APPENDIX 1: This table sets out more detail of the actual ......level of responses were received and summarises issues raised collectively whereas the below documents each representations

APPENDIX 1: This table sets out more detail of the actual comments that have been summarised in the 2018 Consultation Summary document for housing and employment sites. The Consultation Summary main section primarily looks as the sites where the highest level of responses were received and summarises issues raised collectively whereas the below documents each representations points in greater detail

Housing Sites Comments

Representation Reference Number

Representation Name

Representation Summary

03170 Elizabeth and Ray Johnson

Site 234: Greenbelt. Bemused and dismayed that others surrounding it have been rejected. Other sites are Brown belt. Spoil and destroy Roman Ridge. Over development where there's little open space. Educational and medical needs for such residents.

03040 Harry Tovey Site 115: object due to increase in traffic, sewers cannot cope, access between Alverley Lane and Tickhill Road is unsuitable and promised improvements to footpaths / chicanes here never materialised, tankers and heavy lorries causing problems here.

03162 P Lowis 115: objects due to: traffic issues (speeding; notes police concern about volume of traffic); access / traffic problems at Alverley / Tickhill Rd junction, traffic queues, lorries using it; parked cars; cumulative impact w/land at Springwell Ln; wildlife

03176 Jeremy Steel 234: object: change area character; aid decline of town centre; adverse environmentally; more flood risk; impact facilities; affect resident safety; merge settlements; less chance of brownfield being developed; traffic on York Rd; schools; low demand here

01387 Cllr Bill Mordue

234: previously rejected; last remaining farmland here; Green Belt - no exceptional circumstances; nearby sites approved not built; impact on scheduled ancient monument; amenities; schools; road impact; drainage capacity issues (A638 surface water already)

03038 Phil and Linda Foster

115 object: character impact; green belt; railway pleasant walk; wildlife/env impact; flood risk; noise pollution (ground and reflective); light pollution; already impacted by M18 (noise of 35.5m+ vehicles p/a);

03180 Paul & Karen Leighton

234 object: Green Belt over Brownfield; should prioritise BF, then vacant buildings (could revitalise town centre); impact on Roman Ridge/site archaeology; wildlife; traffic/safety; impact on amenities (school, GP, shops)

03247 Darrin Hoggarth

234: contrary to 5 GB purposes-will create sprawl, merging, restrict views of Roman Ridge, not encouraging BF; FZ sites should be considered instead - 257, 438, 439; agricultural loss; archaeology, traffic; schools; lots of empty properties available

03067 Mr Joseph Blackham

Missing sites in Flood Zone 3 which are specified for development in NDP. Do not agree with the boundary of sites. FRA is provided which is acceptable to EA.

03798 David and Gillian Dear

Site 115: Object. Current infrastructure does not support 150 extra new homes. Traffic. Speed and lack of access. Drainage issues. Ecological Impacts. Sustainability of local resources.

04507 Mr Paul Gunn 147 - objects to proposed site. Loss of Green Belt;

0737 Bawtry Town Council

499 - supports proposed allocation of this site. 141 - objects to proposed allocation of this site. Should look to use non-Green Belt sites.

04098 Mrs Susan Mosley

165/186 - objects to proposed allocation of these sites. Loss of Green Belt and would result in urban sprawl with no demonstration of exceptional circumstances; would lead to amenity issues with existing houses and affect the character of the area; Local schools and GP are already at capacity; roads are also congested and proximity of new housing to A1(M) will create air quality issues; site should be rejected on surface water flooding grounds; potential for archaeology.

04508 Julie Elsom 147 - objects to proposed allocation. Loss of greenfield land and would change the area and the reasons why I brought a house here; no local school capacity.

04509 Peter Eley 040 - objects to proposed allocation. Conisbrough was once a small village but now a large town; loss of high grade agricultural land; should develop unused urban sites instead and bring back empty properties; infrastructure cannot cope with more housing (schools, GPs, dentists and Police).

04510 Catherine Jones

147 - objects to proposed allocation. Loss of views and devaluation of current housing around the site; Infrastructure cannot cope with further development, especially the schools; the village should remain the same size as it is at present and more houses will ruin the village feel and people will not want to live here.

04511 Mr Thomas Parkin

147 - Objects to proposed allocation. No more housing can be supported without investment in roads and easing congestion at the railway bridge; need to increase capacity of schools; need to consider loss of wildlife.

04512 Jill Smith 147 - Objects to proposed allocation. The villages roads are already congested and problems with parking and safety; Schools and GP are at capacity; informed the land is Green Belt when we purchased our property and that it cannot be developed; will result in a loss of my views.

04513 Mr Samuel Foster

General - too many GF sites proposed and undermines regeneration objectives and insufficient school/GP capacity; 147 - Objects to proposed allocation. Conflicts with objective 4 of using BF sites; the site provides open access for wildlife and to the open countryside for people in the village; roads are congested and the site is part of the flood plain and its development will increase flood risk elsewhere; will remove community values and increase the population by 10% and decrease existing property values. There are problems with ASB in the village and this is likely to get worse with more houses.

04514 Andrew Croskell

115 - object: Alverley Lane busy with traffic calming measures, junction to Tickhill Rd busy and often has tailbacks; land used for farming and home to wildlife

04515 Julie Fearn Site 040 - object - infrastructure, schools, gp will not cope with extra people .Oppose to social housing in this location.

04516 Dan Gillon Site 1013 - site no different to other Auckley sites - should be rejected for reasons other sites are in the area (don't need additional land) and should be rejected as nothing more to consider given this fact. Auckley already has a lot of housing in comparison to what it needs.

04517 Daniel Meekin 147 object: Barnby Dun is a peaceful village which is the opposite of Edenthorpe, this would change; want children to grow up in unpolluted green areas; home has privacy Barnby Dun is safe and had low crime / ASB issues; loss of views; 108 should be the preferred site and would have less impact on houses; access to 147not considered - safety and pollution; 147 more impactful than other sites in area; wildlife not considered; brownfield should be preferred over greenfield; why does Barnby Dun have housing requirement?; schools and doctors already at capacity here and in surrounding areas; will be up to 200 new cars = congestion - already busy in Edenthorpe / Kirk Sandall; issues with consultation - notices poor and lacking in number; loss of property value

03163 Christopher Dorlin

Site 115 - objects due to impacts on wildlife, increased traffic, parking, sewer problems, flooding, schools, doctors. We need farming land.

04518 Ron Shentall Not specified - use brownfield land and not green belt

04519 Chloe Meekin 147 object. Barnby Dun is a peaceful village which is the opposite of Edenthorpe, this would change; want children to grow up in unpolluted green areas; home has privacy Barnby Dun is safe and had low crime / ASB issues; loss of views; 108 should be the preferred site and would have less impact on houses; access to 147not considered - safety and pollution; 147 more impactful than other sites in area; wildlife not considered; brownfield should be preferred over greenfield; why does Barnby Dun have housing requirement?; schools and doctors already at capacity here and in surrounding areas; will be up to 200 new cars = congestion - already busy in Edenthorpe / Kirk Sandall; issues with consultation - notices poor and lacking in number; loss of property value development.

03817 Brenda Grimes

Sites 165/186: Increased traffic through Burghwallis. Speed/safety. Few years ago talk of closing off Green Lane and Scorcher Hills Lane by Highway Agency which will lead to more traffic locally. Not enough capacity at doctors, shops and services

03840 Ian Stimpson Site 141: Loss of amenity. Increased traffic volume generated by the site. Increased pressure on Tickhill Road junction. Great density than rest of area not in keeping. Drainage issues. Loss of buffer to Notts CC.

03979 Mr Wakefield Site 115: Pollution. Dangerous speeding drivers. Impassable footpath due to amount of parked cars. Green Belt.

03177 Linda Bent Site 234 - objects to proposed allocation. Loss of Green Belt; loss of current open outlook; and, devaluation of property values.

01581 Brian Clayton Site 139 - Objects to proposed allocation. Traffic congestion, loss of views, fly tipping and litter problems, local facilities have no capacity, on street parking problems.

0620 Trevor Mills Site 015 - objects to site at Sykehouse not being proposed as an allocation.

03026 Timothy Watson

Site 040 - objects to proposed site allocation. Loss of views; lack of school capacity; concern if the development contains mainly social housing; and, devaluation of property values.

04522 Theresa O'Connor

115 - Alverley lane. Site objection. Concerned about the size of the proposal. It is on Greenbelt land. Access is very poor.

04523 Iris Smith 040 - Sheffield Rd/Old Rd Conisbrough - Object to site. Concerned about: Increased traffic Increased likelihood of traffic accidents schools capacity Impact on Local facilities - Doctors surgeries lack of mains sewerage Loss of open fields

04524 Maureen Jackson

040 - Sheffield Rd/Old Rd Conisbrough - Object to site. Concerned about: Increased traffic Increased likelihood of traffic accidents schools capacity Impact on Local facilities - Doctors surgeries lack of mains sewerage Loss of open fields

04525 Peter Wright 040 - Sheffield Rd/Old Rd Conisbrough - Object to site. Main concerns: Greenbelt land Impact on existing property values

Impact on school provision Impact on local facilities - Doctors/Dentist Conisbrough doesn’t need that may new houses.

04526 Michael Bird (1) and (2)

165 - land North of A1 ,Skellow - Object to site. Main concerns: Increased traffic and pollution Greenbelt site Its new estate not an 'extension' Impact on local roads Impact on health 186 - Crabgate lane, Skellow Object to site main concerns: Impact on local roads mental health impact on existing residents Greenbelt site

04527 Patricia Dickinson

929 - land North of Cadeby Road Sprotbrough Object to site:

Main concerns: Impact on already congested local roads. Loss of open fields Should use other BF sites first.

04528 Vince Chan 147 - land North of Hatfield lane Barnby Dun Object to site. Main Concerns: Increased pollution Existing property values Loss of open space for residents to use Loss of open landscape Will impact on too many existing households Impact of increased traffic on local roads Site 1007 is preferable.

04529 Leanne Mallory

929 - land North of Cadeby Road Sprotbrough Object to site: Main concerns: Access - access off Folder lane already difficult Junction improvements needed

04530 Don Gorge Community Group

929 - Land North of Cadeby Road Sprotbrough Object to site Main Concerns: Increased flood risk Greenbelt site Strain on current village infrastructure Roads - increased traffic on already problematic roads Parking problems pressure on school places Has doubts about the actual 'housing need' in Sprotbrough Rejected site 788 would be preferable

04531 David Lambe 147 - land North of Hatfield Lane Barnby Dun Object to site Main Concerns: Loss of 'Green Field' site Don’t want to be overlooked by new houses.

0497 Doncaster Golf Driving Range

125: wrong to reject this site on Flood Risk - have had work done on the site for a dwelling which showed that a level of 10.3 would qualify the site as FZ1 - this is the proposed level for the whole site and negates flood risk issues. Please reconsider decision not to allocate.

03568 Savills (on behalf of Sandbeck Estate)

356 Lindrick Lane. Land greenfield, in single ownership and tenancy on it can be terminated. Trees and hedgerows are not a constraint to development and a new junction can be designed to appropriate standards - including visibility splays and emergency access to Lindrick Lane. No site constraints - site not in flood zone, no impact on heritage assets, PROW to the south east would be retained, unlikely to be contaminated, no negative findings in the cola mining report. The site does not comply with the 5 Green Belt purposes i.e. does not prevent towns merging due to distance. The site can accommodate 154 homes needed, with amenity and green areas. Could allocated all or some of the site. Estate owns land to south and would welcome discussions to increase boundary if favoured by the council. Known home builder interest. Could deliver 150 houses at 75% developable area.


Site 357 - Wong Lane - single ownership and tenancy could be terminated. Trees and hedgerows could be incorporated into the site. Access could be plausible along the northern boundary. Land in flood zone 1. No heritage impacts or ancient monument. No restrictions to residential development. Minimal contamination risk. Site could deliver approx. 90 dwellings with amenity spaces.


358 - Limekiln Lane - single ownership, tenancy can be terminated. Trees and hedgerows can be accommodated in to the site. Access could be taken from Limekiln Lane, site in flood zone 1. No physical or technical constraints. Site Green Belt but does not comply with all 5 purposes - should be removed and could deliver 10 - 20 dwellings. The settlement boundary should be redefined in Stainton to include this site and Manor Farm. Site would comply with NPPF 78 (rural vitality).


359 - Manor Farm, Stainton. Adjacent to residential, single ownership and tenancy terminatable. Trees and hedgerows can be incorporated into the site. Access available from Spring Lane. Site in Flood Zone 1. No known physical or technical restrictions. Site does not comply with 5 Green Belt purposes and should be deleted from the Green Belt and developed for 30 - 35 new dwellings. Should also be within the settlement boundary. Would comply with NPPF 78.


Proposes new site - Stud Farm, Tickhill. Site east of Castle Farm. Agricultural site, flat. Trees would not constrain development and could be incorporated into the site. Tree survey being undertaken. Parts in flood zone 2 not proposed for development, flood risk does not prevent the site otherwise being developed. No constraints other then Green Belt. Site is well contained within Tickhill. Site already developed with agricultural buildings and well designed housing would be a good use for the site. Site would not impact on nearby Tickhill Castle. Well placed and designed development can enhance listed buildings. Site could deliver up to 20 dwellings.

04533 Ian Beck Site 165 and 186 totally unsuitable for the amount of housing proposed. Strongly disagree with site. Area is and should remain Green Belt. Area and surrounding subject to flooding. Adjacent to A1 and traffic noise and road congestion would impinge on development and increase negative impact road already has on the area in environmental and safety terms. Access to A1 already dangerous, this will increase. Doctors and schools already stretched and site will worsen this. Wildlife impacts. Should remain Green Belt and agricultural. Enough brownfield. Will change the area for the worse. Should be land to the west of the A1 (Hampole / East of Carcroft) more suitable for new sites.

04534 Jill Lowe Site 147: strongly object to 266 new houses. Should remain as an agricultural field - this would be in keeping with Barnby Dun as a rural village instead of part of urban sprawl. Views would be lost, green space would be lost forever. More people and more cars. Roads already busy. Traffic would be even worse at peak times. School cannot take more children, doctors overstretched already. Village already bursting at the seams.

04535 Andrew and Nicola Sleight

040 - disagree this is the best site here, dislike DMBC building on farmers field next to another estate. Worried about impact on schools - already full. Worried about impact on adjacent housing with traffic, noise and negative environmental impact - close to the A630 and access may come via the estate. Impact on children's safety and house values. Impact on area during construction - locals would breathe in dust and dirt. Loss of views, impact on wildlife habitats. Worried about impact on GPs - already overstretched. Denaby Craggs site is better.

04536 Nicola Parker 165/186 - object: Huge estate on Green Belt. Access to A1 limited and already unsafe and overloaded. Five Lanes end junction will be very busy. Cannot understand how the number of houses are required - volume proposed outrageous. Not against new development near to where they live, but infrastructure should be sorted first on all sites. Development would be opposed if it changes feel of area, should be in keeping with existing styles and types, not flats or cheap houses, and not overlit with street lights. Want to remain feeling safe around their home when out. Traffic will worsen and is already bad to the A1. Extremely concerned.

04537 Philip Spencer 147 - oppose: destroying countryside, lots of existing brownfield which should come forward first, as encouraged by the government. Green land around Barnby Dun provides wildlife habitats and forms part of Doncastrian Way. Only two accesses to Barnby Dun estate - Pinehall and Hatfield Road, increase in traffic = more pollution and noise. Access to limited school facilities will be more difficult and dangerous. Bus services already limited and difficult to access doctors and dentists. No thought given to impacts.

04540 Janice Lavigueur

499: please can we consider the retention of as many trees around the perimeter of the field as possible for screening and pollution purposes. Could easily be done.

04541 Laura Caress 139: would hate to see unspoilt land become a housing estate. Loss of house value. Moved here as peaceful. Roads in a poor state and existing plumbing systems are old. Concerned that site may be exclusively social housing. Impact on school capacities. Use the field recreationally and the area is one of the only local ones unspoiled. High St in Mexborough already struggling, crime is high and this will be made worse by the site. Not a good use of time and resources. Impact on wildlife. With this proposal and HS2 worried about overall impact.

04542 Ian Micklethwaite

234: oppose - Impact on Roman Ridge; one million empty homes nationally - all could be demolished and rebuilt or refurbed. Should utilise brownfield - John Carr, old colliery sites, water tower on Green Lane. Existing sites remain undeveloped. Flood risk - properties on York Road/Jossey Lane previously flooded, 234 would increase run off. Field regularly floods and housing would compound localised flooding. Site would enclose the Sycamore development. Already have wind turbines on the horizon. Impact on wildlife. Schools at capacity - Ridgewood and Don Valley - will force children across a busy dual carriageway - no one would use a bridge. Yet another junction on A638 - previous proposal for similar junction was rejected and old u turn closed for safety reasons. Increase in fatal accidents. Premier house prices on existing development have open views, this will devalue the property value (paid for open aspect). Urban sprawl. Only 2 green fields between Doncaster and A1/W Yorks boundary. River Don through central Doncaster undeveloped - focus should be here and this should be the centrepiece of the town and revitalise the town centre.

04543 David Holland Have read the Green Belt review and at a loss to understand how site 929 can be deemed to have the least impact on the Green Belt as opposed to site adjacent to the motorway in Sprotbrough. Site 929 extends the village towards High Melton and Cadeby - adjacent to the motorway does not have this issue. Site adjacent to the motorway is the site which is locally supported (endorsed by neighbourhood plan

and parish council). 929 - Object due to: Greenbelt site - there are no exceptional circumstances. Division of Sprotbrough into 2 areas in the settlement breakdown not correct. Other sites are better - most obvious is 788

04561 Ben Ainger Site 350/407 - object . It will ruin the landscape aesthetically and end a small community of dog walkers. It will kill a great deal of wildlife. Access on to Bawtry Road is hellish. Construction traffic would be unbearable. It would be a disaster.

04562 Monica and William Dawson

Site 350/407 - object. It will change the character of the street. An increase in traffic will be noisy and stressful. Quality of life will be affected. Access is poor. There will be a strain on infrastructure such GPs. Pollution is also a concern. The field is an important amenity in terms of fauna and wildlife and recreation.

04559 Katrina Cacace

Site 164/430 - object for many reasons including destruction of greenery/nature areas and fields as well as increased traffic , noise and pollution close to the wildlife park.

04563 Caroline Lee Site 040 - object. Not opposed to new properties being built but there needs to be some investment into the wider area to accommodate the extra demand. There will be travel implications while the building is taking place. Pot holes will be exasperated by additional traffic. Local schools are at capacity as are doctors. The existing schools may need investment to help them grow. There needs to be transparency as to whether these needs will be addressed.

04564 Kevin Bolton Site 164/430 - object. The area is heavily populated and the infrastructure is struggling to cope. Warning Tongue Lane gets gridlocked and the Yorkshire Wildlife Park adds to the problem. Emergency services will struggle to get through the congestion. There will be an increased strain on local services including doctors and schools. Pollution and public health should be considered. The land is used for farming crops and is home of wildlife.

04565 John Olma 350/407 - Rose Hill Objects to proposed allocation: Noise- building work, future residents, traffic Loss of green space, open space Air pollution Pressure on infrastructure services - gas, electricity, sewers, comms, Impact on roads

04566 Paul Waddoups

165 - Skellow Main Concerns: Increased traffic on local roads and A1 junction Impact on local services - doctors/schools 185 -Skellow (rejected site) Could be developed if flood risk mitigated, but would still have same impacts on infrastructure.

04567 Paula and John Adamson

141 - Westwood Road Bawtry Objects to proposed allocation Main concerns: Green belt site - no evidence of exceptional circumstances. Impact on traffic numbers - safety hazard. Poor access Impact on surface drainage and sewerage

04568 Barbara Stevenson

430/164 - Warning Tongue Lane Objects to proposed allocation. Main Concerns: Increased traffic - danger to schoolchildren walking to McCauley Schools. Access to site would cause major traffic problems.

Already existing traffic congestion in term time. New entrance to wildlife Park will increase the traffic problems in this area. Site not viable without major change to existing roads, roundabout and mway bridge.

04570 Andrew Cooper

165/186 - Skellow Objects to proposed allocation: Main concerns: Loss of Greenbelt Loss of open space development would increase flood risk in Skellow. Impact on services - Doctors/Dentist/ Local transport links are poor Access to A1 is dangerous Heavy traffic already a problem in this area. Local roads are decaying Using these 2 sites purely on the basis of a lack of alternatives is not adequate justification. Large development will cause stress to an already underfunded and overlooked part of Doncaster.

04571 Julie Cooper 165/186 - Skellow Objects to proposed allocation: Main concerns:

Loss of Greenbelt Increase of surface water flood risk into a flood risk area. Impact on local amenities - schools, medical centre, dentists Lack of local shops - not sufficient for new development.

04572 Julie Panther 139 - Mexborough Objects to proposed allocation. Main concerns: Green belt site Access to site Impact of increased traffic. Impact on local schools

04574 Royce Johnson

Site 165 - object. Crabtree Lane is a rat run for the A1. There will be an impact on drains, sewers, electricity supply, schools and an increase in cars

04575 RW and L Barron

site 139 - object. This is green belt land and brown belt land should be considered first such as Windhill. Unsure where that a safe and suitable entrance could be placed. Believe that the site is within Adwick upon Dearne so it will not solve the housing problem in Mexborough. Has consideration been given to facilities in the area. The road at the top of Highwood's and Wood Walk is very narrow.

04576 Bryan Crane Site 929 - object. The development is on the green belt. Development should only take place in exceptional circumstances and there are none in this situation. There are other sites in Sprotbrough which would have less impact. There are significant access issues.

04577 Stephen A Woad

Site 350 - object. The land has become a beautiful natural young woodland. As a recreational area it is used and enjoyed by residents of Armthorpe, Cantley and Bessacarr. It is also a haven for wildlife. This area is a priceless asset and the Council should be proud and protective and preserve this green space for the needs of the residents of Doncaster.

04578 Derek Gleadhill

Site 350 - object. The peaceful and quiet estate would be spoilt by the addition of a housing estate. Ramblers, joggers, horse riders and nature lovers use this area daily. There would be a loss of wildlife and trees/flowers. The additional traffic would burden the current estate and place extra burden on Bawtry Road. Pollution would increase.

04573 Leanne (Lexy) Ellis

139 - Mexborough main concerns Greenbelt site There are other BF sites in Mexborough that could be utilised. Wrong type of housing could be built - not in line with forecast demographic changes - i.e. ageing population. Site 139 is not in Mexborough - it is in Adwick upon Dearne. Area is of high archaeological potential (see notes in response) .

04579 Carol Wileman Hope you have exhausted the re-use of brownfield sites before you start gobbling up green land. Concerned that villages and communities are losing their identities by becoming absorbed into each other. Site 115 - Object. No consideration has been given to access. We have problems getting on and off our drive with queuing traffic. Not enough site notices were posted around the site. We greatly enjoy living adjacent to open countryside. The estate suffers in heavily wet weather and recently suffered sewer overload. These proposed dwellings would be detrimental to this area. The ordnance survey maps describe the area as forest and woodland. The site should be protected as a managed green space

04580 Lisa Roper 139 - Mexborough Objects to proposed allocation. Main concerns: Green belt land Loss of access to countryside. Impact on health of existing (some elderly) residents

Impact on house prices. Increase in traffic Local roads already congested. Impact on local services - schools, health care. There are other BF sites in Dearne Valley that could be used. Residents of Council bungalows at top of Highwood's Road very concerned about impact on health and access to countryside.

