Risk Zone 3 area. Conisbrough is surrounded by land identified as having a low to no landscape capacity for housing; the eastern settlement edge has a moderate capacity for housing whilst the southern and western edges have low to no landscape capacity for housing. The green wedge that makes up the Green Belt land between the settlement and Denaby is mainly recreational/ school playing fields whilst the remainder is inaccessible due to existing housing development. Land adjacent to the south of Station Road and north of Green Lane is part of the Conisbrough Crags open space policy area that includes a SSI, and part of the site has geological interest. The A630 road forms a strong and logical boundary for the south of the settlement. In conclusion, the most obvious potentially sustainable extension site worthy or further investigation is the land adjacent to the Drake Head Lane representation (LDF Ref 116). 4.6 Mexborough Mexborough is surrounded by Green Belt and the south eastern edge forms the Borough boundary. The settlement s expansion is constrained to the south due to the River Don and railway line; the land adjacent to the River is within Flood Risk Zone 3 area. The land to the north of Mexborough has been identified as having moderate landscape capacity for housing, as has the settlement edge. The land immediately south of the settlement has a low to no landscape capacity for housing. The vast majority of potentially sustainable extensions to the east of Mexborough have been subject to LDF representations (sewage works & adjacent land/ Pastures Rd & Former Power Station sites amongst others). The land south of the Clayfield Lane Reps (45 & 435) would be an obvious potentially sustainable site (urban potential) but has physical constraints as the site was formerly used for tipping and as such the ground is thought to be unstable. One of the potentially most sustainable extension sites (land east of Adwick Rd/ opposite Arnold Crescent) is currently designated as open space policy area and includes statutory allotments, ruling out further investigation. Open space policy area west of the settlement & adjacent fields would need further info from Green Space Strategy on levels of future need or surplus open space. 4.7 Thorne 92

93 The settlement is contained by Countryside Policy Area. The vast majority of the existing Residential Policy Area is bordered by the railway track which splits into two lines at the south-west of Thorne; one line runs along the south of the settlement and the second runs along the western edge. Beyond the western edge railway line are several large employment sites which are contained by the M18 Motorway. The overwhelming majority of the settlement is within Flood Risk Zone 3 area. Land to the south west has been identified as having moderate capacity for housing development although the settlement edge has low to no landscape capacity. The land north, east and south of Thorne has a low to no landscape capacity for housing but the settlement edge has a moderate capacity. Any expansion to the north would further merge the settlement of Thorne with Moorends, such sites have by in large already been subject to a representation anyway. The south western corner of the settlement is constrained by expansion due to the golf course and railway line. Similarly the eastern edge has either already been identified through a LDF representation, or is part of the Coulman Rd employment site. There is perhaps scope to look at land at South Common and beyond Lockwood Close as part of the land has already got a representation on it and Moor Edges Road forms a reasonable boundary beyond the existing settlement edge. The small parcel of land to the east of the Kirton Rd LDF representation, adjacent to the railway line, may be worth some further investigation but access may be a problem due to existing residential development. 5.0 Potentially Sustainable Sites for Further Investigation Doncaster Main Urban Area Triangular extension site contained by M18/ Doncaster Rd/ Warning Tongue Lane, existing rep but land adjacent to settlement would be worth looking at. Land east of Kirk Sandall, up to Armthorpe Lane, but overhead power lines known to be on site that possibly constrain development. Adwick None proposed Armthorpe None proposed Askern None proposed Conisbrough - Land adjacent to the Drake Head Lane representation (ref 116) already received. Mexborough - Open space policy area west of the settlement & adjacent fields would need further info from Green Space Strategy on levels of future need or surplus open space. Thorne - Land at South Common and beyond Lockwood Close, up to Moor Edges Road and north of rep 190. The small parcel of land to the east of the Kirton Rd rep & adjacent to the railway line. 6.0 Site Survey Findings 93

94 Doncaster Main Urban Area Triangular extension site contained by M18/ Doncaster Rd/ Warning Tongue Lane. Site includes well used school playing fields to the north, and to the south a pleasant grassed field with an open countryside feel as hedgerows/ small trees and a slightly sloping topography screen the M18 motorway beyond. See appendix 8.1 for a site location plan. Land east of Kirk Sandall, up to Armthorpe Lane. As suspected the site contains large 400Kv power lines that run north to south, along with smaller 66Kv lines on the western part of the site. At present the land is well used high grade agricultural land. As such, it is not considered appropriate to put forward this site as part of the SHLAA. Conisbrough Land adjacent to the Drake Head Lane representation (ref 116). The site has a very pleasant rural/ open countryside appearance and is currently slightly sloping grassed over agricultural land. Access is potentially a constraint for the site as just a narrow gap between 2 residential properties off Drake Head Lane at present. See appendix 8.2 for a site location plan. Mexborough Open space policy area west of the settlement & adjacent fields. Most of the site contains pleasant agricultural fields that give a rural impression/ outlook to the settlement although the Manvers site is clearly visible beyond these fields. The southern part of the site includes some children s play equipment and small skate/ bike park that appear to be well used. Some mature trees screen the southern edge of the site from Wath Road (A6023). See appendix 8.3 for a site location plan. Thorne Land at South Common and beyond Lockwood Close, up to Moor Edges Road and north of rep 190. Well used school playing fields are on the west of the site that adjoins the settlement edge. The rest of the site contains agricultural land/ grassed fields that have a very rural/ open countryside outlook as Moor Edges Road (that bounds these fields) is only narrow and has just a few farms/ agricultural buildings located off it. See appendix 8.4 for a site location plan. Land to the east of the triangular Kirton Rd rep (191). Site adjacent to the railway line and heavily covered with young, but well maintained, tree planting scheme (possibly intended to act as a buffer between existing housing and the railway line once the trees reach maturity?). It is not proposed to pursue this site any further as part of the SHLAA. 7.0 Sources of Constraint Information Doncaster Unitary Development Plan (1998) Doncaster Landscape Capacity Study (2006) Environment Agency Flood Zone Maps 94

95 8.0 Appendices Location Plans for Sites to be Included in SHLAA 8.1 Land East of Warning Tongue Lane, Bessacarr 8.2 Land Adjacent to Drake Head Lane, Conisbrough 95

96 8.3 Land West of Settlement, Mexborough 8.4 Land at South Common, Thorne 96