04581 Alison Briggs (1) & (2)

165 & 186 Skellow Understand reasons for using GB sites Concerns: Threat of increased surface water flooding (see more detail within response and email). .

04582 DCH Consulting (on behalf of Zuka Ltd)

Promoting new site for Housing. South of Station Road Arksey.

04583 Mhairi McDonald

041 - Askern Supports proposed allocation of site. Concerns: Impact on neighbouring caravan site - loss of daylight, overlooking and close proximity of new homes. Would like some social housing provision on site for local people.

Plus points: New homes could bring improvements to local services - transport, schools GP's and shops. New homes could act as catalyst for re-opening the railway station.

04584 Peter Graham Cox

350/407 - Rose Hill Concerns: Increased traffic during construction. Increased traffic from 100 plus new homes. Site access problems. Increased traffic problems at Cantley traffic lights. Council 'brochure' says there is Post Office nearby - it was closed a few years ago. Nearest schools are not close and access will mean crossing busy Bawtry Road (or using cars).

04585 Wendy Bates (1/2/3)

777 - Harlington Objects to proposed allocation. Main concerns: Greenbelt site. Is pastureland. Site provides protection from flooding and draught (?) Impact on air quality.

Impact on wildlife and insects. Loss of wildlife habitat. Loss of plants (see response for plant details). Site has flooded in the past. Village cannot sustain another 66 houses. Impact of more cars. Impact on local services - school, shop, GP surgery. Local roads are already a 'rat run' for people working at Manvers.

04586 Annette Caddick

777 - Harlington Objects to proposed allocation. Main concerns: Greenbelt site. Is pastureland. Site provides protection from flooding and draught (?) Loss of countryside views Impact on air quality. Impact on wildlife and insects. Loss of wildlife habitat. Loss of plants (see response for plant details). Site has flooded in the past.

Village cannot sustain another 66 houses. Impact of more cars. Impact on local services - school, shop, GP surgery. Local roads are already very busy with commuter traffic and farm vehicles. Flood risk - will increase downstream risk with loss of flood storage. HS2 (adjacent to site) will increase flood risk. Village does not have adequate public transport links. Impact on local services will be detrimental for healthy village life. Other sites would be better than this one - better connection to Mway and less of a flood risk.

04587 Chris Hurton 261 & 262 Lakeside Boulevard Objects to proposed allocations. Main Concerns: Already to much traffic. Increased pollution and noise. Area is overpopulated. Sites would be better suited to amenities around the lake (e.g. picnic area) Noise and dirt from construction activity.

04588 Linda Sledmore

350/407 - Objects to proposed allocation. Increase in traffic and impact on Bawtry Road; Safety concerns from increase in HGV traffic; Increased noise and air pollution; loss of open space and recreational area which is the last greenspace for residents in the area; loss of wildlife and trees.

04589 The William Brooke's Exhibition Foundation (1) & (2)

343 - objects to site not being proposed for allocation. The Board have been waiting for DMBC to lead on bringing the site forward since 1993 and develop as part of a joint venture . Thorne is a vibrant town and does not need Doncaster's views imposed on them. Should not de-allocate the site for housing as will render the land worthless.

0514 Carol Blackham

Site 469; In flood risk zone but developable. Does not agree with the Council's view not to build in FZA. Concerned for the contra dictionary information given to Thorne & Moorends NDP and Local Plan re: allocations.

0515 Paul Whitehurst

Believe there are suitable areas that have been omitted. However, could limit these to ones which classed as part of an adjoining Urban Area or enjoy the same designate – such as Renewal Area. Call for sites 124 should be added.

02091 Janet & Terry Lockwood

Site 133: Traffic impacts, Environmental concerns; trees, planting, habitat, drainage, Air Quality. Number of newly built houses in Thorne seems disproportionate for a town of its size (provided enough).

02401 Mr MJ Dacey Site 170: Not enough attention being given to getting Brownfield sites back into use.

03108 J R Ward Site 115: Traffic; cannot serve current volumes of traffic without further housing. Drainage issues/capacity. Green belt

03182 Sarah & Peter Jones

Site 234: against proposal for development in Green Belt. Not just a "fill in the gap" concerned re; Flooding, Schools, Access, Environmental and health/wellbeing. Look to deliver 217, 436 and 494 all identified as performing the same. Schools: Whilst the schools are near they are not within the catchment area.

3525 Simon Slatford (on behalf of D J Silk)

281/930: Could site be allocated with some or all of Site 930 (adjacent) to make boundary better. Site could be connected to road network, 30mph could be implemented here; suitable lighting achievable; sight lines achievable - request we test this scenario (sight lines could be extended to the middle of the road); owners of the land keen to assist in bringing this forward - can liaise if we wish.

03888 Guy Watkins Site 115. Object: Detrimentally affect existing and new residents. Impact from traffic existing and proposed. Air Quality issues. Drainage and sewer not fit for purpose and inadequate for existing and any new homes proposed.

04297 ELG Planning (On behalf of Rossington Hall Investments)

Site 306. Support: sustainable urban extension not at risk of flooding, close to services and facilities as well as existing and future employment opportunities. Provided additional material to support the site.

04301 James Carver Site 469: Disagree with the no growth in Thorne and Moorends. Flooding can be mitigated against. Contradictory information given to Thorne and Moorends NDP group and that of the Local Plan.

04304 Joanne Carver Site 469: Disagree with the no growth in Thorne and Moorends. Flooding can be mitigated against. Contradictory information given to Thorne and Moorends NDP group and that of the Local Plan.

04308 Mike Carver Site 469: Disagree with the no growth in Thorne and Moorends. Flooding can be mitigated against. Contradictory information given to Thorne and Moorends NDP group and that of the Local Plan.

04465 Homes England

836 - South of Woodfield Way Supports proposed allocation of site. HE committed to delivering the site (see detailed text in the response).

04590 Richard Peter and Gillian May Mellors

350 - Rose Hill/The Avenue Object to proposed allocation. Main concerns: Existing residents are mainly retired and elderly people. Impact on existing aging infrastructure - Gas, sewers, water, telecoms. Roads are narrow with tight bends - unsuitable for construction traffic. Impact on roads with number of new cars (additional 300 est). Entry and exit to Bawtry Road will be a problem.

Increased pollution, noise, inconvenience. Lack of facilities in the area (retail/post office). Loss of a community asset for walkers, joggers, etc. It is our 'Green Lung'. Loss of flora and fauna Development could have negative impact on the racecourse There must be other building land elsewhere.

04591 David Gregory 350 - Rose Hill/The Avenue Object to proposed allocation. Main concerns: Loss of open/green space Loss of flora/fauna/wildlife habitats Loss of recreational space Increase in noise from construction work in a peaceful area. Increased pollution Impact on health (pollution) Impact on local services - schools, post office closed years ago. Impact on infrastructure - gas, water, telecoms Impact on local roads - some already dangerous access and exit to Bawtry Road.

Any development will require appropriate road development. Impact on quality of life of existing predominantly elderly/retired residents. Development would be of no benefit to existing residents.

04592 Steven Hind 147 (assumed) - Barnby Dun objects to 'expansion' of Barnby Dun. Main concerns: Flood risk Increased traffic (impact on safety) Increased demand on village services. Impact on countryside. Increased traffic on already busy roads.

04593 Glynn Atmore 139 = North of Wath Road Mexborough Objects to proposed allocation main concerns: Loss of agricultural land. There are plenty of other BF sites locally Disruption to local community Congestion problems during construction Access onto roads which are already an accident blackspot.

04594 May Jenkinson 147 - Barnby Dun Objects to proposed allocation. Main concerns: Increased traffic More road accidents Increased pollution. Impact on local roads of increased traffic some local roads are very narrow. Traffic congestion already at peak times. Local road infrastructure will need improvement. Development would be preferable on the part of site 147 that is not flood risk. Localised flooding. Impact on local drainage system. Loss of agricultural land. There are ample BF sites elsewhere. Lack of local facilities - schools, doctors, shops. Already existing traffic problems at peak times. If Thorpe marsh is developed that will increase traffic problems. Loss of flora and fauna.

Access to adjacent farms.

04595 John Paul Wade

147 - Barnby Dun Objects to proposed allocation. Main concerns: Increased traffic More road accidents Increased pollution. Impact on local roads of increased traffic some local roads are very narrow. Traffic congestion already at peak times. Local road infrastructure will need improvement. Development would be preferable on the part of site 147 that is not flood risk. Localised flooding. Impact on local drainage system. Loss of agricultural land. There are ample BF sites elsewhere. Lack of local facilities - schools, doctors, shops. Already existing traffic problems at peak times. If Thorpe marsh is developed that will increase traffic problems.

Loss of flora and fauna. Access to adjacent farms.

04596 Ruth Cliff 147 - Barnby Dun 'Concerned' about proposed allocation. Main concerns: Barnby Dun already gridlocked - will only get worse. Schools capacity lack of job opportunities in this area. Lack of local services - GP, dentist. Poor local Bus service. Fields are a flood risk. Is a Greenbelt site. Impact on existing property values. Plenty of BF land elsewhere.

04599 Dennis Barsby Site 147. Object: Site has little access which will lead to gridlock in surroundings areas. Added to traffic at Hungerhill all the east side will become standstill at peak timed. Environmental/habitat impact. Stretched to limit of services (dr's, schools) in area.

04600 Suzanne Lambe

Site 147. Object. Only one upper school within area. Not enough places for children in local schools.

04601 Derek Hodgkinson

Site 350/470: Object. Local recreation (walking) will be impacted on. Increase of noise and population to the area would impede on quality of life. Increased traffic, problematic junction/access issues. Existing infrastructure not able to cope. Loss of trees and hedgerows and wildlife/habitat.

04602 David Cannon Site 147 Object. Existing school is already overcrowded and no spare land to expand. Facilities are at the limit. Access will be problematic and increase of traffic will cause issues for village. Loss of farming land.

04603 Mrs Sylvia Nadin

Site 115 Object. More traffic. Drainage not adequate.

04604 Julia Farthing Site 350/470. Object. Natural extension to Sandal Beat Wood and Red House Plantation. Impact on Wildlife, Trees and Plants. Impact on roads and traffic. Not that desperate for more houses.

04606 Noel Senior Site 777 Object. Noise and intrude on the very quiet street. Plenty of room on the north side of Doncaster Road which would not intrude on anyone.

04608 Mr L Grove Site 350/470 Object. Beautiful piece of unspoilt countryside. Loss of open green space; habitat/ecology. Loss of recreational space; walkers, cyclists, users of the site. Increase in noise; from construction to the future residents. Pollution; air quality, dust and dirt. Traffic; existing infrastructure not being able to cope (gas sewers, water, cables etc.). Quality of life; privacy, noise, stress etc. .

04609 Westwood Park Management Company Ltd

Site 141: Object. Scale of proposal is excessive. Loss of general amenity and character. Access, public sewer connectivity issues. Site floods (has flooded previously) and development would increase this.

04610 Amy Damms Site 165 Object. Fundamentally change the area from rural to urban area. Environmental impacts; habitat, wildlife. Traffic; build up of traffic, create unsafe area due to increase traffic movements. Loss of view.

0388 Gordon S Fletcher

Site 350 - object. It is a small estate and the residents are mainly retired. There is no recreational open space which is why Rose Hill Field is used as such. There is only one access and the existing road is very narrow with acute bends. Retaining the right of way through the estate would only be comparable to an estate road and not like being in open countryside. Planning Committee should visit the site and meet the residents. Full endorse the comments made by the Rose Hill Association: - Loss of open green space

- loss of open recreational space - Increase of noise - Pollution - Lack of facilities - the infrastructure - traffic - quality of life

0750 Stainforth Town Council

Wish to see a balanced offering of housing in the town. There is a lack of 4 bedroom properties in the town. The Town Council would like to see the triangle of land formed by Thorne Rd, Kirton Lane and the Railway line developed for these purposes.

01263 Barnby Dun with Kirk Sandall Parish Council

147 - Barnby Dun Disagree with site selection Main concerns: Impact on road infrastructure. Lack of schools capacity. Lack of capacity of Doctors and Dentist surgeries. BF sites should be selected before GF sites. Site is too large, Any development of site should be in keeping with existing properties - i.e. predominantly bungalows and should include key facilities (doctors/dentist/education with provision agreed in advance of development). Any development will need a new roundabout at junction of Armthorpe lane and Station Road.

108 - White House Farm (rejected site) 34% of site not in Flood Zone. Why not split housing requirement between 108 and 147 to reduce impact on road infrastructure. Site 108/125/228/329/347 all rejected because of flood risk, but does not take into account any flood defences.

03037 Mark Blackham ( 1 &2)

469 & 009 Thorne. Does not agree that sites should be rejected. Reasons: Local Plan does not conform with HELAA, Thorne and Moorends NP, Core Strategy or the previous draft Local Plan (note seems to assume that the Call For Sites map is a 'draft local plan') Thorne is a Principal Town - needs for re-generation - i.e. more housing. If a flood risk assessment can show risk can be mitigated then this should be taken into account.

0077 CPRE 234 - Broad-axe Too peripheral to be sustainable 940 - Airport Would only be justifiable on basis of robust sustainability strategy with regard to new railway access and carbon reduction strategy. 165, 186 - skellow Too peripheral to be sustainable

0257 Sprotbrough and Cusworth parish Council

929 - Sprotbrough. Objects to proposed allocation. Main Concerns: Should be no development in GB around Sprotbrough. No case made for exceptional circumstances. Amenity area should be preserved.

0264 JRA Moorhouse (on behalf of Don Parkinson)

002 - Thorne Objects to site NOT being proposed for allocation.. Response has detailed comments re: Sustainability Site selection methodology Conformity with N. Plan Flood risk assessment (site 002 & 004)







0586 Brodsworth Parish Council

234 - Broad-axe Field Objects to proposed allocation of site. Main concerns: Impact of additional vehicles adding to already congested roads. Possible increased flood risk to surrounding area. Loss of amenity

Increased pressure on local facilities - schools, healthcare. It is a historic site Note: response contains further detail of the above concerns. 436 Scawsby Lane Support none allocation of site 494 Green Lane Support none allocation of site

05013 Joyce Shaw Site 147 Object. Education: cannot take additional pupils, no rooms for extra classrooms. Traffic: incapable of extra traffic. Countryside and Wildlife: should be treated sensitively. Amenity: village lacks amenities to deal with further residents especially GP surgery.

05012 Mr & Mrs David Guy

Site 115 Object. Access, increase of traffic and associated safety issues. Impact on local doctor’s surgeries and schools. Flooding issues, pressure of services. Potential fall in house prices.

05011 David Neal Shaw

Site 147 Object. Environment and Ecology; should be treated sensitively and should be treated same as Green Belt. Education; village academy up to maximum and no room for extra buildings. School cannot take another annual intake of children. Traffic and road management; infrastructure not in place to accommodate extra traffic, dangerous. Lack of amenities; no properly sized surgery with off road parking, current delays and outside a fast and busy road. Loss of amenity; countryside and views.

05010 Loversall Lakes Ltd

Site 115 Object. Previous planning applications been refused. Flooding within the area and any further development will exacerbate the problem. Loversall Lakes is filled with valuable stock and at times of flooding would harm or even kill fish. Current drainage provisions not adequate.

05009 Jeremy Ward Site 115 Object. Concerns regarding surface water drainage into the Warmsworth Beck and has serious problems of flooding which will be made worse with more houses built. There are horses on land at the cross-section of the A1M and M18 and flooding may bring additional chemicals onto the land and affect any future crops.

05006 Susan Cammock

Site 147 Object. Traffic increase and buses have difficultly now. Issues when Armthorpe bridge closes for repair with additional traffic. School cannot be extended any further. Doctors surgery has already been refused planning. 58% of the site is in Flood Risk so why have others been rejected and this one not. How will the plans for Gas Fired Power Station and this development impact on the village. Drainage and sewerage concerns.

05005 Gary Colman Site 115 Object. Traffic congestion and public safety due to additional traffic. Greater volume of stationary/slow moving traffic impacts on air quality. Footpaths inadequate increased risk of further accidents.

05008 Savills (on behalf of Philip Lodge)

Site 149 Support. Concerned with the inconsistency

0234 DLP Planning Ltd (on behalf of Mr and Mrs Honcharenko)

315 - West of station Road Blaxton. Seeks to re-submit site 315 with reduced area and wants site to be included within the development limits of Blaxton. See response form for further detail and justification.

0756 Warmsworth Parish Council

033 - Sheffield Road Housing Objects to proposed allocation. Main concerns: Loss of Greenbelt - only small bit left - reducing the buffer between Warmsworth and Conisbrough. Unfair to target Warmsworth with an additional 122 homes. Impact on historic cave system - historic geological area. Caves could be flooded. Impact of increased traffic on already congested roads. Impact on pollution and quality of life. Increased strain on local services - e.g. schools and health care.

05047 Jeanette Hepworth

Site 777 Object. Flooding water table is extremely unstable and high volume of surface water, underground water and inadequate drainage currently. Drainage and sewerage system not adequate. Current resources for power/communications need more support. Additional development could cause more subsidence / disturbance to land. Road infrastructure not currently suitable for more traffic (cut

through to Manvers for employment). No school places and secondary school is already by bus which is at capacity to transport children to school. Take away amenities and leisure and wildlife of area., Poor quality of life.

05046 Georgia Hepworth

Site 777 Object. Loss of habitat. No more housing needed. Lack of services to cope good roads, electric supply and sewerage already at capacity. Future housing will not make the village aesthetically pleasing, rural community with rural culture.

04633 Shirley Lewis Site 164 & 430 Object. Busy road traffic often queuing due to YWP and school. Support need for additional housing but feel the Council should work more on empty properties and abandoned houses.

01076 South Yorkshire Archaeology Service

234 - Broad-axe Do not allocate or - undertake assessment re ancient Monument, Set out how plan could reduce harm to A.M. If to be allocated there must be clear benefits that outweigh the harm

04611 Kevin and Liz Beaton

Site 141 - object. The site is within the green belt and is not specifically designated for residential use. The application does not show any exceptional circumstances that would warrant any development in the Green Belt. This land contributes to maintaining the countryside wildlife and fauna as well as the unique character of Bawtry. The proposed density is far greater than any other part of the Green Park Estate. There will be a significant increase in traffic on the estate and Tickhill Road which will also lead to an increased road safety risk. The HELAA states that is not a flood risk area. However on two separate occasions adjacent houses have suffered water damage due to water running off the estate. The HELAA is incorrect as there is a ransom strip on Westwood Road. The sewage pumping station is most certainly not adequate to manage further development. There are a number of brownfield sites that are suitable for residential development in Bawtry and should be considered before Green Belt.

04612 Paul Malkin Site 115 - object. The area has already absorbed a large increase in housing development over the years. Traffic volume has increased. Traffic safety has become an issue. Noise levels have increased. Vehicle pollution has increased. Wildlife has been badly affected. The quality of life will diminish.

04613 Shelia and Ian O'Neil

Site 165 and 186 - object. Both sites are Green Belt and its purpose is to prevent urban sprawl. The proposed use is likely to result in noise disturbance and nuisance to the detriment of existing neighbours. Other sources of flood risk should be considered such as surface water flooding. On the Gov.uk website site 186 is shown as medium flood risk for surface water. The extent of the flooded area buts up to Crabgate Lane and when coupled with the direction of water flow through the adjacent properties this site should also be rejected.

04617 Monty Cuthbert

Lakeside - object. There are few enough decent leisure facilities in this area and the council has failed to place much needed outdoor community facilities in this much needed location. You are reducing areas where children, youths and adults keep fit but also introducing more and more venues that will add to Doncaster's high obesity ranking. Residents who have bought their homes with a beautiful view of the lake are being cheated by this development.

04619 Susan Palmer Site 139 - object. The land is Green Belt. Appreciate that this does not mean land cannot be developed in the future but it does indicate that the land is considered important enough to be afforded some protection. The area is important for wildlife. There are birds of prey and bats. Any development of this area would most definitely affect the bats' habitat and might displace them

04620 Ann Oxby Site 147 - object. There has been a vast increase in available housing and population with little improvement in facilities or infrastructure. The amount of traffic and HGVs has increased as has the speed of traffic. It is busy at school times. There are parking problems and no capacity at the local school or the doctors surgery.

04621 Michael Charlton

Site 164/430 - object. Traffic is excessive and speedy. Warning Tongue Lane is used as easy access to the M18 via Great Yorkshire Way and the Wildlife Park -it is more congested and at some stages dangerous. That along with McCauley School is creating havoc and congestion. The plan for 250 dwellings is incomprehensible when there are so many brownfield sites in Doncaster that need utilising first.

04622 Joanne Price (1), (2) and (3)

Site 164/430 - object. The traffic would be an absolute joke and would be snided with traffic queues. We bought our house with unspoiled views if I wanted to look at houses I would have bought a cheaper house. The traffic for McAuley school will be unbelievably bad.

04623 John Holmes Site 164/430 - object. The corner where the egress road is suggested is a well known black spot. Where are the children going to go to school? IS the Council not aware how much busier Warning Tongue Lane is already. The opening of Great Yorkshire way and the Wildlife Park has increased traffic.

04626 Stephen and Julie Taylor

Site 777 - object. The main points of concern are: flooding; infrastructure; the so called need for more houses in Harlington. Apparently there is a minimal risk of flooding but in 2007 the River Dearne came up to the gateway of 31 Mill Lane. Another 6 acres of tarmac will make it worse. Harlington is a small village with lots of traffic at peak times. The junior school and doctors surgery cannot cope with extra numbers. Why do we need new houses within the Green Belt when there are houses being demolished due to HS2? Architects and builders would love this to go ahead.

05052 Andrea Smith Site 147 Object. Existing volumes of traffic. Potential increase in traffic and traffic safety concerns. School has already had to cope with additional housing. GP surgery at capacity.

05051 Sylvia Dunstan Site 147 Object. Construction traffic worries. School already been extended.

05048 Barbara Conway

Site 147 Object. Noise of works traffic. Increased traffic. View. Worry of height of new houses. Lack of current facilities and services - school size, shopping, parking. Increased pollution and environmental issues.

05045 Karilyn Robinson

Site 147 Object. Support needs for more housing but on smaller scale in locations to integrate in a more manageable way. Infrastructure not able to cope. Police already stretched. Roads narrow and unsafe. Additional traffic impacts. School and doctors surgeries struggling.

05044 Simon Hepworth

Site 777 Object. Green Belt. Infrastructure currently at a max and struggles to cope with current demand. Lifestyle impact. No shortage of brownfield sites.

05043 John Seale Site 164/430 Object. Already increased traffic with YWP and GYW. Unsafe roads; used at speed, risk of accidents. Air quality from standing traffic. Loss of view.

03002 Cllr jane Nightingale

Site 234 Object. Green Belt Predominately vast area of open green space. Boarded with Roman Ridge which is of historic importance. Impact on Dr's surgery which is on opposite side to dual carriageway. Impact on drainage, sewerage and flooding issues to other surrounding residents.

03100 The Planning and Environment Studios Ltd (on behalf of Barry Smith

Site 037 Support. Site 309 Object. Proposes a greater degree of encroachment into open countryside.

and Peter Kelson)

03651 Cllr Mark Houlbrook

Not consistent approach given planning applications have been passed for development but Local Plan is not allocating sites for future housing.

0736 Barnburgh & Harlington Parish Council

777 - Harlington Objects to proposed site allocation. Main Concerns: Green belt site. Field has flooded on numerous occasions. Impact on infrastructure - pumping station, electricity supply. Increased volume of traffic. Impact on schools capacity.

01546 Yorkshire Wildlife Trust

836 & 940 Objects to proposed allocation. See response for detail. Also provides comments on lots of other sites. Too many to list.

04544 David Nicklin 165 / 186 / 782: disagree, sites not wanted or needed - in green belt and flood zones. NPPF states that need alone is not the only factor when drawing up a local plan. Housing and economic needs to not override constraints on Green Belt and do not constitute exceptional circumstances. Unmet housing need is unlikely to outweigh harm to the Green Belt in justifying Green Belt development. As per the site selection methodology - potential negative effects on secondary schools and loss of BMV agricultural land. Contrary to Policy 61. Low demand for housing in this area. Site would lead to oversupply which would lower house prices in the area - could lead to local housing market crashing. Unsustainable based on existing infrastructure. Impact on the A1(M) - as highlighted in the London to Leeds route strategy (Highways England). Air quality issues already which will be made worse. Noise issues. Field to the north of the site has the remains of the earthworks of a roman fort, and there are other areas within the vicinity that are historically important. Overhead cables on

the site; lack of sufficient power availability. Nothing should happen until A1 is upgraded. Access to Green Lane / Crabgate Lane is poor as they are small. Not suitable for traffic volume. Should only happen after full local consultation, not just those adjacent. Should be in phases linked to delivery of jobs in Skellow, Carcroft and Adwick employment zones. Jobs should be in place before houses - this will prevent area being for commuters. Brownfield land should be developed first and only when the urban area is exhausted should alternatives be sought. This would link people better to employment opportunities.

0220 Edenthorpe Parish Council

Supportive of all rejected sites (241/431/255/802/474), But concerned that 2 sites may still go ahead (241/255) 241- impending inspectors decision 255 - Developer pushing and has held local consultation.

0738 Burghwallis Parish Council

165 & 186 Crabgate Lane Skellow Object to sites. Main Concerns: Additional road traffic . A1 already congested, this will only add to the problem. Impact on schools and medical services.

03089 Canal and River Trust

108 - Barnby Dun Rejected site. Has comments if proposal is reversed. 257 - marshgate Rejected site. Has comments if proposal is reversed.

256 - South of Canal Conisbrough Rejected site. Has comments if proposal is reversed. 329 - Barnby Dun Rejected site. Has comments if proposal is reversed. 439 - Waterfront West Rejected site. Has comments if proposal is reversed. 838 - Bombardier (site with PP) Suggest retention of trees on site and biodiversity enhancement measures. 068 - Pastures Road site referred to as '636' in rep. Rejected site. Has comments if proposal is reversed

505 - South End marina Thorne. Rejected site. Has comments if proposal is reversed

0758 Cantley with Branton Parish Council

164/430 - East of Warning Tongue lane Objects to sites. Main reasons: Increased volume of traffic on minor roads Want to retain the semi rural character of the area. Inappropriate balance with amount of open space.

03636 Cllr Nick Allen 350 & 407 Rose Hill Objects to proposed allocation. Main concerns: No appropriate for Housing Access difficulties - nuisance for residents Loss of recreational area. There are more appropriate sites elsewhere. Limited access to site - only from Bawtry Road and the Avenue. It would be one large cul-de-sac. Increased traffic on Bawtry Road.

Many local residents are opposed to this development.

03775 Lorna Blackham

469 & 009 Thorne. Does not agree that sites should be rejected. Reasons: Local Plan does not conform with HELAA, Thorne and Moorends NP, Core Strategy or the previous draft Local Plan (note seems to assume that the Call For Sites map is a 'draft local plan') Thorne is a Principal Town - needs for re-generation - i.e. more housing. If a flood risk assessment can show risk can be mitigated then this should be taken into account.

01097 Savills (on behalf of) Sheffield Diocesan Board of Finance

145 - Skellow Rejected Site Disagree with rejection of site. Response contains detailed site justification. 144 - Trundle Lane, Fishlake rejected Site Disagree with rejection of site. Response contains detailed site justification. 143 - Church Lane, Barnburgh rejected Site

Disagree with rejection of site. Response contains detailed site justification. 142 - Sheffield Road, Conisbrough rejected Site Disagree with rejection of site. Response contains detailed site justification.

04545 Alan wilkins 164 - Warning Tongue Lane Object to site. Main Concerns: Loss of greenfield/agricultural land. Air pollution from additional traffic surface water pollution Local roads were never constructed with this amount of traffic in mind. Pressure on waste water and sewerage system - localised flooding is already a problem. Pressure on Infrastructure (Doctors, Dentists etc.)

0016 Historic England

234 - objects to proposed allocation. Consider not allocating proposed site due to impact on Scheduled Monument. If not then an assessment needs to be undertaken of the contribution which this site makes to the setting of the Scheduled Monument and what impact the loss of this open area and its subsequent development 389 - objects to proposed allocation. If allocated, the Local Plan should alert users of the document to the proximity of this designated heritage asset and set out a requirement that, in their design and layout, any proposals would be required to ensure that the setting of

the monument is not harmed. 415 - need to consider impact on Woodlands Conservation Area 418 - objects to proposed allocation. The Heritage Impact Assessment needs to set out the measures by which the identified harm to the significance of the various designated heritage assets in and around this site might be removed or reduced. 133 - objects to proposed allocation. If allocated, the Local Plan should alert users of the document to the proximity of the Conservation Area and set out a requirement that any proposals should safeguard those elements which contribute to its significance.

03410 Howard J. Wroot (on behalf of DLH Group)

071 - Off St Michaels Drive, Thorne HELAA Rejected site. Promoting as a residential site. In depth site justification & additional documents supplied.

04546 Andi Fox (1/2/3)

234 - Broad Axe Field Objects to proposed allocation. Main Concerns: Greenbelt site Increased traffic Impact on services (e.g. Doctors, Schools, Shops Overlooking of houses on Stanley Road.

04547 Colin Mead 139 - Wath Road Mexborough Object to proposed allocation. Main Concerns: Boundary is incorrect

Additional Traffic (see comments) Pressure on Education/health and emergency services Access to site Provision of recreation area. Loss of views Loss of privacy Loss of peaceful environment Increased pollution Impact on property values

04549 Leesing Marrison Lee and Co

379 - Garden St Mexborough Removal of free parking will have a detrimental impact on Mexborough High Street.

04550 David John Nelson

139 - Mexborough Object to proposed allocation. Main Concerns: Greenbelt site There has to be other sites that are not GB.

04551 Rachael Gunn 147 - Barnby Dun Object to proposed allocation Main Concerns:

Impact on services - Schools, Doctors Increased traffic - impact on local roads Increased pollution

04552 Lisa Gunn 147 - Barnby Dun Object to proposed allocation Main Concerns: Impact on services - Schools, Doctors Increased traffic - impact on local roads Increased pollution

04553 Lisbeth Rodgers

165 & 186 Skellow Object to proposed allocation. Main Concerns: Green belt sites.

04554 David Armstrong

141 - Westwood Road Bawtry Objects to proposed allocation Main Concerns: Would be a breach of national policy Erode fauna Erode integrity of current village boundary Threat to Greenbelt

There is no clear need in this area No justification of need to justify loss of GB Would be against principles of sustainable development

04555 Ian and Paula Stott

141 - Westwood Road Bawtry Objects to proposed site allocation Main Concerns: Green belt site There are other BF sites in Bawtry Destruction of environment & nature Access and increased volume of traffic Risk to pedestrians Impact on public services

04557 Stephen Tomlinson

185 Rejected site Less than 10% of site is flood risk - could be developed without the flood risk bit. 148 and 042 rejected sites. Parts of site not in Fzone could be developed.

165 & 186 Skellow Object to proposed allocation main concerns: Already enough housing stock in Carcroft skellow. No local demand. Social housing would be unacceptable in this area. Numbers don’t add up - between requirement and site details. Loss of GB land Additional pollution and impact on health Access to site Impact on infrastructure - Gas, Elec, telecoms Disruption to local residents Increased traffic Impact on school places/medical services housing requirement is inaccurate Loss of agricultural land

04558 Joanne Bond 040 - Sheffield Road/Hill Top Conisbrough Objects to proposed allocation Main Concerns:

Impact of more traffic Impact on school places Impact on Doctors services Site access

04548 Sabir Ali Site 379 - Disagree strongly

04560 Anthony Carnall

Sites 165 and 186 - objects

03411 Howard J. Wroot (on behalf of Mr Henry Wilson)

Support inclusion of Fishlake Nab (073 of HELAA).

05099 Carol Baldwin Site 161 Object. Archaeological features on site. Site on edge of what was medieval village. Loss of only remaining historic part of the agricultural village. Green Belt. Flood Risk. Access insufficient. Site 495 Object. Agricultural or pasture land. Outside of current village and encroachment into local countryside. Loss of habitat and wildlife. Greater need for green recreational spaces. Drainage issues and serious risk of flooding. Access is limited.

05097 Alan Leonard Site 148 Object. Green Belt. Loss of view. Plenty of brownfield sites available in Mexborough. Effect on schools and doctors. Will not draw people into Mexborough town but take people away into Wath services.

05096 Nikki Wall Site 164/430 Object. Increase of traffic i.e. safety. Impact on local schools doctors and services. Local spaces been built upon loss of habitat already under pressure.

05095 Caroline and Joe Barrass

Site 164/430 Object. Brownfield should be built on first. Boundary between Doncaster and rural Doncaster merging. Traffic congestion. Needs to be share of housing developments.

05094 Joanne Stinson

Site 164/430 Object. Loss of field wildlife and greenery. Massive developments around Branton, Auckley/Hayfield against local opposition. Road, schools and GPs cannot cope. More planning near the airport roads and services cannot sustain pressure. Turn empty buildings into nice homes.

05093 Sharna Beresford

Site 115 Object. Roads already gridlocked, more homes would make it harder to travel. Provision of education is limited. Green Belt. Drainage, surface water and sewerage systems already problematic, made worse with more homes. Area becoming a concrete jungle, lack of open/green space.

05087 Robert Fiske Site 280 Object.

02311 Lichfields (on behalf of Hallam land Management)

241 -Mere lane Edenthorpe extensive representation as to why this site should be allocated. Key reason - is not a GB site. See response to Q5/Q6/Q10/Q13

05128 Peacock and Smith (on behalf of Jason Barnsdale)

Site 050 Support. There is therefore no indication as to how local housing needs will be met or how the vitality of each village will be maintained and enhanced. Site 050 is wholly within FZA1. Single ownership. Not high environment value and access achievable.

03117 Raymond and Linda Hobson

Site 115 Object. Increase traffic from existing surrounding developments. Public transport on the decline. Impact on congestion, noise, pollution lessening residents quality of life. Flooding in area, impact on utilities. Loss of agricultural land and consider wildlife, habitat. Loss of Green Belt.

03917 Lisa Thirkell Site 115 Object. Negative impact on existing and occupiers of houses. Traffic around the area already queue, creating air pollution. Has this been assessed. Drainage and sewerage system barely fit for purpose. Flooding from high ground development. Massive impact in a small area. Build on brownfield sites first.

01970 Cllr Kevin Rodgers

234: Broad Axe is Green Belt and should only be developed in exceptional circumstances. This site inclusion defeats objectives of Green Belt in NPPF. Green Belt Review gave a moderate strong view on this site leading to urban sprawl, which it would lead to. Roman Ridge little green / open space, poor for physical / mental health and will mean residents lose access to Broad Axe field environs accessible via Roman Ridge. Would be contrary to aim to "protect and enhance our natural and historic environment" and "Protect, maintain & enhance the character & appearance of conservation areas, historic paths, gardens & scheduled monuments". A638 already congested at peak times, this would worsen. Sunnyfield previously flooded, this would worsen this, including pressure on already blocked drains. Insufficient local amenities - Ridgewood school at capacity and Emley Drive Rosedale cannot accommodate children for this site. Site good quality agricultural land. Green Belt review says mixed in strength, mentions lack of durability of site and a weak boundary. Seems to have been chosen as the least worst option in terms of Green Belt in this area. Will lead to urban sprawl, defeating Green Belt objective. As further heritage work need to be done, it seems short sighted to allocate 480 here, when development could be curtailed if significant

archaeological remains are found. Without this being known, it could undermine sustainable housing growth aim. DMBC planning committee have previously refused this site. 217; 436; 494 - agree with retention of these as Green Belt.

02999 Cllr Pat Haith 234: Broad Axe is Green Belt and should only be developed in exceptional circumstances. This site inclusion defeats objectives of Green Belt in NPPF. Green Belt Review gave a moderate strong view on this site leading to urban sprawl, which it would lead to. Roman Ridge little green / open space, poor for physical / mental health and will mean residents lose access to Broad Axe field environs accessible via Roman Ridge. Would be contrary to aim to "protect and enhance our natural and historic environment" and "Protect, maintain & enhance the character & appearance of conservation areas, historic paths, gardens & scheduled monuments". A638 already congested at peak times, this would worsen. Sunnyfield previously flooded, this would worsen this, including pressure on already blocked drains. Insufficient local amenities - Ridgewood school at capacity and Emley Drive Rosedale cannot accommodate children for this site. Site good quality agricultural land. Green Belt review says mixed in strength, mentions lack of durability of site and a weak boundary. Seems to have been chosen as the least worst option in terms of Green Belt in this area. Will lead to urban sprawl, defeating Green Belt objective. As further heritage work need to be done, it seems short sighted to allocate 480 here, when development could be curtailed if significant archaeological remains are found. Without this being known, it could undermine sustainable housing growth aim. DMBC planning committee have previously refused this site. 217; 436; 494 - agree with retention of these as Green Belt.

01937 Lichfields (on behalf of Theakston Estates Ltd)

436: Developer promoting Site 436 and has submitted a lot of detail in support of this site. Site could deliver 800 homes and delivery could be secured in 1 - 5 years. Tried to understand reasons for rejection and provide evidence to show this is achievable. Especially around issues of archaeology, but also pollution to water bodies and Green Belt. Indicative Masterplan supplied. Includes housing and POS, as well as dealing with archaeological concerns. Site is sustainable and should be allocated.

0746 Marr Parish Council

Do not support housing allocations of housing distribution for Barnburgh & Harlington and Sprotbrough Village which have been categorised as ‘Defined Villages’. Sprotbrough has already identified its housing needs and has created a Neighbourhood Plan. The Local Plan is now conflict with this. Consideration must also be given to the impact of new dwellings on land that floods at Barnburgh/Harlington.

05161 Jennifer Allen Site 165/186 Object. Impact on school places, families been split across other schools. Impact on medical services. Air quality impact adjacent A1. Impact on/from Northern Power House (impact on volume of traffic).

05160 Dennis Cuckson

Site 379 Object. Loss of car park in town centre. Lack of parking problem for town centre and impact of that on prosperity.

05156 Rebecca Griffiths

Site 115 Object. More traffic would cause more issues especially at peak times. Drainage and sewerage existing issues could be overloaded. Houses already up for sale within area.

05157 James Griffiths Site 115 Object. More traffic would cause more issues especially at peak times. Drainage and sewerage existing issues could be overloaded. Houses already up for sale within area.

05155 Pamela Ward Site 165/186 Object. Green Belt and Grade 2 agricultural land. Loss of wildlife all adversely affected by building on fields. Watching wildlife is good for health and wellbeing. Properties will dominant skyline over look living space of existing properties. Impact on number of vehicles accessing/leaving A1 comprising safety. Pollution concerns. Put more stress on local schools, amenities and services. If retail is added then it’ll add to parking/pit stop off A1 litter, noise etc.

05154 David Tate Site 165/186 Object. Would cause big problem and inevitable build up traffic around area. A1 busy and dangerous junction with 300 houses exacerbating the situation. Crabgate Lane unable to cope with increase traffic. Green Belt. 300 extra families add to stretched resources and services in local area (schools, doctors).

05153 Anthony Purchase

Site 164 Object. Access would be from an existing busy C road compounding to already congested area. Pressure of local amenities schools and GPs. Crop land. More suitable sites on Masham Road Auckley and near Walkers Nurseries.

05152 Alice Holvey Site 382/429 Object. Enclosed on every side with residential homes. Busy schools and nursing home already accessed from busy roads. Overlooking overcrowded and worried for safety from buildings at the rear. Plenty of housing developments already in progress. Loss of open green space.

05150 Carolyn Grant Site 164/430 Object. Ever increasing problem of traffic. Concerned about safety on the road. Loss of green space and impact on local environment. Lack of facilities, schools, dentist, doctors and parks.

05132 Helen Slade Objection to site 164/430 on the grounds of an increased demand to transport roads, schools and local services. Environmental concerns on habitat and impact to animals that currently live there.

05133 Jessica Slade Objection to site 164/430 on the grounds that there would be a negative environmental impact upon the natural habitat, including animals. There are already houses in the area that are struggling to sell.

04897 Samantha Booth

Opposed to site 147, the plan is too large and would impact a large amount of people. Houses and greenbelt. The current infrastructure would not be able to cope with the additional people, such as school places and traffic congestion. There would also be an impact on the wildlife, especially the animals that habitat there.

04898 David Cooper Opposed to site 147 due to the council should not build on green space when there is enough brown field sites. There is also not enough space in schools and traffic issues around Station Road which is already heavily congested. The doctors surgery, at Stainforth Road and Field Road are already struggling to cope with demand and this development will add to the pressures. Current issues with the risk of flooding – overall the development is unsustainable.

04899 Susan Leach Opposed to site 164/430 - Current roads are already very busy with traffic to the Great Yorkshire Way and Bawtry. There is already a struggle to sell houses and more development will not help. The medical centre that was supposed to be built is also non-existent and this development will put more strains on the health service.

04716 Claire Kelly Opposed to site 379 - The car park in question is important to local residents, especially compared to the old Tesco car park. Town is already run down and the loss of the car park will have a negative impact on businesses.

04719 David Glover Opposed to site 929 - Proposed allocation is Green Belt and should not be developed upon. The villages infrastructure and roads already above maximum capacity – Cadeby road is not capable of accepting more vehicles. Waiting times already high at local schools and dentists. Main sewer system is already over capacity and liable to flooding.

04720 Peter Lloyd Opposed to site 499 - Opposed on environmental groups such as habitat for animals and maturing trees. Impact of the development on the buffer between the residential area and the Great North Road.

04652 William Lawrence

Opposed to site 379. The car park is vital for the economic advancement of the town. If dispensed it could caused increased congestion problems in the town.

04654 Sally Kelly Objection to site 040. Objection on the grounds it is green belt and should remain so. There is also traffic issues which would restrict access to only the A630 Sheffield to Doncaster route. The local surgery and schools are at full capacity, and there is no sewerage/drainage system.

04655 Lynden Evans Objection to sites 165 and 186. Land proposed is Green Belt and Grade 2 agricultural land which is a valuable resource. Green belt is needed for wildlife, and the countryside has a positive impact on elderly residents. Number of houses planned would increase vehicles and compromise safety of the A1 at both Green Lane and Hampole Baulk Lane, and increase pollution levels. Current education and health amenities cannot cope as it is.

04656 Phil Evans Objection to sites 165 and 186. Land proposed is Green Belt and Grade 2 Agricultural land which is a valuable resource. Green belt is needed for wildlife and has a positive impact on the elderly residents. Number of houses proposed would increase vehicles and compromise safety of the A1 at both Green Lane and Hampole Baulk Lane, and increase pollution. Current education and health amenities cannot cope.

04657 David Hoyland Objection to site 379. Loss of parking doe approx. 50-80 cars per day will not replace the business from the occupants of 15 houses. Businesses' are already struggling due to reduced public transport, increase homelessness and crime, lack of policy and cleaning presence, appalling restoration of the market square and out-of-date Christmas décor. Proposed site would increase use of multi-story car park which could become open to increased price charges.

04658 Colette Hurton Opposed to site 262. The area is already densely populated and the current approved site 953 will add to this. Adding site 262 on top of this would increase traffic, pollution levels and noise levels. Prefer land to be put to better use, such as a picnic area to be enjoyed by visitors and residents.

04659 Christopher Farmer

Opposed to site 164/430. The land in question has been used for farming for the last 8 years and should stay that way. Warning Tongue Lane is already congested enough with people using it as a cut through and the development will not help with this. Devaluation of property due to reduction in the rural setting. Negative impact on wildlife such as on the deer living on the site. Services, such as health and education facilities are already stretched.

04761 Natlie Nattress Objection to site 164/430. Objection based on several traffic related issues: McAuley school traffic renders for the whole area via the roundabout gridlocked; use of Packington Road and Staunton Road for the Plumpton Park School is also congested; bus route on Packington Road is currently dangerous; increased traffic to the Wildlife Park has increased congestion and this development will make the problems worse. Bend next to the site is an accident hotspot and more houses will increase the amount of cyclists using already dangerous roads.

04762 Alan Kaye 147 - object

04958 P Madin Objection to site 777. Objection due to the site being on green belt and a flood plain. The current road infrastructure will be affected and there will be a negative impact on schools, doctors and all services.

04959 Frank Edwards

Objection to site 777. Objection due to the increase on traffic flow, effect on the local school and surgery, effect on the drainage system - would a pumping system be needed? Hickleton Road currently already floods during light showers and demand on the drainage system will not help.

04962 Lynne Brough Objection to site 350/407. Objection based on the loss of green space for nature to flourish, the loss of open recreational space, the increase in noise from the work itself and then future residents, increased pollution, negative impact on gas, drainage, water and telephone infrastructure and the roads which are not fit for more traffic.

04963 Marjorie Slaney

Objection to site 379. Current road is not able to support busy traffic, especially the junction from lower Dolcliffe.

04964 Dave Cliff Objection to site 147. Objection due to the current volume of traffic is increasing and added development will only increase the risk of accidents. Second concern around the capacity of education and health facilities. Confusion around building between the existing estate and the lagoons.

04967 Kelly Ball Objection to site 777. Objection to the site due to, the site is on greenfield and the site helps protect from flooding and draught, it is also the home of several animals. The site has a diverse array of vegetation which supports a wide array of insects. Negative impact on the current residents views of the countryside. Village cannot sustain the additional traffic, especially on Doncaster Road. Any development on the site will increase downstream flood risk. Local schools, doctors and dentists are already oversubscribed and the development will exacerbate this. The village has inadequate public transport links and more people would make this less fit for purpose.

04968 Paul Arnison Objection to site 164/430. Objection on the potential destruction of several wildlife habitats. Currently the roads are not fit for purpose, and the quiet village has already been made difficult to navigate due to the Yorkshire Wildlife Park. The ever increasing services from Doncaster Airport will also have an impact on the site. The site is a greenfield site used for dog walking and the site would diminish the view. The site also has flooding risks.

04969 Mr S Levers Objection to site 777. Plot 777 is not suitable for development. Greenbelt land should be preserved at all costs due to its ability to protect from flooding and help improve the air quality. Plot 777 was seriously flooded in 2007 and badly waterlogged in 2018. The village des not have adequate public transport links and more houses will cause daily gridlocks. Current oversubscription of education and health facilities, and there is not enough local amenities either to cope with the increased population the proposal brings.

04635 Alex Andrews Site 164/430 Object. Busy road already major connection between Rossington, Cantley, Branton, Armthorpe, Bawtry Road etc. roads off Warning Tongue Lane is bad enough without adding to it. View of the Green Belt. YWP traffic is at a standstill. Impact on local environment, pollute atmosphere.

04636 Paul Stevenson

Site 164/430 Object. Two busy roads would need a complete overhaul if new housing is proposed (300/400 new vehicles). Close to school playing fields with children crossing. During term time traffic is constantly at standstill.

04637 Tony Buckton Site 164/430 Object. Green belt with excellent views. Changed from a lane to a busy main road and not designed for such volumes. Safety risks from drivers around school area. YWP volumes of traffic.

04638 Michael Lewis Site 164 Object. Busy enough. Greenfield land. Loss of view and destroys natural beauty. Noise and dust from construction. Traffic flow bad enough at peak times. Strain on existing schools, doctors and other services.

04639 Amanda Maddox

Site 777 Object. Greenfield and currently pastureland. Protection of flooding, aid with air quality and refuge for wildlife and insects. Sandwiched between housing. Flooded in 2007. Forthcoming HS2 banking. Impact on local schools, doctors and dentists increase demand. Inadequate public transport links to homes and local jobs. Cannot sustain further development. Not enough or sufficient

services locally no doctors, dentist surgery limited places for school, youths to mingle doesn’t create a healthy village. Other sites which will direct flow of traffic away from centre and pose less of a flood risk.

04640 Mary Ann and Stephen Beastall

Site 165 Object. Loss of Green Belt creating urban sprawl. Residential amenity noise, disturbance and nuisance. Flood risk surface water flooding.

04641 Christine and Kenneth Proudman

Site 115 Object. Green belt. Woodfield Plantation offers enough scope for development. Traffic congestion increasingly worse, 300 more houses would be unmanageable. Increase in families’ schools will be full to capacity. Inadequate footpath on Alverley Lane

04642 E Brentnall Site 350/470 Object. Infrastructure old and unable to cope. Lack of suitable exit and entry for increased traffic onto Bawtry Road. Impact on noise busy estate quality of life for existing residents will be reduced.

04643 Jennifer Greaves

Site 777 Object. Land at high risk of flooding. High voltage cables overhead. Land lower than mains drains problems of surface water, sewerage and drain water. Poor internet access. Insufficient capacity in local schools. Extra pollution from traffic. Effected wildlife from development.

04644 Norman Greaves

Site 777 Object. Increase in traffic. Overhead lines. Land below existing drains. Existing village infrastructure cannot cope. Threaten wildlife.

04645 Mr & Mrs Cotgreave (1 and 2)

Site 141 Object. Scale of development is excessive 250% increase to existing housing. Would not be in keeping with existing estate. Loss of amenity and character. Green Belt. Site has issues with access/public sewer connectivity. Flood risk area. Consider council have not examined fully al other reasonable options for meeting need.

04646 Christine Harget

Site 777 Object. Traffic really busy as connection to Dearne Parkway. Green belt. Flood Risk. Pumping station on Mill Lane is visited by a bowser when it’s overloaded. School at capacity. Electricity is an issue. Destroy rural look. Impacts of construction from HS2. Mining subsidence.

04647 Richard Thompson

Site 147 Object. Inadequate site for housing, potential traffic congestion.

04650 Andrew Midgeley

Site 164/430Object. Add to congestion, really bust due to close proximity to school. Loss of open green space. Negative effect on house prices.

04651 Andrew Ward Site 165 and 186 Object. Green Belt. Grade 2 agricultural land which should be protected. Loss of nature and environment. Loss of view across countryside. Number of dwellings proposed would impact on traffic, air quality, stress of schools and doctors and limited open spaces for leisure. Properties on Crabgate Lane flood in times of very heavy rain.

05123 Susan Parton Site 777 object. Future plans to develop on the field I rent from savilles. As a resident of church lane there are too many houses in this village already traffic a nightmare not to mention size of school but not least the grazing d is protected and ancient ridge and furrow it also is on wells and natural springs

05098 Anton Fix Does not agree with site selection for Barnby Dun. Policies which state; ‘a suitable distance’ should be reviewed and amended to include minimum acceptable distances. Be specific! at least in any supporting text. Make it clear that policies that include a large percentage of renewable energy generation will be better supported than those which do not. Reduce land are to that which is not in flood zone 3. Barnby Dun should be a separate case because of flood zone 3. Site 347 is a far better. Does not agree with site boundary. too large and includes land in Flood Zone 3. Does not agree with proposed site use. 98 homes will grid lock Pine Hall junction (existing infrastructure issues. Provide bungalows, include doctors surgery. Ensure that 50% of new homes are built with some form of renewable energy generation. Roundabout required. At Armthorpe Lane -Station Road.

05102 Andrew Bate 160 Object to Bradholme Reasons - inappropriate rural land use, does not contribute to rural diversification, increase traffic, flood risk area, home to wildlife and protected species

05101 Kim Bright 160 - Object to Bradholme. Reasons detriment to local area, impacts on wildlife and increased traffic Revisit site at 6 of the M18 and A614 Selby Road

05100 Pam Bate 160 Object to Bradholme Reasons - inappropriate rural land use, does not contribute to rural diversification, increase traffic, flood risk area, home to wildlife and protected species

05084 Nicola Clarke 396 - North Eastern Road. (objects) Reasons - Does not want housing overlooking her garden. A selling point when she bought the house was the ‘open space’ at the back. Flood Risk. Nowhere for children to play (396 would make a good park / play area, keep the wildlife in the area, prevent flood risk, and improve the mindfulness and wellbeing of people). Provide nice spaces instead of houses. 343 and 081 can see these are rejected but she is sure they will come forward if 396 is proposed.

05080 Julie Peel 164 Objects to Warning Tongue Lane . Reasons – greenfields taken for development. Impact on schools, GPs and road traffic How has the council identified the need and what proportion are local and affordable?

05079 Philip and Sheila Baker

164 Objects to Warning Tongue Lane. Reasons – increased traffic, impact on semi-rural nature of the area, unsustainable demand on schools and amenities

05078 Alan Hemingway

160 Bradholme Thorne - objects to proposed development, it was refused in 2009! Reasons - unspoilt countryside, flood risk, extra traffic

05077 Joy Yule 160 Objects to Bradholme reasons - destroy unspoilt countryside Badly sited to integrate with the rest of Thorne due to twin barriers of the railway and canal Heavier traffic through Thorne Increase in air pollution from dust, diesel fumes

05076 Lorraine Ridsdel

objects to the planning permission for the houses to be built on Grange Farm Land, Balby (I think the lady means Alverly Lane 115). Reasons green belt, traffic pressures, flooding, pressure on doctors, dentists, schools and community centres. Reject planning permission until other estate finished

05074 Sandie Dorsett 164 strongly object to the application to build houses at the end of Warning Tongue Lane. Increase traffic, the lack of infrastructure, all the doctors and local nursery’s are full

05073 Karl Batey 164 . Object to this site for housing because Warning Tongue Lane. Poor infrastructure. Road struggling to handle the traffic to the wildlife park. Change entrance to wildlife park and view may change

05072 Susan Henderson

350. Objects comments on inaccurate DMBC sales particulars Loss of green space (use brownfield site) Poor air quality caused by traffic pollution is proven detrimental to health. Building on this field would be over-development for this area and change the character. Residents would be in a housing estate and not on the edge. Utilities infrastructure is old. Poor access for construction traffic. Access issues – Rosehill Rise the only vehicle access.

Impact on locality - change of the area ambiance, street scene, increased noise level, loss of existing privacy resulting in a poorer quality of life for residents (asks about road upkeep and car parking) Increased cars and traffic Racecourse - when racing from Doncaster is filmed, the viewer sees a beautiful green woodland backdrop to the course as the camera pans round.

05103 Bentley with Arksey Heritage Society

Re… HELAA site 161 at Mill Farm Millgate Bentley Safety issue – increased traffic at specific times and locations impact on residents impact on the underlying archaeology (buried features including ancient trackways and enclosures dating to the Iron Age, all visible heritage lost from 17th and 18th century) Response assumes that site 161 will get the green light but could the Local Authority planners place conditions on to any development… Use Governments Planning Policy Statement 5 to impose such conditions that any visible and architectural features that are under threat of destruction are fully recorded

05122 Airdeon Planning and Design (on behalf of Mr T Robbins)

172 – representation in support of the site alongside adjacent site to create access

05120 Sarah Maddock

941 ? Do we really need another huge housing estate? (no countryside left, schools, doctors, dentists full. What about drainage? Houses are ugly too! Understands need for housing but use ‘brownbelt’

05118 Danielle Watson

379 Garden Street. Oppose the plans of turning a local car park in Mexborough into housing (car park useful for shopping) also wants to know the plans for housing

05116 Clare Reynolds

164 . Object to the proposed development of houses on Warning Tongue Lane, Cantley. No more houses needed road too busy Development will destroy local wildlife habitat

05115 Lynne Tatham site references 165 Land North of the A1, Skellow and 186 Land off Crabgate Lane. Comments and questions Reasons… flood risk (Has the existing infrastructure been assessed? Will it be adequate for the amount of dwellings proposed, e.g., drainage pipe works for sewage, storm water, general drainage? Will the existing infrastructure cope - where will all this extra sewage and water go?) , Government attaches great importance to Green Belt. Pollution (air and noise pollution impacting the health and well being. Trees and hedgerows important in reducing noise and air pollution from traffic) A1 - significant impact on an already very busy and at times, difficult to join A1 Impact on amenities (schools GP surgeries Dental Surgeries), Ecology and Archaeology - Will an assessment be done to consider what wildlife there is in this area, including species that are threatened by continual development and are at risk? Have or will these fields be assessed for historical importance?

05121 Kate Heywood Site 160 Object to the proposed allocation of the site at Bradholme for industrial/warehousing. Will only benefit developer

04629 Andrea Meredith

Site 164 Object. proposed housing development East Warnington Lane. Reasons Wildlife, concerns about traffic, pollution and health and well being. Impact on dog walking

04667 Don and Margaret Wood

Objection to site 164/430. Objection based on traffic issues. Currently traffic flow has increased due to the Wildlife Park and The Great Yorkshire Way. Already Warning Tongue Lane is prone to excessive speeding and road traffic collisions. The development of 275 houses will make this worse.

04668 Deborah Cocker-Brown

Objection to site 164/430. Objection based on the increase in traffic the development would provide, already congestion issues which need resolving first. The road can not be widened due to the gas pipe line so that would not solve the issues. Emergency services use WTL day and night and an increase in traffic here would make it more difficult for them to access the road. WTL regularly floods across the road, both at Cantley Roundabout and at the Bawtry Road connection. Development will have negative impact on current water pressures, broadband and telephone connections. Concerns on the reduction of house prices now losing their views.

04669 Phillip Brown Objection to site 164/430. Objection based on the increase in traffic the development would provide, already congestion issues which need resolving first. The road can not be widened due to the gas pipe line so that would not solve the issues. Emergency services use WTL day and night and an increase in traffic here would make it more difficult for them to access the road. WTL regularly floods across

the road, both at Cantley Roundabout and at the Bawtry Road connection. Development will have negative impact on current water pressures, broadband and telephone connections. Concerns on the reduction of house prices now losing their views.

04670 John Heavey Objection to site 164/430. Objection based on current traffic issues unless a roundabout or traffic lights was implemented at the development to help control their traffic flow.

04671 Joanna Greaves

Objection to site 234. Objection based on the lack on infrastructure and amenities to cope with the numbers in development. The site is also farming land and in previous proposals to allocate the land the residents were assured the land would remain for framing purposes indefinitely. Objection also on the diminished views and therefore reduced value of property.

04672 MS and PA Marley

Objection to site 115. Objection based on: increased traffic issues the development would produce, there is also a lack of facilities including playing areas which is a priority for the area not new houses, the development will reduce the green areas in Balby, reduced property values on Alverley Lane estate, educational facilities can not cope as it is and the Alverly Lane field could be and should be made into a nature reserve instead.

04673 Anne Nicklin Objection to sites 165, 186 and 782. The sites in relation are green belt and the developments do not meet exceptional circumstances as set out in NPPF para 80. Sites are also grade 2-3 agricultural land which would be lost in the developments. Development in these sites will severely affect house prices which are already below national average. Sites 165 and 186 contain the remains of earthworks for a Roman Fort. Sites 165, 186 and 782 do not have the road network sufficient enough for increased traffic.

04674 JR Ashby Objection to site 379. The site would take away the incentive for shopping in Mexborough (free parking) in an already struggling high street.

04675 Terence Booth Objection to site 165. Already current flooding and drainage issues. Further development on site 165 will add to the volume of surface water to be dissipated and deplete the area available as "soak away".

04676 Philip Overton Objection to sites 165 and 186. Development is on green belt and agricultural land, this land may become important for farming after Brexit. The current road infrastructure cannot cope. Environmental impact on current wildlife. Local schools and doctors are already full to capacity. Issues with getting relevant utilities to the site.

04677 Philip Dickinson

Objection to site 499. The land is an important natural habitat for many species. The development will be very detrimental to the environment and the village community who enjoy the views and green space. Also not clear how access would be provided as there is no easily available access points.

04678 Mark Pedley Objection to site 115. There is already traffic issues on the Tickhill Road/Alverley lane junction and development will add to congestion. The site is green belt and farming land, building on it will devalue properties in the area.

04679 Ian Donnelly Objection to site 147. Objection based on impact to already congested roads around Hatfield Land and Pinehall Road. Current facilities such as schools, doctors, shops do not have the capacity for further development. The area is also used by the community for jogging, walking and is the natural habitat of many animals. The integrity of Barnby Dun as a village is being threatened.

04680 Bridie Donnelly

Objection to site 147. Objection based on impact to already congested roads around Hatfield Land and Pinehall Road. Current facilities such as schools, doctors, shops do not have the capacity for further development. The area is also used by the community for jogging, walking and is the natural habitat of many animals. The integrity of Barnby Dun as a village is being threatened.

04681 Graham and Jane Whaley

Objection to site 164/430. Objection to site due to Warning Tongue Lane is already heavily used and there has been a few fatalities. Development will increase congestion and the danger to the road. Will also spoil the landscape.

04683 Lesley Saxelby

Objection to site 147. The development will add to current congestion problems and the flow of traffic will be compromised. The facilities in the village struggle to support current residents let alone new developments.

04684 Richard Langton

Objection to site 147. Area is a high flood risk zone. Already traffic issues in and out of the village. Barnby Dun does not have the infrastructure to cope with new developments.

04685 Asid Fazal Objection to site 164/430.

04686 Isobel and Robert Dugher

Objection to site 262. Objection due to he development spoiling the frontage of the lake which is used by clubs, groups and schools for activities. The building of shops, café or a pub would be more welcome.

04737 Mr and Mrs Robinson

Objection to site 147. Objection due to: the increase in traffic which is already causing daily bottle necks and excessive speeding; potential flood risk to the area from the River Talbot; over capacity of facilities such as schools and health; and safety issues around the junction of Station Road and Armthorpe Lane where more traffic will increase incidents.

04741 Claire Martin Objection to site 115, site has impacts to the environment and sewage in the area. There is also potential flooding in the area and the site is green belt.

04742 Susan Strangeway

Objection to site 147 - Objection; issues around traffic, the end of Hatfield Lane is already congested additional cars will increase safety concerns and there will be an increase in incidents. Current health and educational infrastructure cannot cope. The village shopping area already has parking problems. Development will only add to this.

04754 Anna Taylor Objection to site 115 - Currently Alverley lane is heavily congested and the development will make it worse. The land is already waterlogged and prone to surface water drainage problems. Local wildlife in the railway embankment parallel with the site will be affected.

04756 Carla Ciullo-Scholes

Objection to site 115 - Objection based on traffic and safety concerns; Alverley lane is already busy and very dangerous, 150 new homes will impact the lane and worsen the situation. The area also doesn’t need 150 new houses.

04814 Nicola Merry Objection to site 379 - Objection based on the financial implications getting rid of the parking would have on the town centre. The other alternative for parking at the multi-story is unapproachable due to anti-social behaviour around the building. The high street would be severely impacted if the parking was built upon.

04815 Luke Bridgwater

Objection based on the financial implications getting rid of the parking would have on the town centre. The other alternative for parking at the multi-story is unapproachable due to anti-social behaviour around the building. The high street would be severely impacted if the parking was built upon.

04816 Pauline Doyle Objection to site 115 - Objection based on traffic congestion problems which the development will make worse. A children’s play area would be more beneficial on the space for the community.

04817 S Hirst Objection to site 777 - A paper released by MHCLG emphasised the prioritisation of brownfield sites for development, there is no exceptional about using the green belt land in site 777. Site is used as grazing land and utilised by horse owners. Site 777 is also home to wildlife and native plants, the development will impact upon this. Site 777 is also prone to flooding, it was severely flooded in 2007 and badly waterlogged in 2018 (see photo attachments in rep). The current HS2 proposal is already taking valuable green belt land. The current local amenities and services are already oversubscribed and adding more housing will stretch this further. Sites 1003 and 1004 would be more suitable for development, due to their better traffic connectivity and less flood risk issues.

04819 M and K Van De Velde

Objection to site 164/430 - Objection to site due to current congestion on Warning Tongue lane which will become more impracticable with the development. The site is green lad and should not be built upon. Devaluation of people’s properties due to views being curtailed.

04824 Val Jones Objection to site 777 - The Village Design Statement clearly states that the green belt status of the land surrounding the villages must be preserved and the parish Plan Survey (2005) showed 99% of inhabitants felt the countryside was important to them. The local school and doctors is already full.

04827 June Gwynn Opposed to the rejected of site 508. Bemused that the majority of proposed sites in Moorends have been rejected. Understand this may be due to flood risk, but there has been two recent developments within a medium flood risk in Thorne. Current flood defences don’t seem to have been taken into consideration. Moorends could do with an encouragement for new housing and home ownership as opposed to development being favoured in Thorne.

04041 Kath Johnson Sites 139, 155, 379, 412, 414, 777, 929 - object. Object to developments that surround High Melton including Sprotbrough, Harlington and Mexborough. These will increase traffic, the risk of accidents and air pollution. The level of traffic is rising including HGV’s. Properties on Melton Mill Lane have seen vibration damage. Accidents happen regularly. HS2 will add to these problems as they intend to use the main High Melton and Harlington/Barnburgh road to access their construction compound. Residents have paid a premium to live in quiet area without air pollution. There will also be issues with the schools and health care facilities.

04042 George Johnson

Sites 139, 155, 379, 412, 414, 777, 929 - object. Object to developments that surround High Melton including Sprotbrough, Harlington and Mexborough. These will increase traffic, the risk of accidents and air pollution. The level of traffic is rising including HGV’s. Properties on Melton Mill Lane have seen vibration damage. Accidents happen regularly. HS2 will add to these problems as they intend to use the main High Melton and Harlington/Barnburgh road to access their construction compound. Residents have paid a premium to live in quiet area without air pollution. There will also be issues with the schools and health care facilities.

0759 High Melton Parish Council

Sites 139, 155, 379, 412, 414, 777, 929 - object. Object to developments that surround High Melton including Sprotbrough, Harlington and Mexborough. These are in the Green Belt and there needs to special circumstances to justify them. The village is already over-burdened with traffic and extra will increase accidents and poor air quality. Green Belt villages should be preserved and protected. Residents have paid a premium to live in quiet area without air pollution. There will be an increased need for extra school places and health centres and GPS are up to full capacity.

04027 B&M Chappell Site 115 – object. There are problems with flooding of the Warmsworth Beck due to surface water. The holding tanks system and flood plain at Peglers Sports Field are not as effective as we were assured they would be. The Beck causes problems on our land and those of neighbouring farmers. The dirty water causes problems with the quality and quantity of crops grown. Further development on Alverley Lane will bring about more excess surface water and flooding.

05016 Teresa Claxton

Objection to site 147. Objection based on the lack of current facilities including the local school likely to be at over capacity. Safety concerns for school children around already busy roads which will get busier, the increase of traffic through the village will disturb resident who live on or nearby to Hatfield Lane. The public footpath is used by walkers, cyclists etc. which might disappear alongside the field and scenery. There will be more pollution to the environment with the increase in vehicles.

05017 Wendy Norton Objection to site 164/430. Warning Tongue Lane is already congestion and unsafe, the site will make things worse with 275 more houses.

05019 S McCreadie Objection to site 234. The proposed number would be a colossal estate, this would increase congestion to York Road and surrounding areas and increase pollution, the local schools and doctors/dentists could not cope with the additional numbers, development would have

a detrimental impact on the views of the Roman Ridge patch, agricultural land would be lost, the flora and fauna would be affected and lost, in general the development would affect the character of the neighbourhood.

05020 Louise Wood Objection to site 147. Objection due to impact on views from current property, the site is greenfield where there are plenty of brownfield sites and there would be an impact on wildlife. Current educational facilities are at full capacity and more houses would add to this problem. Same capacity issues with the local doctors surgery and there is no dentist available. There is not the infrastructure to cope with the current traffic let alone an increase.

05021 Philip Claxton Objection to site 147. Objection based on the lack of current facilities including the local school likely to be at over capacity. Safety concerns for school children around already busy roads which will get busier, the increase of traffic through the village will disturb resident who live on or nearby to Hatfield Lane. The public footpath is used by walkers, cyclists etc. which might disappear alongside the field and scenery. There will be more pollution to the environment with the increase in vehicles.

05022 Pam Greenwood

Objection to site 350/407. Current infrastructure struggles with the needs of the estates as it stands, in particular water and sewage provisions and telephone/broadband cabling. The site has no option for access to be opened which would create an increase in traffic on the original estate, this route is already unsafe and busy. Loss of open space utilised by walkers, cyclists etc. The green space is an important habitat to different types of wildlife and some off those species are priority species in UK conservation policy. Lack of current facilities. The current estate is currently a quiet area and the development would change the nature of the area.

05025 Eric and Marlene Shelton

Objection to site 164/430. Objection to due to the increase in traffic that would occur on an already busy road (Warning Tongue Lane), development on previously assigned green belt land and the increase in activity in a busy are with a large school and residential housing.

05027 Arthur Leach Objection to site 164/430. Warning Tongue lane is narrow and already very busy, and used by bigger vehicles due to its access to the Yorkshire Way. None of the promised amenities (such as Manor farm) have not arrived.

05028 Michael Chappell

Objection to site 115. Traffic on Alverley lane cannot cope currently and there has been an increase in accidents. Development will increase the problem. Currently the drains overflow and development will make the problem worse. Site has previously had planning application rejected so why should it change now? There is also enough other brownfield sites that could be utilised.

04782 Daniel Firth Objection to site 115. The area already has infrastructure problems with frequent accidents from Alverley lane onto Tickhill Road. Current issues around drains as the existing services cannot cope already.

04786 Mr Milbourn Objection to site 164/430. Warning Tongue lane is already overpopulated and subject to congestion and road accidents. Due to the Wildlife Park, Great Yorkshire Way and potentially this development the road will be gridlocked. Site also destroys local greenbelt land known to be a habitat for deer.

04920 Sarah Hague Site 234 Object.

04921 M Cross Site 164 Object. Traffic increase over years will get worse. Been terrible accidents over years on Warning Tongue Lane. Flooding on the land.

04922 Mr and Mrs Brian Ellis

Site 139 Object. Land is Green Belt, LPA should be in line with national policy and should only be utilised as a last resort. Other land available. (list given). Large parks could be relocated onto land with mining subsidence and redevelop derelict land. Using land within Mexborough rather than on the outskirts would bring the community back. Landscape north of Wath Road has remained unchanged for 2000 years and should remain untouched.

04926 Carolyn Nurse Site 147 Object. Loss of open fields, open space that provides country scenery and wildlife.

04927 Darren and Sheryl Scott

Site 115 Object. Tickhill Road and Alverley Lane extremely busy with traffic, congested and dangerous. Affected quality of life. Enough new houses.

04928 Mr and Mrs Gillmore

Site 147 Object. Does not have facilities for more homes. Requires more shops, bigger school. Dangerous with lorry movements.

04930 Andrew Gregory

Site 115 Object. No pedestrian crossing, unsafe road junction, requires traffic calming measures. Green Belt. Increased traffic from surrounding new housing sites (Carr Lodge). Other sites available.

04931 Mr and Mrs Halifax

Site 115 Object. Green Belt and agricultural land. Speeding motorists no traffic calming measures, weight restrictions. Volumes of traffic will get worse. Sewerage and drainage issues in the area. Burning of wood in area causing issues to health and pollution.

04932 Mrs M Ellis Site 139 Object. Green Belt. Agree that land should not be built on until all other viable options not made available. Land available where other houses have been demolished. Land not changed for 2000 years, should not be disturbed.

04933 Mrs P Cannon Site 147 Object. Previously grown but facilities and infrastructure not. Only 1 school, hardly any recreation areas, small doctors, limited public transport services and local roads not capable of more traffic.

04934 Kathryn Wroe Site 777 Object. Flooding impact. Sewage overload. Traffic problems. HS2. Green belt. Subsidence.

04938 Bogdam and Amy Gheoca

Site 350 Object. Would create traffic and access problems. Adding pressure and stress onto residents. Noise level and air pollution would increase contribute to deterioration in quality of life. Land used for recreation and leisure.

04939 J Cheetham Site 350 Object. Enjoy field for recreation and leisure. Traffic congestion onto Bawtry Road. Local roads not wide enough.

04940 Darryl Stacey Midgley

Site 147 Object. Infrastructure not adequate for further development. School could not facilitate an increase. Change structure of village i.e. take away countryside. Doctors would not cope.

04941 Kathleen Stacey Midgley

Site 147 Object. Whole infrastructure of Barnby Dun is not made for an increase. Road, school and doctors not able to cope. Would change structure of village and take away country side.

04942 Dawn Kirk Site 115 Object. Traffic increases from surrounding developments. Car/foot difficult most times of day. Infrastructure inadequate for volume of traffic. Issues with existing pumping station. Facilities for copying with any waste water could be surmounted. Loss of habitat and ecology. Other sites available nearby which would have less impact on surrounding infrastructure.

04943 Stuart Adams Site 262 Object. Should provide land for community space to help foster a sense of community to the area.

04944 Martyn Wood Site 140 Object. Initially a country lane which has two big developments either side which is now oversubscribed. Traffic congestion, amenity access and cause gridlock to an already busy road. Sewerage issues with nearby pumping station which would increase problems.

04831 Diane Woods and Clifford Pearson

Objection to site 164/430. Warning Tongue Lane is already busy due to its usage as a short cut to the motorway, being the road to Yorkshire Wildlife park, and traffic for local schools. The road is not suitable to accommodate any more traffic. The road is also prone to people speeding and it quite dangerous. Concerns about the wildlife in the area and the loss of green belt.

04843 David C Harcombe

Objection to site 147. If the development went ahead it would have a major impact on safety, noise and air pollution, traffic and local amenities. Currently, there is inadequate parking for the number of cars already here, the local school and GP is overcapacity. The increase in cars will create greater CO2 emissions and make it more difficult for people to walk to school.

04845 Barbara Ann Harcombe

Objection to site 147. Current services cannot cope with new development, the school and gp is full, there is insufficient parking and current roads such as Hatfield lane, Pine Hall Road and Meadowfield Road are currently dangerous.

04846 Arshad Mahmood

objection to site 115. There is already too much traffic on Tickhill Road and an increase in accidents. Also an increase in noise pollution and waste on the streets as the population increase. The development will add to the problem.

04849 Helen Smithard

Objection to site 115. A number of new homes are being built elsewhere so there should be no need for housing on this site. The area is prone to water drainage and flooding issues which new housing will make worse, there is also a lack of places at Balby Carr Sports Academy. Around the site, the traffic is heavily congested during rush hour, and at other times is victim to speeding which has led it to being unsafe. An extra 200+ cars will make the roads not cope.

0271 Blaxton Parish Council

Site 317 Support. Extend the area to the South to take in the strip of land adjacent to the railway line to improve the appearance of the area.

04417 Sandstone Technology

Site 929 – queries in respect to how the site has been assessed via the Green Belt Review

05142 Vicky Finch 115 - Alverley Lane Objects to proposed allocation. Main Concerns: Impact on local roads Impact on local services – schools, Doctors Local infrastructure cannot cope – roads Drainage problems This part of Balby has already had more than its fair share of new houses in recent years.

05143 Rachel Yates 147 – Barnby Dun Objects to proposed allocation

Main Concerns: Flood risk Service provision. Increased traffic Impact on schools provision Impact on healthcare provision Lack of shops and amenities Local bus service in decline

05144 Nicola Horsman

147 – Barnby Dun Objects to proposed allocation Main Concerns: Impact on local infrastructure Increase traffic adding to already congested area Impact on schools and doctors Better idea would be smaller scale developments in more locations to allow for better integration in a more manageable way.

05145 Logan Gross 147 – Barnby Dun Objects to proposed allocation Main Concerns: Impact on local infrastructure

Increase traffic adding to already congested area Impact on schools and doctors Better idea would be smaller scale developments in more locations to allow for better integration in a more manageable way.

05146 Hudson Gross 147 – Barnby Dun Objects to proposed allocation Main Concerns: Impact on local infrastructure Increase traffic adding to already congested area Impact on schools and doctors Better idea would be smaller scale developments in more locations to allow for better integration in a more manageable way.

05139 Lindsey Allison 147 – Barnby Dun Objects to proposed allocation Main Concerns: Lack of capacity in school places, doctors and social care. Impact on road congestion Increased pollution Reduced Air quality Impact on wildlife Loss of view.

05125 Sarah Weirs 115 - Alverley Lane Objects to proposed allocation. Main Concerns: Increased number of cars on already busy local road network Alverley not capable of handling current levels of traffic. Tickhill Road already too busy with numerous accidents – additional traffic will only make the problem worse. Something more sustainable is preferred -more environmentally friendly. Area is already well provided for in terms of Housing.

05126 Mark Firth 115 - Alverley Lane Objects to proposed allocation. Main Concerns: Increased number of cars on already busy local road network Alverley not capable of handling current levels of traffic. Tickhill Road already too busy with numerous accidents – additional traffic will only make the problem worse. Something more sustainable is preferred -more environmentally friendly. Area is already well provided for in terms of Housing.

05109 David Meredith

164/430 – Warning Tongue lane Objects to proposed allocation. Main Concerns: Area cannot sustain a development this large.

WTL already very congested already at busy times (school traffic and wildlife park traffic) Will increase volume of traffic through Armthorpe. Impact on capacity of GP’s, schools and local infrastructure. Negative impact on the environment.

05111 Janet Bradshaw

165 & 186 Skellow Objects to proposed allocation. Main Concerns: Loss of privacy – currently have ‘open aspect’ Site will be intrusive to my property Loss of my ‘right to light’ Greenbelt site Rural area is in danger of being over developed. Flood risk –increased risk of surface water flooding Increased traffic – huge adverse impact on local roads and access onto A1 Impact on local amenities – schools, doctors. Very few recreational facilities in local area – no shops or cafes Loss of flora and fauna which is beneficial to the environment Increased pollution – detrimental to residents.

05113 Jane Hayler 147 – Barnby Dun Objects to proposed allocation Main Concerns: Cannot believe a housing estate is wanted or needed in this location. Impact of increased traffic – village cannot cope. Impact on local services – Doctors, schools Previous discussions (some years ago) concluded that this site not suitable as is a floodplain. What has been put in place since then to prevent flooding? Other areas in Doncaster must be more suitable.

05104 Sarah Hill 164/430 – Warning Tongue lane Objects to proposed allocation. Main Concerns: There is ample BF land elsewhere in Doncaster without using farm land and GF sites. Green areas of Doncaster must be retained.

05105 Judith Gilbert 929 – Sprotbrough Objects to proposed allocation. Main Concerns: Greenbelt land. Important to preserve countryside and prevent ‘urban sprawl’ Would create a traffic hazard.

Access via Cadeby Road is totally unsuitable (bends) Melton Road is already very busy. Increased traffic would be dangerous to pedestrians travelling to the 2 schools. Possible that the road is not strong enough to cope with the additional traffic.

05106 Elaine Capon 115 - Alverley Lane Re proposed allocation. Concerns: Extra traffic on already problematic local roads (Tickhill Rd/Springwell Lane). Access to Tickhill Road is already a problem. Increased noise and air pollution

05108 J. Jones Objects to proposed site allocation ‘Warrington lane’ Assumed - 164/430 – Warning Tongue lane Objects to proposed allocation. Main Concerns: Loss of ‘picturesque area’ Increased traffic. Impact on local facilities –Schools, Doctors, Dentist.

02349 DLP (on behalf of G.A. Mell (Builders) Ltd.)

136 – Bawtry Road Finningley Site NOT proposed for allocation.

Response supports site for allocation. Main points: Site remains, available, developable & deliverable for residential development. Suitability: Close to local facilities and services. Available public transport Sustainable site in suitable location Site in single ownership Will to develop by local house builder Public consultation in 2012 supported the site. Parish council support the site. Range of house types proposed. Affordable housing element included. Disputes the findings of the site selection methodology re ‘urban extension’ and not required because of existing extant perm issions.

01378 CCLR Richard Jones

Site 1013 Understand that this site will be “refused” (is a late rep) 223 Have assumed comments refer to site 223 (not 233 as in response)

Proposed housing site. Comments on site but not clear if in support or objects.

04690 Christopher Dray

147 – Barnby Dun Objects to proposed allocation Main Concerns: Will add to existing traffic problems Impact on services – schools, Doctors Loss of flora and fauna There must be Brown Field sites elsewhere. Development would have a detrimental impact for the residents of Barnby Dun.

04692 Kay Hind 147 – Barnby Dun Objects to proposed allocation Main Concerns: Impact of increased traffic on safety Increased flood risk Loss of wildlife habitat. Impact of increased traffic on local roads This is a village not a town.

04693 Steven Hind 147 – Barnby Dun Objects to proposed allocation Main Concerns: Increased flood risk Impact of increased traffic on safety and ‘peace’. Impact on services – schools, shops and Police. Impact on Countryside. B. Dun is a village not a Town. Impact on local road infrastructure. Impact on house prices Village will lose its identity. Council has a duty to preserve the village status of B.Dun.

04696 Mrs and Mrs T Speight

139 – Mexborough Objects to proposed allocation Main Concerns: Loss of Green belt land More suitable BF sites elsewhere e.g. old Manvers to Barnburgh Railway Line and fields behind Manvers Arms Pub Don’t use ‘flood plain excuse’ 0 Pastures Road is a floodplain and has been developed. “Take heed of what the people of Mexborough want”

05031 John Clifton Site objection - 350 Rose Hill. It has poor access to main roads. Roads will not be able to cope with the traffic. It will cause major traffic congestion and increased air pollution on both Bawtry Road and Cantley Road A large number of properties would be exposed to noise from trains running along the south eastern boundary as it is open ground there with nothing to absorb the noise (or vibrations) from passing trains. The site is isolated from any community facilities, shops, primary schools and public transport.

05023 Richard and Michelle Lewis

Site Support - 929 Land North of Cadeby Rd Viable option because of: Minimises adverse impacts to existing infrastructure when compared to all other sites included in the Local Plan (by a significant margin). Is right size relative to the needs of the Local Plan. Avoids over-development of the greenbelt relative to housing requirement identified in the Local Plan. Offers the potential to strengthen the greenbelt boundary to the west of Sprotbrough village (to the east of site ref 929) weakened by recent greenbelt development, allowing the re-establishment of a strong and defensible greenbelt boundary using the ancient hedgerow on the western boundary of the site (and thereby satisfying national planning guidelines and greenbelt definition ‘best practice’). Requires minimal development cost (improving site viability) and minimising disruption to existing residents. Essential infrastructure needed to develop and sustain the site either already on-site or running along the north and south boundaries of the site. Amenity benefits for residents who will occupy the new homes due to it being located adjacent to the local park, which provides a ‘green’ pedestrian link to key facilities, such as the village schools.

04974 Peter and Susan Hayes

Site Object – 115 Alverly Lane Reasons: Greenbelt, increased traffic, existing infrastructure poor, utilities (water and sewage) intrusion on countryside

04891 Rebecca Kirkham

Site Object – 147 Land to the North of Hatfield Lane, Barnby Dun Reasons: Increased traffic, pressure on schools, GPs and local amenities, flood risk. Barnby dun reached its natural capacity

04842 Sara Huntingdon

Site Object – 147 Land to the North of Hatfield Lane, Barnby Dun Reasons: increased traffic, noise, should use brownfield land, pressure on schools, GPs and local amenities. Global warming and flood risk.

04797 Rosemary Sprakes

Site Objection - 160 Bradholme Farm, Thorne Reasons: good quality agricultural land, ancient flood plain, flood risk 3, increased traffic, pollution (clean air). The Bradholme site (as farmland) is acres of greenspace next to Thorne, for clean air, not recreation. Consider people of Thorne not warehousing. Doncaster BAP says… protect and conserve wildlife, it’s a special landscape. Policy and practice should not damage biodiversity.

04792 Mr and Mrs A P Singleton

Site Objection – 141 Land off Westwood Road Bawtry Reasons: Greenbelt (no exceptional circumstances). excessive scale, allocation not in keeping with existing density and layout. Loss of land will affect local amenity and character of area. Site can’t support 20 dwellings. 900 dwellings proposed within one mile of the site. Brownfield sites can offer alternatives. Bawtry Town Council do not support the site due to loss of greenbelt. Access and sewer issues. Flooding area. Development would increase flood problems

04734 E John McGarry

Site Objection – 160 Bradholme Reasons. Greenbelt land. Impact on infrastructure. Hatfield and Thorne historic towns. Golf course less than a mile… suitable activity to maintain character of greenbelt. Additional golf course would provide employment and tourism. Prime agricultural land. Better alternative sites…428, 733, 736. Allocate land to north of Moorends between A614 Selby Road and Goole Road. Site 160 would compete with the Iport. Increased traffic. Development would severely impact on open countryside aspect. Public opposition to proposals. Impact on hedgerows. Proposes secretary of state ‘call in’ and legal proceedings should site be allocated.

04699 Richard Halstead

Site Objection – 164 Warning Tongue Lane Reasons: increased traffic Suggests removing ‘bus route’, provide traffic calming measures, improve Warning Tongue Lane-Bawtry Road junction with roundabout or traffic lights

04697 Sylvia Wilson Site Objection – 164 Warning Tongue Lane Reasons: traffic congestion currently bad, the development will make it worse

04695 Dorothy Clayton

Site Objection – 164 Warning Tongue Lane (and 430) Reasons: increased traffic, increased impact on already limited and inadequate road infrastructure and sewage network. HGV use has increased. Children’s safety (increased traffic). Consider brownfield land such as Blaxton quarry

04694 Robert Henry Clayton

Site Objection – 164 Warning Tongue Lane (and 430) Reasons: increased traffic, increased impact on already limited and inadequate road infrastructure and sewage network. HGV use has increased. Children’s safety (increased traffic). Consider brownfield land such as Blaxton quarry

04691 Diane Dray Site Objection – 147 Hatfield Lane, Barnby Dun Reasons: increased traffic, school full, vehicles used to transport children to and from school, only a few local shops, GP very busy, air pollution. Consider brownfield land first and not impact on Barnby Dun

04625 Ann Walker Site Objection – 160 Bradholme States that the identical measures have not been used to draw conclusions therefore author(s) conclusion regarding the best site for development is incorrect. The author/s stated for the J5 south site that there is “clear developer intention to develop the site”, but no evidence provided to support the claim. Comment not made for Junction 6 although a planning application has been submitted. Local people don’t want Jct 5, Bradholme, but little objection for Jct 6. Follow recommendations in HELAA and stop changing your mind.

04653 Richard Nicklin Skellow Carcroft site selection (sites 165 & 186) strongly object to any of the sites selected to be developed on Green Belt Land use brownfield and replace / refurbish housing stock Sites are in greenbelt, site will not regenerate the local area as required by policy 2 item 3), regenerate area by tackling aging housing stock. Skellow and Carcroft does not need more housing (86 homes on the market now). no local employment for an additional 340 families, residents will commute. Schools are full. Replace old pit houses before building new ones. Medical centre full. Sever lack of amenities (no secondary school, few parks and greenspaces, no leisure centre, no pubs or restaurants, no fire or police station, no railway station, one care home has been closed, no park and ride, limited shops). Development unsustainable - two sites indicate the capacity for 340 houses where as the local requirement is 250 houses, why are you proposing to allow 90 more houses to be developed in excess of the requirement? Density greater than adjacent development Don’t need more houses just the ones we have putting right (replace old stock, new schools, improved infrastructure, new leisure centre

and medical centre, investment in employment and improved leisure amenities. Noise and pollution from A1, surface water drainage problem, which will be worse if are developed. Keep site as agricultural land

04916 DLP (on behalf of Harworth Group (Site 646))

Site support - Site At Former Yorkshire Main Colliery , Broomhouse Lane (646) Support the identification of the site for housing in the emerging Local Plan and consider this element of the plan to be sound

04776 Susan Steel Site 234 – object. This is Green Belt and not just greenfield. Under the National Policy Framework the site serves 5 purposes: 1. To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas – it provides a lovely green space after a consistent expanse of built-up housing and industrial buildings 2. To prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another – without this Scawsby would merge into Scawthorpe as the town centre as merged into Scawsby. 3. To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment – the area has already had its field encroached upon in the 1990’s 4. To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns – the Roman Ridge area of historical significance should never be built on. More access should be given to the community. 5. To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land – planners should be using every piece of brownfield land and ensuring that other and already bought and earmarked for building has been used. £30m has been spent by the Council purchasing and preparing these sites so it would be unacceptable if this project was not completed. It is a significant opportunity to regenerate the area and provide housing and facilities where they are needed. The amount of houses required needs to be checked as there is no a housing shortage in Doncaster. The town centre is a no-go area and empty shops could become housing. The town centre needs regenerating and developing greenfield sites is a distraction. The development would not be in the catchment area for the nearby school.

04775 Valerie Lloyd Site 499 – object. Appreciate the requirement to consider areas for housing development but it is also necessary to consider mental health issues. It is important to promote beneficial activities and this site is large enough to sustain a substantial wildlife area and a community garden.

04736 Rose Hill Residents Association – Secretary

Site 350/407 – object. The area is well used by walkers, cyclists, horse riders and runners and development on this land would remove the only facility we have to enjoy nearby. All residents of the properties built on this field would have to travel through existing areas. The road system and access will not be able to cope with existing traffic. Our lives will be changed completely due to heavy construction traffic, building noise and pollution together with the loss of green space.

04730 Rose Hill Residents Association - Chairman

Site 350/407 – object. Very concerned about the opening about the opening paragraph ‘location and site description’ 2.1 in the planning and Development Brief which states that it will form an extension to the Rose Hill estate, a small, pleasant and relatively secluded area. The proposed number of dwellings is 166. Rose Hill estate consists of 176 of which 120+ are bungalows. This is virtually doubling the established state. The deeds have existing covenants and until these are resolved, developers cannot build. With a looped road/cul de sac system the maximum number of dwellings allowed in Doncaster is 300. 176 existing + 166 proposed = 342. 42 over the maximum. The field is used by walkers/cyclists and horse riders. Wildlife and trees will be destroyed. The roads are at a minimum width now. How will they cope with HGVs? There will be noise and pollution. If any assessor says there will be acceptable levels they are wrong. An extra 200vehicles a day will create havoc at rush hour.

04733 Geoffrey B Wright

Site 350 /407 – object. There is a variety of wildlife living in the field as well as mature trees. The field is the residents only natural nearby source of open green space and it is used on a regular basis. The thought of disturbing this habitat is outrageous. We are supposed to be protecting the environment and not destroying it. Other arguments include traffic chaos, poor infrastructure and facilities and a disregard for the residents’ way of life.

04732 Lynn Anderson

Site 147 – object. Development on this land is potentially in part subject to flooding. Partial development is a waste of useable land. Cost of services and utilities would be proportional expensive per dwelling. The access should be considered as it would have a detrimental effect on the existing housing. There will also be an increase in traffic. New housing would make the surface water problems worse. New housing would also create serous pollution. The hospitals, doctors and schools are also up to capacity. Land adjacent to Stainforth Road is better located as it would be easier to construct services and give scope for further development. There would be much less standing water.

04731 Gerald Anderson

Site 147 – object. Development on this land is potentially in part subject to flooding. Partial development is a waste of useable land. Cost of services and utilities would be proportional expensive per dwelling. The access should be considered as it would have a detrimental effect on the existing housing. There will also be an increase in traffic. New housing would make the surface water problems worse. New housing would also create serous pollution. The hospitals, doctors and schools are also up to capacity. Land adjacent to Stainforth Road is better located as it would be easier to construct services and give scope for further development. There would be much less standing water.

04729 Suzanne Brackenbury

Site 147 – object. Barnby Dun is full to capacity including the school. The roads are very congested at peak times and the Pine hall Road junction on to Station Road is already very dangerous. There is not enough parking around the school, shops and doctors at busy times. The area is in a flood risk area. If more houses are built work needs to be done on Station Road at the junction with Armthorpe lane. The village has reached it natural capacity.

04632 Joanne Parkes Site 777 – object. The site is greenfield and is used as pastureland. It provides protection from flooding and drought, improves air quality, mitigates the urban heat island effect and provides a refuge for wildlife and native plants. The village cannot sustain the additional traffic that 66 houses would create. Doncaster Road is already busy as it is used by commuters, as a cut through and by farm machinery. The area around these fields flooded in 2007. Local schools, doctors and dentists are already over-subscribed and an additional 60+ houses will overstretch these further. The village does not have adequate public transport links and the amenities of the villages are not sufficient to cater for an increase in population. Other sites should be considered instead.

04631 Margaret Hattersley

Site 164/430 – object. Traffic and the disruption of builders will cause me more problems. There are not enough amenities here.

04630 Alexandria Hattersley

Site 164/430 – object. It is a nice view. The traffic is bad enough already and may cause more accidents especially with McAuley school being close by.

04628 David Meredith

Site 164/430 – object. Concerns over the volume of traffic being increased and impact on local wildlife and environment.

04627 Graham Aston Site 165/186 – object. Both sites are within the Green Belt which aims to prevent urban sprawl. The proposed increase use of land is likely to result in noise, disturbance and nuisance to the detriment of existing amenity. Other sources of flood risk should be considered such as surface water flooding. Site 186 is shown as a medium flood risk for surface water on the GOV/UK website. The extent of the flooded area butts up to Crabgate Lane.

04624 Kerrie Walsh Site 164 & 430 – object. The road is already busy. Small pieces of green land are being turned into poorly built housing estates which cause major disruption to the local area. The local school is already busy and parking is also an issue.

04987 Susan Story Site 929 Object. Green belt. Wildlife and beauty of area diminished. Traffic through village cause more problems. Doctors and other services already stretched. Preserve rural unspoilt areas.

04851 Susan Norcliffe

Objection to site 234. There is already insufficient green belt in Doncaster and we should preserve as much as possible, especially on the site as it has local wildlife including protected bats. The buildings would damage the historical Roman Ridge. Broad Axe field has high levels of Radon gas which has been linked to a higher than average cancer rates. The area could not sustain the traffic created and it would have a detrimental effect on air pollution for residents and school children.

04913 Gillian Johnson

Objection to site 147. Objection based around traffic/transport and infrastructure. Currently, the traffic is extremely heavy with queues backing onto Station Rd from the traffic lights at Brecks lane. Traffic using Pine hall travels too quickly and consideration should be taken for a speed limit with increase in traffic Public transport is not frequent enough. Bottle neck around the school and shops around school

drop off time. Development will increase these issues. Current school and gp surgery are full and there is no dentist. Number of villages results in a lack of services and this can lead to increasing isolation of residents. Much of the low lying land is flood risk.

04915 Louise Cottam Objection to site 147. Concerns about the effect on Barnby Dun and surrounding areas. Hatfield Lane already struggles to cope with the volume of traffic, 98 houses would exacerbate the issue. The proposed access to the site is already congested and not suitable. Lack of infrastructure fort the development – gp surgery full, pharmacy under threat of closure, reduced post office service. Getting rid of countryside view will have effect on elderly and stress may affect their health and wellbeing. Wildlife in area with be destroyed by the construction works.

04917 Amanda Hutchinson

Objection to site 147. The extra housing would increase to the already problematic traffic issue where the roads cannot support the volume. Increase in road accidents as people speed. Schools and GP’s already at capacity. Building would devalue properties and more focus should be on brownfield sites not greenfield.

04918 John Cottam Objection to site 147. Concerns about the effect on Barnby Dun and surrounding areas. Hatfield Lane already struggles to cope with the volume of traffic, 98 houses would exacerbate the issue. The proposed access to the site is already congested and not suitable. Lack of infrastructure fort the development – gp surgery full, pharmacy under threat of closure, reduced post office service. Getting rid of countryside view will have effect on elderly and stress may affect their health and wellbeing. Wildlife in area would be destroyed by the construction works.

04919 Neil Davies Objection to site 164/430. 275 houses would increase traffic on an already busy road (due to Wildlife Park), Packington Road in particular is not fir for purpose and is already used as a “Rat Run”. Increase in traffic will increase pollution levels, especially to children. Increased strain on doctors, dentists, schools and hospitals which are already stretched. Agricultural land should not be used as the land may become important for future food supply especially considering the uncertainty. Green space should be protected.

04947 Anne Guy Objection to site 186 & 165. Land is green belt and should be left alone, 165 is medium flood risk plain, increase in noise and air pollution and the increase in traffic will impact Crabgate Lane. School classes would be bigger which is known to be bad for education, increased strain on dentists and doctors. Increase in crime and more houses would present more opportunities for criminals. What type of houses would be built and what would their impact be on the prices of existing houses?

04948 Daniel Cresswell

Objection to site 164. Development will spoilt the green belt in area as it will bring too much traffic and it is already heavily congested due to the Wildlife Report. Noise pollution will impact wildlife in the field and the animals in the wildlife park.

04949 Jan Louis Objection to site 350/407. Current road system is not fir for purpose and the only way off the state is onto a very busy road, the trucks needed for the development will but even more of a strain on the roads. Public health, NHS and local authorities keep pushing exercise to improve health and reduce loneliness and this plan gets rid of an area used for healthy living – scheme will make money in the short term but cost more in revenue to other services in the long term. Field provides habitat to a lot of wildlife.

04781 Diana Hoyle Site 350/407 – object. The area is neither suitable nor can it sustain the kind of development suggested. Do the covenants on the land mean nothing i.e. single story dwellings? The drains are not good enough as they block regularly and the roads are very narrow with sharp bends. The amount of traffic will increase. People’s lives will be a misery with the upheaval. The loss of open space is very important to the area. The field is used all year round by walkers, horse riders, ramblers, running groups. There have been numerous accidents at the Bawtry Road junction with Rose Hill Rise which will get worse.

04789 Melanie J Rees

Site 115 – object. Alverley Lane, particularly at the top could not take the significant increase in traffic the new development would create. Sooner or later a serious accident will occur due to cars being parked at the top of Alverley Lane, drivers taking chances and the poor state of the road surface. There would also be problems of surface water and drainage and the impact on sewers. The following measures may improve the current traffic situation: a) implement a speed restriction of 20 mph between Melford Drive and Tickhill Road and 30mph along the rest of Alverley Lane; b) restrict the tonnage of vehicles on Alverley lane; c) introduce double yellow lines along the stone wall between Farm Grange and Tickhill Road and a single yellow lines on the opposite side of the road; d) create a small car park at the top of the field for residents/visitors affected by the restrictions; and e) divide a one-way system which would permit access onto Tickhill Road from Alverley Lane.

04790 Mr and Mrs Thompson

Site 350/407 – object. Moved to this estate because of the proximity to the woods and paid a premium to do so. Green spaces are very important to the community, wildlife, flora and fauna. Destruction of these sites is foolhardy and lacks any foresight. These woods provide everyone in the area to exercise in a safe, pleasant healthy environment. There will be extra strain on services, the roads are narrow, access to the estate is very difficult and congested.

04791 Frank Wilkinson

Site 350/407 – object. Wishes the land to be kept in Council ownership. The field is an asset to the town and community.

04793 C McGibbon Site 115 – object. The possibility of 150 homes would result in 300 more cars gridlocked on Alverley Lane. This will cause air pollution. The brownfield site at the bottom of Alverley lane (ex-Mr White’s garage business) would better serve the area with a reduced number of properties being built.

04794 Emma Oliver Site 147 – object. Barnby Dun cannot cope with any additional traffic increase especially at peak times. Traffic is bad at rush hour and a number of accidents have taken place. The issue of speeding also needs to be addressed. Barnby Dun has reached its natural capacity i.e. the shops, schools, doctor do not have the space to increase.

04795 Rebecca McNamara

Site 777 – object. These villages are popular because of the rural lifestyle they provide and the proposed development will be detrimental to the approval of these villages. HS2 will have a negative impact on how the countryside can be accessed and enjoyed. The infrastructure cannot sustain another 51 families. There is limited access to public transport and extra cars would add to congestion. The GP surgery will not be able to cope with an increase in population and the village school has the appeal of being small. Would it be able to accommodate a potential increase without affecting its appeal and success? The development of 51 houses goes against the objectives of the local plan. Smaller sites in villages should be developed and flood

plains and green belt should be protected. There are numerous brownfield sites which should be prioritised as they have better access to public services and public transport.

04834 Pamela Kirk Site 777 – object. Building on green space would be an abomination. The roads could not take the increased traffic; it is impossible to get a GP appointment in less than a week; there will be a devaluation of property; and wanton destruction of the environment.

04837 A Armstrong Site 777 – object. Doncaster Road is very busy and is used as a short cut and by lorries. Extra development would make things worse. The field also floods. In 2007 ¾ of the field was underwater. The electricity supply often trips during peak times. The pumping station on Mill Lane is not big enough and Barnburgh School is full to the brim. HS2 is another blight on the village.

04773 Howard J Wroot (on behalf of Michael Hardwick)

Site 34 - support. It is a flat site with no physical or legal constraints that can accommodate 40 units. It is adjacent to existing housing and within a Principal Town. The site is in Flood Zone 3a as is the case with 94% of the housing sites in Thorne. It is in single ownership.

04970 Les Jones Objection to site 147. Development would be a loss of open space particularly for those living within sight of the area, many of the properties next to the proposed site are bungalows so any housing would be intrusive and change the look of the area. Infrastructure already struggling with the current school unlikely to take more pupils – resulting in more travelling. The general increase in traffic would bring more congestion where it is already bad. Impact pm pedestrian traffic will get worse due to environmental emissions and increase in navigating busy roads.

04971 Jonathan Seale

Objection to site 164/430. Proposal would cause dismay to many residents and damage the natural habitat of many creatures including deer.

04972 Phil Allam Objection to site 929. Proposal has a higher ratio of houses per hectare compared to the rest of the village and this would upset the balance of village life. The added vehicles would also cause issues at the tight turn at main Street and Thorpe Lane. On many new building schemes there is inadequate on-site parking/drive space resulting in vehicles parking on the road causing issues, would the development allow for sufficient parking? Current drainage issues with regular sewerage floods on Cadeby Road and Main Street. Schools are at capacity and cannot take any new pupils the development would bring. Site is green belt, a larger site on Melton Road by A1 depot was rejected but this would have less impact on the infrastructure of Sprotbrough.

04973 Jeanette Allam Objection to site 929. Congestion, especially at pick up and drop off for schools, is already ridiculous. Obvious odorous problem with the sewerage system which more housing will not help. Land is green belt and this has a role in supporting the character of the historic town. Numerous grade I & II listed buildings on Main Street and can be no exceptional circumstances to warrant encroachment onto this site. Plans do not include any mention of improving the infrastructure which cannot cope as it is, let alone with more housing.

04975 Gillian Heptinstall

Objection to site 777. Infrastructure of the village cannot support another 66 houses. School is full, site floods and the waste unit on Mill Lane already rubs to capacity. Streets do not have the support need for another 120 possible vehicles, Doncaster Road is already dangerous which speeding traffic so access to the site would cause more havoc to the area.

04976 Ian Boydon Objection to site 139. Site is currently green belt that is being farmed at is utilised by the local community for walking purposes. Development would take this away and lower the value of existing properties with an uninterrupted view of the valley. Already a lack of off road parking for existing properties meaning side streets are full of parked cars resulting in congestion, more houses will exasperate this. Wath Road is already very busy and the addition of 400 houses to close proximity of the road will cause untold congestion. Lack of amenities in this area of Mexborough so proposal is not sensible for new housing.

04984 Lianna Arnison Objection to site 164/430. Proposed site is greenfield used by many for recreation and walking pets, and is home to many wildlife habitats. The proposal would negatively impact on quality of life and property valuations. The field adjacent to Warning Tongue Lane floods regularly. The current roads are not fit for purpose and cannot be widened due to ancient field boundaries. The Wildlife park and airport has created massive congestion which a development of 275 houses would make worse. Development proposals should be considered carefully, as infilling could ruin the villages character, whilst estates would overwhelm it.

04992 Philip and Pauline Machin

Objection to site 164/430. Warning Tongue Lane is getting to become one of the busiest roads in Doncaster, the housing proposal would make things worse and make the road go from a 40mph to a 30mph for it to be safer. Local schools may not be able to allow for more children now, but when they do to make walking safe pedestrian crossing will be needed incurring costs but also creating more traffic issues. Development will put strain on already stretched services such as schools, dentist and doctors. Increase in air pollution and respiratory problems.

04998 Mr P Ciullo Objection to site 115. There is already issues accessing Tickhill Road and Springwell Lane making it difficult for current residents to leave their houses. Current sewage pumping system struggles with the current demand and building more houses will make the problems worse. The area of around 1mile radius from Alverley lane has had enough development in the last 20 years and is at saturation point.

04985 Anthony Darlow (1 and 2)

Site 147 Object. Traffic impacts and would need improvements especially at junctions. Enlarged doctor’s facilities and increase of school places. Impact of wildlife.

04986 Maralyn Deakin

Site 777 Concerned regarding types of housing, affordable and smaller housing (downsizing). What percentage would be social housing. Improvements to infrastructure; school capacity, access to doctors surgery, road system (large vehicles due to rural nature, speed and safety). Drainage and sewerage disposal concerns. Green belt. Impacts from HS2. Flooding and drainage concerns. Concerns to wildlife and tree management.

04988 Lesley Darlow (1 and 2)

Site 147 Object. Traffic impacts and would need improvements especially at junctions. Enlarged doctor’s facilities and increase of school places. Impact of wildlife.

04796 Simon Katuszonek

Site 115 Object. Traffic already a problem going to get worse.

04798 Michael and Margaret Warren

Site 350/470 Object. Serious disruption from construction traffic. Existing services may not be adequate. Impact on existing road system, difficult at peak periods and issues with access to existing area. Impact upon environment.

04799 Derek Green Site 115 Object. Green Belt and other land is available on Woodfield Way. Very busy for traffic, access bad additional housing will add to this. Any access should be from Tickhill Road and not a thru route from/on/off Alverley Lane.

04800 Clare Gillard Site 115 Object. Huge impact on Tickhill Road due to existing new developments. Noise and pollution levels increased. Huge impact on doctors because of increase of people.

04801 John Gillard Site 115 Object. Huge impact on Tickhill Road due to existing new developments. Noise and pollution levels increased. Huge impact on doctors because of increase of people.

04802 L Ward Site 115 Object. Traffic impacts would be horrendous, increased concerns for safety through the amount of vehicles and narrow footpaths. Poor drainage in the area, flooded gardens.

04803 P Jones Site 170 Object. Predominately farming area and local farmer uses it as part of his livelihood. Local area poor for schools, doctors and job prospects. Abundance of wildlife. Retain land to grown our own food rather than import.

04810 Frances Kennedy

Site 147 Object. Loss of outlook. Concerns for connecting roads and extra traffic causing congestion.

0308 J10 Planning (on behalf of Brodsworth Estate)

944 - Brodsworth Colliery site Unviable site. Has planning permission but has still not come forward. No guarantee or evidence that this site will deliver. Therefore there is headroom for additional sites.

Site will never deliver any economic growth. 459 (housing) Objects to site not being proposed for allocation. Site is not a flood risk – is zone 1. 458 (Housing) Has never been proposed for residential use but for community, retail, care uses. 512 Objects to site not being proposed for allocation. Site is not flood risk. It is in Zone 1. 513 Objects to site not being proposed for allocation. Disputes the reasons for discounting site in terms of archaeology, agricultural land, landscape impacts, and impact on schools. Brodsworth Estate had addressed all of these issues.

05176 Spawforths (on behalf of Framecourt Homes Ltd)

New Site: Apy Hill Lane, Tickhill - Framecourt Homes considers the proposed site is available, suitable and achievable.

04859 Paul Smithard Site 115 – object. Since the development on Woodfield, traffic and its associated noise and pollution has become a real problem with increased vehicle numbers. If a further 150 houses are added to the mix it will increase the problem dramatically. There have been significant drainage problems and if the extra demand from additional housing is included on the existing infrastructure surely this will overload the capacity again including schools. Why do we need more housing? Further Green Belt land should not be declassified.

04857 Keith Kirk Site 115 – object. Year on year the area has been subjected to an increase in building which has caused an increase in the amount of traffic. It is difficult to get out of Alverley Lane on to Tickhill road and from Springwell Lane from the Alverley Estate. The infrastructure is inadequate and extra cars would add inexcusable pressure. Changes to the infrastructure should be completed and paid for by the landowner. Previous applications have been turned down due to limited infrastructure and its ability to cope. The pumping station required as art of the development on Pegler’s land was not erected. An additional 150 homes will required the land owner to provide provisions to meet the demand. Who will maintain the land drain at the back of site 115? There used to be buildings on the site which housed owls and bats. These buildings have been demolished and burnt. I would like to evidence of how the asbestos was cleared. The landowners have shown disregard for the local inhabitants. Any planning requirements should be completed prior to any application being considered. There is a plot half a mile away which has many exit points, is about the same size and has a different land owner. It would also have less impact on the surrounding infrastructure.

04860 Sharon Sutcliffe

Site 147 – object. There will be an increase in pollution and traffic congestion both in and out of the village. The road infrastructure and bus services are not good enough to support more homes. Hatfield Lane/Pinehall Road has speeding motorists. How will emergency services get in and out of the village? We already share a doctor’s surgery with Stainforth where it is difficult to get appointments. There is no dentist and only one hospital. The schools are not large enough to take an increase in children. There is also traffic congestion. Where people going to work? Could build homes on the old Barnby Dun Middle School site. If you continue with the proposes plans many residents will look to relocate out of the area therefore housing shortfall will be covered by people leaving.

04861 Graham Cutts Site 164/430 – object. Concerned about road safety and traffic congestion on a busy and narrow road. There is a lack of public amenities.

04862 Paul Wilson Site 164/430 – object. Recognise the need for new homes in the borough but there are a number of issues: - Unnecessary release of Green Belt land - Adding traffic to an already congested area - Side roads used by McAuley 6th formers causes issues for 57/58 bus service etc. - There has been a number of road traffic near misses - The speed limit is frequently being ignored - The removal of the weight limit over the railway has exacerbated problems.

- Local schools are full - The proposed access is quite crass as it is on a sharp bend - There is no retail nearby so people use cars - The wildlife Park is great for Doncaster but is also a major issue given the volume of visitors - When it rains the area near the roundabout floods

04863 Colin Airey Site 164/430 – object. Understand the need for the Council to identify suitable sites for housing to meet the future but consideration should be given to developments that have already taken place which are placing a strain on infrastructure. The opening of Great Yorkshire Way and the Wildlife Park has significantly increased traffic on this fairly narrow road. The new development will increase traffic further. Local schools, doctors and dentists are up to capacity. The developments at Manor Farm and Branton have not led to the opening of new schools or surgeries. Air pollution is already a problem and this will get worse. Consideration should also be given to the loss of countryside/green belt land. Over the years swathes of habitat have been destroyed for housing. There is no mention of the type of housing that is proposed. Surely affordable housing should be included?

04995 Karen Goffin Site 350/407 – object. The land is used by local people for running and walking. It would be a loss of open space and wildlife habitats. Access to the open countryside would be through a housing estate and open countryside is crucial to the health and wellbeing of the surrounding area. I am also concerned about the impact of noise and pollution on the residents and as well as the access road. Would there be a change to entry/exit on to Bawtry Road. Bow would this work? There is also a sharp bend on Rose Hill Rise. The development would also add to the congestion and queues at peak times. There seems to be no other access to the field in question maybe this could be investigated.

05206 Kerford IPC Blaxton Quarry (445) extends to approximately 10ha (24 acres) of land located to the southern side of Mosham Road at its junction with Gatehouse Lane. The response provides information on the nature and location of the site, certificate of lawful development and planning consent. With the absence of any remediation condition applied to any Planning Permission (or earlier form of material statutory consent) on the site then the site may be considered to be “brownfield ( i.e. previously developed ) land” for the purposes of development management…. Factors would mitigate in favour of the site being suitable for development. State Finningley airport area has improved infrastructure, and consolidated ownership extensive areas of land available. Want LPA to further consider Blaxton Quarry sites for residential development

05194 Michael Hargreaves Planning (on behalf of Horrace and Anthony Durrant)

Sites / Greenbelt - The Thistles & Meadow View Selby Road Askern should be excluded from the Green Belt and allocated for Gypsy & Traveller residential use.

05183 Vigo Group (Leisure site)

New site (leisure proposal) - Land On The East Side Of Thorne Road Blaxton Doncaster Comments relating to potential leisure use. Consider site for holiday lodges and fishing. The land is suitable and available for leisure allocation and would produce three benefits: Social – benefit residents of Blaxton (currently issues of anti-social behaviour) Economic – proposal will jobs, investment, visitors and tourism

Environmental - proposal will add to its current landscaping, biodiversity and green infrastructure, making effective use of land

05060 Jean Owen Site Objection Rose Hill Site 350 / 407 The Avenue Cantley Content misleading /incomplete Adverse effect on the residential amenity of the local residents and community; Unacceptably high density / over-development of the site; Visual impact of the development and effect on the character of the neighbourhood; Adverse impact on highway safety and lack of ability of the existing road system to cope with additional development; Inadequate capacity of existing infrastructure and inability to improve it; Significant adverse environmental impact and loss of biodiversity; Other more suitable brownfield sites should be developed rather than greenfield sites; and Significant local objections to the site. Site not capable of holding 116 dwellings

05059 Christopher Owen

Site Objection Rose Hill Site 350 / 407 The Avenue Cantley Content misleading /incomplete Adverse effect on the residential amenity of the local residents and community; Unacceptably high density / over-development of the site; Visual impact of the development and effect on the character of the neighbourhood; Adverse impact on highway safety and lack of ability of the existing road system to cope with additional development; Inadequate capacity of existing infrastructure and inability to improve it; Significant adverse environmental impact and loss of biodiversity; Other more suitable brownfield sites should be developed rather than greenfield sites; and Significant local objections to the site. Inadequate local facilities Site should be in green space audit and should be given UDP open space policy area designation Site not capable of holding 116 dwellings

04955 Barton Wilmore (on behalf of Barratt and David Wilson Homes)

Sites - Support allocation of 141


object to non-allocation of 146

03160 Paul Whiting 234 - object - green belt promoted as there are supposedly no brownfield sites in Doncaster, but 438, 439 and 257 have been ruled out on flood grounds. Broad Axe creates sprawl; merges Sunnyfield and Highfields; restricts views to countryside and scheduled monument; will be developed over brownfield sites. Incorrect to take fz's into account, EA takes no account of flood defences. High risk areas can be developed if benefits shown to outweigh risks. No detailed flood assessment for 257, 438 & 439. These sites are costly and supposed to be a flagship, wrong to leave them undeveloped for so long. Broad Axe scores moderate in the GB review. To allocate Green Belt over FZ2/3 is not careful planning. Not in line with the vision and objectives or the NPPF (Green Belt release tests - intensive use of existing sites and buildings; no strong exceptional circumstances justification; brownfield (including fz) should be promoted over Green Belt. 1,600 empty properties in Doncaster - should deal with prior to Green Belt release.

03820 Natural England

Site selection methodology: Welcomes method and no major concerns. Recommends site briefs setting out environmental constraints and opportunities to contribute to green infrastructure and biodiversity enhancements. Tickhill - Note housing target not met but many sites on BMV land. Recommend Sustainability Appraisal takes cumulative impact of loss of agricultural land into account and DMBC should request a agricultural land classification survey for large sites may come forward. Edlington / Sprotbrough - No specific concern on 929, advise cumulative impact on nearby wildlife / ecology is considered in the Sustainability Appraisal and mitigated accordingly. Doncaster Town Centre, Hexthorpe, Balby (North) - 111 is near to a LWS and brief should include mitigation. Area also impacts on Sprotbrough Gorge SSSI and cumulative impact should be considered. Balby South / Warmsworth - 033 is close to Sprotbrough Gorge SSSI and cumulative recreational impact of this site and proposals are avoided / mitigated Auckley / Hayfield - 940 large and overlaps or is close to LWS. GI master planning and the requirement for a net gain approach for this allocation. Lakeside / Woodfield - 836 close to Potteric Carr SSSI. Recommend that urban edge effects, recreational disturbance, traffic emissions and hydrological impacts are carefully considered in relation to this allocation. We recommend that the Yorkshire Wildlife Trust are consulted on this allocation Wheatley Hills / Intake - 432; 350 and 407 close to Sandall Beat SSSI and recommend cumulative recreational pressures are considered"

03933 Sport England Does not have resource to check all sites. Sites would need to be consistent with NPPF 97 and Sport England Playing Field Policy. Do not want to be in a situation where SE need to oppose proposals on allocated sites due to site being deemed a playing field. There are 5 exceptions in these circumstances contained in SE Playing Field Policy. Consideration needs to be given to any new development near a cricket ground regarding ball strike and associated legal and safety concerns.

04013 The Joint Rural Parishes

929 - object - do not agree with development of this scale. Not in line with local views as per neighbourhood plan. Will result in loss of Green Belt land and detrimental impact on roads and bus routes. Schools and GPs already oversubscribed. 777 - object - services stretched to breaking point, gp threatened with closure due to this. Road congestion impedes vehicle movement on B roads - compounded by proposals at Mexborough and proposals in Barnsley's local plan which will lead to more traffic in the village. Should assess the level of vacant housing in the borough - these should be brought back into use before Green Belt is considered. Concern that proposals will increase borough housing stock by over 10%. Doncaster has long suffered from oversupply and lack of

buyers in position to purchase. Also has high deprivation, welfare dependency and low average wages - hard to see why so many houses needed, and oversupply may lead to loss of value of existing properties. General: Site traffic surveys should be completed by the council not developers, prior to allocation decisions. Cumulative impacts should be measured as should impacts on villages. Should not allow reports to be carried out by interested parties as biased. DMBC should pre-assess but this should be financed by the developer. This should be enshrined in policy. Elderly demographic needs have not been dealt with sufficiently, need to understand shortfalls of suitable housing (as per SHMA). New homes should reflect lifetime standards and have a proportion of suitable elderly homes (bungalows, sheltered etc.) Suggest 10% of homes should be wheelchair accessible. DMBC also should deliver a much needed retirement village in the Local Plan. Without dealing with this issue there will be limited provision to meet growing demand. If dealt with, people can plan for future and free up existing housing stock. Housing targets focussed on younger peoples needs. As drafted, the plan is not robust or fit for purpose as it does not meet "future needs" in this regard.

05178 Rhonwyn Dobbing

Priority seems to be more houses, not ensuring sustainable communities. Not clear how vibrant mixed communities will form. Housing estates such as Lakeside have little infrastructure to develop a community. Site 262 - site is popular for recreation. No coffee shops etc. to meet people in contrast to other parts of Lakeside.

05070 Yvonne Severein-Davies

164 / 430 - object - Warning Tongue Lane very busy due to YWP and people cutting to join GYW. Road quality poor and long unchanged but expected to cope with more traffic. Congestion at school times would be exacerbated. Other sites more suitable.

05069 Kerry Marriott 164 / 430 - object - not enough school places, traffic issues - roundabout at standstill multiple times per day due to school crossing. Residents already unhappy about traffic in area due to YWP, will be made worse.

05068 Maureen Cooper

147 - object - unsuitable site / area. Concern that additional land in red line boundary will come forward too. Impact on school, doctors oversubscribed, bus service to Stainforth surgery poor (one p/h). Additional traffic on Pine Hall Rd would exacerbate pressure on already busy junction with Station Road - high traffic flow and obscured views along Station Rd. Many parked cars too, junction difficult to negotiate. Bus service to Doncaster at rush hour is limited, means people rely on cars - made worse with proposals. Impact on sewerage and sewers. Close to flood area and housing may fall in flood zone in future.

05067 David Chorlton 164 / 430 - object - impact on infrastructure and traffic will impact Branton and surrounding area. Branton has increased in size significantly recently and no. of homes has impact. No new sites should be allowed in order to retain the semi-rural nature of the area and preserve open space for present and future community.

05066 Louise Mulholland

164 - 430 - object - Mc Cauley roundabout and roads off this are groaning under pressure. Busy and dangerous. Families will have to cross busy roads - safety issue and commuter misery. Not enough infrastructure. Adds to sprawl and merging of villages, and is too close to M18.

05064 Sandra Hardy 164 / 430 - object - should not be described as having a 'marginal impact through loss of countryside'. Branton is beautiful, surrounded by countryside and a rural village. Site would ruin this. Schools are full and have waiting lists already. Traffic increased already in village due to airport and will be made worse.

05062 Nicola Kirk 164 / 430 - object - increase in traffic, road already busy, school close by, already causes congestion and delays, safety risk as children cross the road. Area floods. YWP means there has been a traffic increase. Schools full. Doctors / dentists not available in the area. Wildlife habitat will be destroyed.

05061 Michelle Sidebottom

164 / 430 - object - Branton has seen a lot of growth recently in what is a small village, this will add to this and mean new properties have increased in the area by 40% since 2015. Unaware of plans to improve infrastructure and village will lose its semi rural position. Traffic on Cantley Lane and Warning Tongue Lane is incredibly congested and will be made worse. Wildlife will lose their habitat.

05057 Steven Wilkinson

115 - object - traffic: springwell lane congested with Alverley Lane being a pinch point. Surrounding road network gridlocked. Tesco link road has helped, but development will lessen this. Site will break traffic network. Environment: slow moving traffic = increased pollution levels. One of last green areas in Balby and home to plants and wildlife. Green Belt: Land has been used as Green Belt for years and is successful in this, has been successfully farmed for years but recently has ceased to be used as such due to homes being favoured. Surface water: Surface water and flooding will impact on sewage system already facing problems. Has previously had to be pumped out in tankers, will add to problems. House prices: diminish house value and lead to negative equity - lead to financial distress. Education: schools stretched, particularly early years (nursery recently closed at Woodfield Plantation). More families means more challenge in finding local school, and will lead to transport to reach alternative education provision.

05056 Brenda Law 164 / 430 - object - NPPF says we should put greater emphasis on small sites and making greater use of existing land and buildings. Site above 1ha. Site is countryside, has been protected as such and should continue to be. May need to be more self sufficient and need agricultural land post brexit. Schools, drs, dentists are all full. Not beneficial for YWP, residents will complain about the park. Traffic increased massively on Warning Tongue Ln in last 18 years for numerous reasons including YWP and airport, road a rat run to GYW. Air pollution concerns, linked to asthma and dementia / Alzheimer's. Few care homes in such events. Speeding an issue on the road. Access in and out of side roads is dangerous due to volume of traffic, another access will cause more danger. Traffic already causes properties to shake and creak and larger vehicles now use the road. Contractors on site will worsen this. Concern about damage and cost to existing properties from development. 3storey houses would not be in keeping with the area. Suggestions this is part of the Roman Road and should be preserved. No trees can be planted on boarders due to root issues, putting trees back in would undo work done in this area. Wildlife impacts. Hedgerows surrounding plots would be at risk.

05055 Miriam Micklethwaite

234 - object - in 2012 consultation on this site assurances were given it would not be developed. Green Belt, plenty of brownfield sites in Doncaster. Should locate development nearer to town to help address decline. A638 is already a busy road - more traffic and more risk of accidents. Fields offer flood protection, this will put nearby properties at risk of flooding.

05054 David Vincent 147 - object - no focus on local infrastructure. Road impact - only two exist from conurbation. Station Road junction inadequate - will lead to accidents and more air pollution. Congestion to Kirk Sandall. Facilities have not grown with Barnby Dun. School fully subscribed, will impact on existing pupils schooling and potential new students schooling. Already a parking / access issue here. Shops in Barnby Dun cannot support expanding population. Modern shopping trends mean people must leave Barnby Dun to shop - traffic issues. Inadequate

leisure facilities for children, needs addressing or will lead to social problems. Development will destroy well used bridal path and access to Green Space. Doctors is small and access to dr and dentist provision elsewhere is impossible. There is an upper limit to what is acceptable before it has a serious detrimental impact on enjoyment of it by its long established residents. Should look elsewhere for new housing.

05042 Gabriel Czigany

241 - support council decision to reject this site. 255 - conditionally support only if 241 is not granted on appeal. 431 - support council conclusion it is unsuitable. 474 - info out of date and site has been completed. Edenthorpe Neighbourhood Plan is in the pipeline.

04689 Reginald James Ogley

040 - Support - Site is available for development and is supported

04688 J Toyne 115 - Adamant that another entrance and exit should be provided other than Alverley Lane to. Alverley Lane is very busy and cannot sustain more traffic. It is also a short cut to traffic for Tesco and Morrison's, making it more congested.

04687 Jane Stephenson

147 - Object - extra pressure on traffic, village roads already overburdened. More homes leads to more cars, roads cannot cope and congestion will be bad, The schools are at capacity, the amenities are poor and the HP is struggling to cope with the existing population. Concern that it will move from the village. Concern about loss of wildlife. Some birds and animals in the area are rare and protected, and there is also much plant life in the area. Would be sad to lose views and residents concerned and angry views will be compromised.

04666 Christine Saw 777 - object - agree housing is needed but infrastructure cannot cope. The school is local in nature as is the GP. The roads cannot accommodate more housing traffic and is chaotic at commuter times. Should focus on brownfield not green fields.

04634 David and Jennifer Hartley

164 / 430 - object - have lived locally for 20 + years, has been a massive increase in traffic and associated noise, road traffic collisions, and Warning Tongue Lane being used as a rat run. Massive congestion due to Yorkshire Wildlife Park at points in the year, development of this size is totally unacceptable.

04615 HMS Town Planning (on behalf of Brian Sables)

1005 - Landowner reiterates site is promoted for residential development, and should be removed from the Green Belt as: it serves no strategic or quality purpose as Green Belt, either visually or physically; land adjacent to east and west has been developed / built upon and site in a highly urbanised area; has always been a building on the site with power connected - lends itself to development; site is well located, sustainable and accessible - to remain vacant not an effective use of land as per Section 11 of 2018 NPPF; 0.07ha site will make a valuable contribution to housing supply in the area (which currently falls short); village has a deficit of small sites with planning permission to meet its housing requirement without using flood risk areas. The site is available now. It is smaller development opportunity that can be developed now and is a logical extension. Permission has been refused previously refused on Green Belt and flood concerns. Land owner wants to develop this site for 9 - 13 houses and discuss necessary mitigations.

04614 Stephen Mellard

Site 139 - recognise need for housing but expect objections - no POS will be affected by the development; Additional POS is made to allow for population increase; school places are made available where necessary for additional population; additional health facilities provided; no existing PROW or footpaths should be affected. Development may have impact on flora and fauna. Careful access planning is required. Access on to the adjacent cul de sacs will lead to an increase in traffic on Manvers Road and unacceptable shortcuts throng Highwoods school and health care - but a pedestrian access point would be practical here and encourage walking.

04496 Severn Trent RAG assessment provided for high risk sites where improvements to the sewerage network are likely to be required to accommodate development. These include: 164 / 430 - This site is located at the boundary of Severn Trent’s operational region, and there are no assets or serviced properties in close proximity to the site. If Severn Trent were to provide capacity a new network would be required and significant upgrades to the closes village. A new connection into Severn Trent’s Network would also require crossing the M18 as such delivery of this solution may result in delays to development. West of the proposed site boundary is the Settlement of Bessecarr, the infrastructure within this settlement may be suitable for a connection but consultation with Yorkshire water would be required to ensure that this could be accommodated. 662 / 747 / 899 / 928 - Further information regarding these schemes are required to ensure that an appropriate solution can be developed, not scheme to provide capacity has yet been promoted. 843 - A scheme has been promoted to accommodate the proposed growth within this site. 937 - Further information regarding these schemes are required to ensure that an appropriate solution can be developed, not scheme to provide capacity has yet been promoted. 748 / 940 / 941 - Further information regarding these schemes are required to ensure that an appropriate solution can be developed, not scheme to provide capacity has yet been promoted. Please keep Severn Trent notified and they can offer more detailed comments and advice. Request that additional information provided on spreadsheet on wider range of sites is published in one. 141 - reviewed - As identified there is no indicated sewerage network within Westwood Road, suggesting that either records are out of date or that the sewerage network for Westwood Road was not adopted. The site is bounded by a watercourse along its southern edge, therefore we would anticipate that surface water would drain to the watercourse. Foul only flows from 20 properties are unlikely to result in any significant impact on our network and a sewer could requisitioned to our nearest network by the developer. 837 reviewed - A scheme for this site was promoted and a new sewer rising main has been constructed to convey flows direct to the treatment works, Severn Trent therefore do not have any concerns in relation to this site. Finningley - already at hydraulic capacity and therefore will likely need upgrading regardless of any growth; Branton will take the lion's

share of growth (airport and Rossington) so will pose some capacity challenges; Rossington Hall owned by National Trust but Severn Trent undertake (or at least did) operations on behalf of them.

04727 Simon Ford 115 - object - has already been an increase in traffic. Farm Grange exit is increasingly difficult, cannot see towards Tickhill Road until you actually pull out. Needs addressing. Stone wall at the top of Alverley Lane is being damaged by large vehicles. Emissions from static vehicles a problem. Construction will cause noise, dust and general muck. The whole process will impact on locals. Drainage issues - heavy storm water runs down Alverley Lane - development will make this worse. Loss of semi rural view - people bought house with this in mind. Houses will not be affordable. Why doesn't the council take a lead and ensure that the properties are council houses which benefit the community.

04724 Beryl Purdy 777 - object - 20 houses would be more reasonable, but 62 is half the village. The fields flood and did so in 2000 and 2007. Water came into adjacent bungalow, resident had to leave whilst repaired. Nothing done to prevent this. HS2 line will pass close by making houses undesirable. Green Belt land, wildlife impact. Existing traffic in mornings and afternoons in Harlington is already bad, potential accidents. Local school is full and parking is a problem. No walking options - footpath between Crane Moor Close and Church Lane is undaunted and unlit, with high planting along it. Church Lane narrow with no footpath. The cemetery is filling up fast.

04714 Colin J Middleton

170 - object - location is an ancient burial site and mound, and is good agricultural land. It is a hunting ground for many birds of prey which are also impacted by adjacent development. Road system will be unable to cope.

04713 Kathleen Hargrave

350 - Rose Hill - object - volume of traffic in constructing houses, will affect future house sales as road system will be unable to cope. Traffic onto The Avenue will be disruptive, being a one way system. Road unsuitable for heavy vehicles etc. associated with house construction. Traffic will cause noise and disruption. Field used for dog walking, enjoying flora and fauna, horse riding and recreation. Loss to local people. Will impact on local resident lives and cause daily disruption.

04712 B McMolin 115 - object - traffic has already increased making getting anywhere difficult. People use Alverley Lane to get to the motorway. Alverley Lane / Tickhill Road junction has seen many accidents. Cannot cope with more traffic. Sewerage comes into property garden when it rains, will be made worse.

04711 Lesley Jones Object to site between Bolton on Dearne and Harlington - used recreationally, is a place of natural beauty, home to wildlife, will be a loss of green space that will merge the areas.

04704 Mike Workman Regarding large swathe of land north of Adwick upon Dearne - Land recently up for sale with indication it will be suitable for development under new local plan. Land is Green Belt, should be protected. Forms part of national cycle network and alternative trans Pennine trail. Lots of wildlife. Used recreationally, was once part of an old tip. Need to protect land such as this, especially with HS2 coming.

04706 Savills (on behalf of Warde - Aldam Estates)

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


213 - Site in single ownership, tenancy is short term. Land is FZ1 although some land is FZ 2 / 3 - but this land (to the north) would not be included for development. Site is in the Green Belt and does not conform with the five Green Belt purposes. The site does not achieve any of these and is therefore suitable for future development of around 850 dwellings.


212 - Land in single ownership and tenancy is short term and site is immediately available. Sewage works adjacent would reduce site capacity, odour study can be provided. Site mainly FZ1, that in FZ2 would be subject to sensitive development. No ancient monuments / heritage assets etc., and no technical or physical restrictions to development. Site is Green Belt, but is a well contained area within the MUA which could accommodate future housing development of around 800 dwellings.


214 - Land in single ownership and tenancy is short term and site is immediately available. Sewage works adjacent would reduce site capacity, odour study can be provided. Site mainly FZ1, that in FZ2 would be subject to sensitive development. No ancient monuments / heritage assets etc., and no technical or physical restrictions to development. Site is Green Belt, but is a well contained area within the MUA which could accommodate future housing development of around 800 dwellings

03578 DLP (on behalf of Dantom Homes)

Site 061 / 333/ 417 - promoting for inclusion - site available, deliverable and developable for residential development. Site FZ 1, sustainably located in relation to facilities and services locally - playground, community centre, social club, shops, church, primary school all within 400m, and bus stops. Access achievable. Single ownership, will be developed by a local house builder. No physical constraints. Negligible agricultural / ecological or recreational value. Part of site will also be used as a rear garden for a house on Main St. Previously applied for planning permission, failed only due to countryside designation. Application currently in for consideration.

04430 Pegasus Group (on behalf of The Gascoine Group)

No housing sites in the Green Belt are identified in Bawtry to meet the settlements need. Not consistent with the development plans strategy for meeting identified requirements through redefining Green Belt, and is contrary to NPPF para. 139. The boundary should be reviewed in Bawtry. Site 996 has not been assessed, despite being submitted in August 2017. The site does form part of Bawtry 2 in the Stage 1 report. The parcel is detached from the wider Green Belt, devaluing its purpose. Believe 996 performs strongly against the Green Belt purposes: does not restrict sprawl; does not prevent merging or perception of separation; encroachment is curtailed by site constraints and the site is within the limits of existing development. Encroachment acceptable for housing needs to be achieved. Accompanying document shows that the heritage impact can be mitigated and the site would not impact on the Grade II listed Bawtry Hall; whether or not the development takes place has no significant impact on the recycling of urban land across the district. The site

serves no obvious role in this. Concerns will mainly relate to historic impact, and in line with NPPF para 140, this site could be removed as character can be protected through other means. Landowners are willing. Site promotion document attached.

04852 Kathleen and Ian Scott

147 - object - Barnby Dun cannot accommodate the people who will live in the proposed dwellings. Small doctors, school full and traffic horrendous. Many traffic problems on Hatfield Lane all day and night. Queue to Top Road at peak times. Bottom of Pinehall road junction of the railway bridge is impossible to cross. No infrastructure to cope.

04853 Stanley Mee 970 - land always marked down as unsuitable for planning and it is Green Belt. Developer interests win whilst locals ignored. Brownfield land surplus and in areas needing regeneration.

04876 Joyce and Guy Taylor

777 - object - Mill Lane and surrounding fields are a designated flood plain. River Dearnes 30ft embankment breached in June 2017, resultant flooding was frightening for Mill Lane residents. Site development would lead to the same worry. Adjacent house has already built an embankment to protect property from flooding. Water table high. DVD enclosed. Sewage pumping station runs at capacity and needs relieving. How will it cope with 60 more houses? Village road busy, particularly due to Manvers industrial estate. Access will join a dangerous corner / accident hotspot. Parking bad on Doncaster Road, traffic and construction vehicle issue. School at capacity, local residents struggle to get in. Already fighting HS2 - will proposed residents be made aware of this and proximity to it? Wildlife impact. DVD provided.

04877 JA Walton 115 - object - the lane cannot cope with traffic and top of Alverley Lane is a bottleneck and gridlocked most of the time. No pavement at the top - difficult on foot or with a pram. Rain makes it flood.

04878 Marion Beldon 115 - concerns - floods already occurred after putting houses on Peglars field, grassland on this site helps drain flood water. Car increase will lead to more traffic. Not good for community. Already enough with endless noisy large vehicles not suitable for estate roads.

04879 Patricia, Richard and Jake Wilson

234 - object - was rejected 5 years ago. Land Green Belt, should remain this way. House overlooks site and enjoy privacy / views / wildlife, only reason property purchased. Plenty of brown belt land. Development already in the vicinity - Brodsworth pit, Watch House Lane, old water tower - already had fair share. Archaeological interests and wildlife will be lost. Increase in traffic will be horrendous on Great North Road and children will struggle for school places / have to travel out. Also a risk of accidents. If not rejected will contact the media.

04880 V Sillard 115 - object - Accessed by Springwell Lane and the Main road from the A630 - both have problems at peak hours due to travel to work / school. A630 horrendous at peak times. Only one footpath at side of Alverley Lane - getting from A to B difficult. People pushing prams at risk from exhaust fumes - risk of future chest and breathing issues. There should be alternative sites to this.

04881 Roy Curtis 350 - object - only two access points - presume one 'in' and one 'out'? Traffic will lead to congestion. Infrastructure will probably struggle to cope with the increased load and the roads are narrow with sharp bends. This was vetoed by other bodies 15 - 20 years ago - presume the argument will still stand.

04884 Caro-Lynn and Robert David Gilling

165 / 186 - do not object, but following needs to be considered: families that cannot afford to buy homes should not be further impacted by having to live next to the A1. Cannot open windows - issue in hot weather. Dirt and pollution covers house, garden unusable. Risk of respiratory illness. Noise is a constant burden, even with double glazing, and makes garden unusable. The plan should mitigate these problems and ensure that the young or least financially able are not placed in a position where they will be impacted by the busy A1. Should also consider the proposed widening of the A1 / impacts. Lack of amenities in Skellow. Community disparate. If it is to be developed it need to be underpinned by local amenity for local groups to access - especially younger and older people. Schools and GPs already hard pushed in the area. Local plan should assess the effects of significantly increased population on services. Minimal bus service in the area. Residents will require an adequate services to access services and employment. Needs to be addressed in the local plan. A cohesive community should be built if Skellow is to benefit from proposals, not one blighted by poor services and A1 pollution.

04885 Joan Williams 777 - object - Land is Green Belt. Villages already under threat from HS2. People want to live here as it is semi - rural countryside surrounded by woods and fields, in contrast to surrounding industry etc. Villages like this should be allowed to retain their character. Land is a flood plain. 66 too dense here. Traffic concerns which HS2 construction will also contribute to. Electricity blackouts have been a problem and will be made worse. School capacity concerns. If homes have to be built they should be in keeping with the area. Bungalows suggested as they will allow older people to move and free up housing for young families. Pastures Road should be used as an alternative to this site.

04886 Michael Vincent

147 - object - 266 is too many properties for the site. Village facilities will struggle with this or 98 new homes. Would need new shops, extra school and doctors extension / new doctors. Concern about traffic increase on Pinehall Rd / Hatfield Lane. Construction vehicles will increase this, especially at peak times. Pinehall Road is very narrow and hazardous for the elderly and coming in and out of driveways.

04887 Barbara Skelton

147 - object - increased traffic, already high and hard to cross the road. Barnby Dun short of amenities, cannot cope with more people. Farmland should not be built on.

04888 Graham Dobson

147 - disagree - area already highlighted as being 40 - 50% flood zone area. Will be made worse. Road and footings will cause more water run off rather than current percolation into the ground. Access will have a detrimental impact on existing housing and roads will have to cope with increased traffic. When 108, 347, 228 and 329 have been rejected for FZ, why is this still considered? Amenities in area already stretched. Potential endangered plants and wildlife species, habitats lost.

04889 Vanessa Dobson

147 - subject to flooding. Services to each dwelling will be expensive. Access will have a massive impact on existing houses and increase traffic. Surface water an issue and will be exacerbated. Drainage will be made worse. Why are 108, 374, 228 and 329 not being considered whilst 147 is? If developed, should be a green buffer to adjacent properties. Adjacent residents should be consulted. May be rare or endangered plants and wildlife which will lose habitats.

04890 Eleanor Kirkham

147 - Strongly object - increase in traffic would put children at risk, roads already busy. School will be stretched, children should be able to learn in an environment which is not too full of pupils. School is full.

04892 Neil Kirkham 147 - object - concern that Hatfield Lane and Pinehall Road will become extremely busy for pedestrians and road users. Route is used for the school. School, GP and amenities at capacity. Will not cope with increase. Homes will be refused insurance due to flood risk. Mortgage lenders will be reluctant to lend. Barnby Dun has reached its maximum capacity.

04893 Ernest and Gwendoline Davies

147 - object - will be hard to get GP appointments, no facilities for these people including shops. No local infrastructure to support people - superstore, bank, pubs, no pavements towards Kirk Sandall. Facilities should be improved first. Traffic on Pinehall Rd will be horrendous. Can the school accommodate extra pupils? Bottleneck here and no parking. Will be made worse.

04894 Richard Raymond Dunn

115 - traffic flow is uncontrolled at present leading to jams at junctions. No traffic lights.

04901 John Exley 234 - object - Scawthorpe has had development, villages could accommodate growth (Marr, Hickleton, High Melton, Carcroft, Burghwallis, Sykehouse, Moss). New houses should be on the outskirts of Doncaster. Roads in and out of Doncaster cannot take more traffic - i.e. York Road and Barnsley Road. Issues with schools, doctors, pollution and public services. Site is Green Belt and has protected species on it such as bats. Permission previously refused on this site.

04902 Heidi Exley 234 - object - alternative sites available, i.e. in Marr, High Melton, Epworth and Burghwallis. Already refused planning permission on this site. Traffic on the dual carriageway is already at limits, lots of speeding traffic. Extra cars will worsen this. Already plenty of development in this area. School, GP capacity issues. Pollution and environment damage. Lack of services / public libraries, lack of employment. Should be some rural aspect in each village in Doncaster, field should be left as agricultural. Roman Ridge historical and protected species. People unhappy with sites.

04900 Richard Jones 929 - limits to what infrastructure will support existing village, this will make things worse. Little capacity for families. Neighbourhood Plan wants provision of smaller properties for downsizing and for new starters for people who wish to remain in area. Such conditions should be imposed through the plan. If site has 1-2 bed bungalows this would meet both local and neighbourhood plan aspirations.

04904 Jennifer Johnson

115 - the road is awful and it is very difficult to pull out onto Tickhill Road. Queues halfway down Alverley Lane take 7 minutes to get out (from experience). More houses will exacerbate this and make commuting a nightmare.

04908 Steve Long 164 / 430 - object - Traffic has increased over the years. Accidents on Warning Tongue Lane and a fatality. 250+ cars would exacerbate the situation. Wildlife park extension being moved due to heavy traffic. Country view will disappear and Green Belt land is being built on.

04911 Kevan Green 147 - object - loss of view, Hatfield Lane has a wonderful wildlife corridor and is home to many species. Land is countryside. The late proposed area in grey would be better (1007?) and a more economical alternative for utilities. Hatfield Lane is over populated with traffic and increase would be unacceptable. No consideration of existing residents. Loss of light to adjacent properties. Other sites would have less impact on existing properties.

04912 Michelle Green

147 - object - loss of view, Hatfield Lane has a wonderful wildlife corridor and is home to many species. Land is countryside. The late proposed area in grey would be better (1007?) and a more economical alternative for utilities. Hatfield Lane is over populated with traffic and increase would be unacceptable. No consideration of existing residents. Loss of light to adjacent properties. Other sites would have less impact on existing properties.

04854 Wood (on behalf on National Grid)

Proposed sites crossed or close proximity to National Grid infrastructure: 461 ; 441 & 528: ZZG Route – 275kv two circuit route from Thorpe Marsh substation in Doncaster to West Melton substation in Rotherham; 227; 745; 818; 747 & 159: 400kv two circuit route from Thorpe Marsh substation in Doncaster to Brinsworth substation in Rotherham. Map provided showing employment sites crossed with National Grid high voltage electricity overhead lines. Statutory safety clearances between overhead lines, the ground and built structures must not be infringed. To comply with statutory safety clearances the live electricity conductors of National Grid’s overhead power lines are designed to be a minimum height above ground. Where changes are proposed to ground levels beneath an existing line then it is important that changes in ground levels do not result in safety clearances being infringed. National Grid can, on request, provide to developers detailed line profile drawings that detail the height of conductors, above ordnance datum, at a specific site. Prefer buildings not built below power lines for amenity and access purposes. National Grid have produced 'A Sense of Place' guidelines looking at creating high quality development near power lines. Relocation of overhead lines will only be considered on schemes of national importance. National Grid may have a Deed of Easement for each asset which prevents the erection of permanent/ temporary buildings, or structures, changes to existing ground levels, storage of materials etc. National Grid happy to advise.

04866 Keith Cross Site 133 – support. Planning proposals on this site have been submitted as far back as the 1960s. The 1955 Thorne Town map allocated the site for housing. The last planning application (95/60/1910/FUL) was granted permission but no development has taken place. The developer for this site has since commenced development on other sites. Not opposed to the development of this sit e as there is an urgent need for social and low cost housing but there will be issues with highways and drainage infrastructure. The authority should seek Counsel’s advice to instigate prompt compulsory purchase proceedings.

04980 Timothy Orcott Site 155 – object. The site is not suitable due to: - Ecological impact – Green belt review Stage 3 says that “The Green Belt at this location has a low-moderate role in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.” - the further extension of the urban area may be indeed be impeded in future and the adjacent wooded area to the railway embankment will be affected by bordering directly with buildings and activity associated with homes. With reference to section 6.28 of the Core strategy and Section C of both policy 33 and policy 34 of the Draft Policies development at this location would

not provide a sufficient wildlife buffer to boundary settlements . Also, the quote of 2.34% built form (Pg 82 Doncaster Green Belt Review Stage 3 Proposed Green Belt Sites for Assessment) is now inaccurate - as the farm related buildings have been removed to revert to farming land use, the site is no longer semi-urban and has reverted wholly to agricultural land. - Sustainability of local resources – the site remains productive agricultural land and at the time of economic uncertainty may still be needed for agricultural. With reference to 7.7 of 2012 Doncaster council core strategy, brownfield and unfarmed areas should take priority for conversion to housing. Should consider other economically and unproductive land such as the disused sports ground to the west of Springwell Lane. - Protecting water quality - with reference to section 7.10 2012 Doncaster Council core strategy, further strain should not be put on the existing sewage system. Work has been required on at least 2 occasions near the junction with Springwell Lane and Alverley lane. - The current road layout barely supports the current traffic level. The junction with the A60 is incredibly restricted especially at peak times. They may be also be an impact on air quality due to the enclosed nature of the site and the volume of slow moving traffic. - Parking - consideration needs to be given to parking as both driveway and on-road parking is already at capacity. Alverley Lane has minimal access to public transport.

04983 Mrs L Hinchcliffe

Site 040 – object. The site is situated between the busy A630 and Old Road which is also busy with heavy traffic. There are frequent road accidents between the two junctions. The two schools in the area will not have capacity to cope. The GP surgery cannot cope and the drainage system already floods when heavy rain falls. Houses overlooking the site will lose as much as £5000. Conisbrough has nearly lost all of its open space.

04864 HMS Town Planning (on behalf of White & Carter)

Site 117 – support. It is shown as a rejected housing site but it now requires updating to reflect the 2 planning permissions (17/01856/FUL & 18/00790/FUL). An application was also submitted (18/02593/FUL) on the former factory land which falls within residential policy area. The village is entirely surrounded by a local countryside policy designation which will be reviewed as part of the Local Plan process. The remaining part of the site should also be allocated for development in order to meet with Doncaster’s affordable housing requirements. The site lends itself very well to development without compromising the integrity of the countryside. There is an opportunity to provide public open space and other infrastructure on site.

05032 Lindsey Bishop-Edwards

Objection to site 164/430. The road is extremely busy and there is not enough road provision for the development and extra traffic, this would increase danger posed to life. Not enough school or health provisions to support this development.

05037 Lee Hutchinson

Objection to site 147.Extra traffic will add to an already congested road network. It would also increase traffic accidents, some drivers already speed in the area so more traffic might mean more people speeding. Schools are already at capacity so more houses would mean more children not being able to attend the local school. Local GP surgeries are already at full capacity also. Loss of views from property and potential loss of property value. Surely there is other brown field sites that could be built on instead. Making the village busier than it needs to be.

05038 David Armanyous

Objection to site 164/430. Warning Tongue Lane already busy, more houses would make it busier and unsafe. Concerned that a lot of green areas around Doncaster have been taken over by housing.

05040 Graham Hague

Objection to site 379. Site will be another nail in the coffin for the shops and businesses in the town. Lack of other free parking alternatives to Garden Street.

05201 Turley (on behalf of the Peel Group)

Site 446 - Request land is removed from open countryside and allocated for residential/mixed use development. Development limits should be amended to accommodate this allocation. Allocation of the site would assist in the delivery of the community rail station in masterplan and assist in hitting the rep's preferred housing target of 1,073 per annum (see explanation in Economic Forecasts and Housing Need Assessment section).

05202 Turley (on behalf of The Peel Group)

Site now listed as 1010 proposed. See map attached to rep email. Site is land envisaged in Airport Masterplan for residential development. Development Limits should be amended to accommodate this allocation.

05071 WYG (on behalf of Miller Homes)

Miller Homes land interest at Grange Farm, Armthorpe (part of SHLAA reference 431). Pending planning app’ (12/02133/FULM).Provides detail on application site.

05191 DCH Consulting (on behalf of J Middleton and Sons)

830 - to be included in development limit

05192 DCH Consulting (on behalf of J Middleton and Sons)

831 - establish new settlement boundary to include sire 831 (also see site 830)

05193 DCH Consulting (on behalf of Alex Parkin-Coates)

Site 108 Barnby Dun – representation supporting allocation of site Description of site location and nature (grazing land, agricultural holding and part brownfield). CPA in UPD. Part Flood Zone 3 and part Flood Zone 1 (A site-specific flood risk assessment is being prepared). Barnby Dun as one of the 10 Service Towns/Villages (allocation of 105 homes during Local Plan period). Identifies reasons for rejection of site 108 and support of 147 and provides a comparison. Provides a long list of reasons in favour of site 108. (Paragraph 170 of the NPPF, defensible boundary (mineral line), planned growth may occur in different locations, Barnby Dun won’t merge with Kirk Bramwith or Thorpe in Balne due to defensible boundaries. potential number of dwellings deliverable on site 108 are less in the short term than site 147, the longer-term implications make site 147 less

sustainable. Methods of construction are evolving, and mitigation measures mean that development on sites of medium or higher risk of flooding can be made safe in the longer term. NPPF paragraph 17 promotes the effective use of land for homes and other uses. NPPF Paragraph 180 states planning policies should ensure that new development is appropriate for its location taking into account cumulative impacts in relation to pollution on health, living conditions and the natural environment. 34% of site 108 is in a low flood zone. This equates to approximately 2.43 ha of land, at a density of 30 dwelling per hectare could provide a housing site of around 73 dwellings, with less impact than site 147. Identifies community objection to site 147. site 108 would require access along a short section of a lower hierarchy road within the network, the design and layout of the existing route would control traffic speeds until such a point where the route connected with Church Road. Site 108 is more favourable to deliver housing growth within the village of Barnby Dun for the following reasons: The site is brownfield; The site can deliver around 73 aspirational quality homes; The site is a sustainable location close to the village centre and access to public transport; The site poses less highway and traffic implications than alternative sites; The site has a defensible boundary and will not result in encroachment into the countryside; The site has a safe evacuation route through a lower flood zone; The site can include water compatible landscaping and open space; The site is within walking distance to the local primary school and a development of 73 ‘family’ homes would contribute towards school places; The site is likely to be unaffected by heritage assets; There are significant objections to the alternative site.

05200 George F White (on behalf of R and G Parker)

Object to missed Site allocation – site 931; rejected due to location in CPA, this is insufficient justification and disagree with conclusion. Argues reasons for allocating 170 (located in CPA), 309 (granted at appeal) , and 784 (will result in reduction of employment land) not consistent. Quotes appeal decision (APP/F4410/W/16/3158500) and raises concern with the soundness of attributing weight to the CPA as part of the Site Selection Methodology. 931 should be allocated as currently submitted, in order to provide the Council with further options, we have submitted a revised proposed site plan, which reduces the extent of the site area currently submitted. The rear boundary has been amended to follow the line of the residential development on either side, resulting in a reduced site area of approximately 0.8 hectares (allocated new number 1034) No abnormal or significant constraints were identified by the Council in their site assessment.

05214 DLP (on behalf of South Yorkshire Housing Association)

Object to not including Site 446 - Blaxton Quarry Phase 2, Mosham Road, Auckley for housing allocation. 27 page representation dismissing housing need calculation in favour of a higher figure 1073dpa and providing reasons for the allocation of site 446.

The draft plan should be amended to include the allocation of site 446 for housing, supported by Peel Land and Development. Comments on and dismisses the Economic Forecasts and Housing Needs Assessment (June 2018) in relation to revised NPPF and guidance. Housing requirement for plan period = 1073dpa Housing requirement for Auckley too low. Allocations do not reflect DSA masterplan. Requirement should be amended to 720 dwellings. Provides a comprehensive site assessment. Site is well defined and bounded by hedgerows. EA magic maps show no environmental constraints or designations. In flood zone 1. Good access (Hurst Lane and Mosham Road). Accessible local services (schools, buses, and aspirational train station). Quotes housing strategy supporting new affordable housing in the vicinity of the Great Yorkshire Way. SYHA states there is a housing shortage in Auckley, Blaxton and Finningley. Demand for housing in the area. Site in one ownership. Considers and dismisses alternatives and 446 is considered a sustainable option which is suitable, deliverable and developable and subject to policy designation

05199 ID Planning (on behalf of Tanks and Vessels)

Area A is suitable to accommodate a significant element of residential development. A flexible approach to development on the site should be adopted. Site was discounted for housing in site selection methodology due to flooding risk. Only the northern part of the site is in flood risk area (screenshot included). Location is sustainable, and can provide an appropriate mix of development. Excellent connectivity. Wide range of services and employment at Rossington including the airport and iPort. Developing sit A for housing is not considered to harm the Council’s wider employment land requirements with the Council’s Site Selection Methodology (Part 4) noting that Bankwood Lane is not identified within the Council’s employment land supply of 407ha but rather is “to be washed over as an employment site and therefore not contributing to the total amount of employment land.”

05184 ID Planning (on behalf of Harron Homes Ltd)

Site Reference 189 – Higgins Agriculture, Land to the east of Old Bawtry Road. Response provides site description, location and current UDP status. CPA, part brownfield (farm use?) site plan provided. Missed site allocations - Site 189 (south of Finningley) is assessed as two sites, and a suitable sustainable (brownfield) site for housing development to support the village. Reason because distribution strategy does not take account of DSA and current approach does not

preclude over delivery in defined villages (Carcroft Skellow, Edlington, Askern, Auckley – hayfield green cited in response) - Site plan provided in appendix

05207 Tangent Properties (on behalf of ION Property Developments Ltd and The Frickley Estate)

Disappointed that proposed site HELAA ref 203, Clayton is not been allocated as a potential mixed use allocation. Site not appraised in line with selection methodology/process which undermines the soundness of the evidence base of the plan. Should have a detailed independent site selection due to proximity to HS2.

05187 JVH Town Planning Consultants (on behalf of Crowe, Platts, Lodge, Hanson and Youdan - 147)

Support site and agree with site selection methodology for site 147 – Provides additional information (on page 7) supporting allocation. Expected delivery earlier in the plan.

05189 Trebbi (on behalf of C and R Clark)

Sites 880 & 109 – support. The sites should be amalgamated and treated as one. The Green Belt Review and SA should be revisited and the site re-assessed. The sites are highly suitable and deliverable. Some sites have already been built/approved for housing in the town as at the Local Plan base date and recognise that they will contribute towards Tickhill’s housing requirement of 165 new homes. Fully support the site identified as green on the plan. Strongly agree that there is a need to find enough sites for at least a further 154 new hoes to meet the target. Locating the additional 154 new homes in Tickhill will positively contribute o is housing growth requirements and retain the related economic benefits locally. Do not agree that the settlement’s undersupply of acceptable residential sites in Tickhill should be made good through allocating elsewhere in other Urban Areas or Main Towns.

The June 2017 masterplan for site 880 suggested an alternative site boundary to the south. This option does not appear to have been considered in the Green belt Review or SA. Both of these documents need to be re-visited and the site re-assessed. Suggest that Site 880 and 109 are amalgamated and the site boundaries adjusted accordingly to mitigate the negative assessment responses awarded to the sites through the Green Belt Review and SA. Agree that majority of development should be located in and around Doncaster and the main settlements such as Tickhill. Have no objections to the broad locations of development. However sufficient, deliverable land needs to be allocated within each settlement town or village to ensure housing requirements are met. The Council is encouraged to revisit allocations in terms of their opportunities and constraints focussing on sites which are deliverable. Consideration should be given to sites that contribute positively to the release of Green Belt i.e. land take is minimised, strong, defensible boundaries can be created, and the proposed housing contributes to the required housing growth numbers.

05163 Petition 1 (203 x standard letters)

165/186 - 203 x separate but standard letters from objectors to the proposed housing allocation. Object to loss of Green Belt and urban sprawl as one of the purposes of Green Belt policy is to keep land permanently open. Loss of residential amenity including noise, disturbance and nuisance to existing households. Flood Risk - other sources of flood risk must be considered. The site is at medium risk of surface water flooding and so should also be rejected.

05164 Petition 2 165/186 - Petition signed by 465 objectors to the proposed housing allocation. Object to loss of Green Belt and urban sprawl as one of the purposes of Green Belt policy is to keep land permanently open. Loss of residential amenity including noise, disturbance and nuisance to existing households. Flood Risk - other sources of flood risk must be considered. The site is at medium risk of surface water flooding and so should also be rejected.

05165 Petition 3 350/407 - Petition of 83 signatures objecting to the proposed housing allocation. No reasons provided.

05167 Petition 5 777 - petition of 212 signatures objecting to proposed housing allocation. Reasons being loss of Green Belt and development on designated flood plain with loss of wildlife. Impact on village amenities such as roads, schools and sewage which are already at capacity.

05168 Petition 6 164 - Petition of 144 signatures objecting to the proposed housing allocation. No reasons provided.

05195 Banks Property Ltd

872 - objects to not allocating housing site. Response includes a promotional document with an overview of the site location, planning context, settlement character, site assessment and analysis, landscape framework, design concept, indicative masterplan, and benefits.

04444 Johnson Mowat (on behalf of Strategic Land Group)

1013 - support - alternative to using Green Belt, not in FZ. Should be allocated. Land North East of this site should also be identified as a 'reserve development site'. Achievable and in a suitable location. No proposed allocations in Auckley. Permissions are at Hayfield Green. Well located for services. Only constraint is countryside. Inspector at Sites and Policies DPD stated countryside had not been assessed for its special status, and should be removed as a designation. Countryside release should be considered in this location. Aerotropolis at the airport and new railway station means this site is a logical one. Application 17/02278/OUTM show there are no technical barriers to delivery - urban design, soil/droughtiness, minerals, Severn Trent, transportation, drainage, pollution, POS, education, IDB, air quality, police, natural england, fire service, ecology, environment agency, Yorkshire Wildlife Trust, Archaeology all no objections. Trees and hedgerows revised scheme submitted. Only barrier is the settlement hierarchy (informed by settlement audit). Site could deliver a mix of dwellings, affordable housing, POS. Land should be allocated her to meet aspirational economic growth. Would significantly boost housing supply. Appendix and evidence supplied in rep. Are reserve development sites safeguarded? Info in the document does not tally with info in the consultation maps. Six reserve development sites are identified, 5 in FZ 3. Object to reliance on FZ3 sites which the methodology states could come forward in the plan period, to alternative suitable sites not in FZ3.

04960 Johnson Mowat (on behalf of Mr and Mrs S Hall)

252 - promoting / supporting - Site is available, achievable and in a suitable location for delivery within the plan period. No insurmountable constraints. Only barrier is the Settlement Audit, which can only be achieved by releasing Green Belt. Sprotbrough one of the most sustainable Service Towns and Villages, and is close to the MUA, but it does not have a requirement proportionate to its sustainability status. There are exceptional circumstances for removing this site from the Green Belt and the benefits outweigh the Phase 3 findings. Sprotbrough is sustainable, close to the MUA and not in a flood risk area. There is a case for identifying housing. Settlement Audit (2015) says Sprotbrough has a score of 7 which shows it is one of the more sustainable STVs. Revised to 4 but acknowledges accessibility to the MUA (settlement profiles). Housing allocation does not reflect this settlement. More housing should be directed to Sprotbrough. Area is sustainable - 3 parks, riverboat, nature reserve. Five pubs a restaurant and other nearby eating and drinking options. Two convenience shops and a nearby local supermarket as well as an Asda in Balby. Eight schools around the village and area. Highways supporting statement included in rep, site accessible from Westmorland Way and Spring Lane. Site most sustainable in Sprotbrough, accessible by non-car modes. Buses and connection to the A1(M). Site available, landowner has not instructed various bodies to progress this site to allocation, this shows the site is available now. Site was developable, deliverable and suitable in the HELAA. Landowner has a number of expressions of interest, would submit a planning permission to ensure site can be delivered at

earlies opportunity. Landowner pro-development. Site a logical rounding off of settlement. Better than 929 but could also be allocated in addition to this to boost housing supply. Clear need to identify more land. Appendix includes a detailed highways assessment showing. Reserve sites: Are reserve development sites safeguarded? Info in the document does not tally with info in the consultation maps. Six reserve development sites are identified, 5 in FZ 3. Object to reliance on FZ3 sites which the methodology states could come forward in the plan period, to alternative suitable sites not in FZ3.

05204 Johnson Mowat (on behalf of Harworth Group PLC - 829)

829 - promoting site for allocation. Adjacent to settlement limit, not constrained by Green Belt, within higher flood risk area, benefits from flood defences. 829 is enclosed by urban form, development will not impact on core shape / form of the settlement. Would not harm the settlements character and appearance significantly. Appropriate consideration can be given to relationship with the conservation area via design. Landscape buffering could be included to the countryside. Aside from the fact site is beyond the settlement limits, it conforms to the other 'appropriate locations' as per Policy 3. Suitable and deliverable and could commence in the early part of the plan period, whilst having scope to safeguard a proportion of land for delivery towards the end of the plan period. Two phases - 105 then 100. Not clear why site rejected except for DV. Not Green Belt, allocation could lead to retention of land elsewhere as Green Belt. FZ but benefits from defences. Could be appropriately mitigated via planning and design process. Considered to be more suitable than other FZ3 land. Flood risk assessment undertaken and attached to Appendix. Ecological assessment shows impact can be mitigated. Trees can be retained (support document attached). Site could be developed to deliver a residential area integrated within the village. Vision document attached. Primary access via Arksey Common Lane, potential secondary access to Almholme Lane. POS with footpaths and cycleways included in illustrative masterplan. Vision document attached. Reserve sites: Are reserve development sites safeguarded? Info in the document does not tally with info in the consultation maps. Six reserve development sites are identified, 5 in FZ 3. Greater consideration needs to be given to the consistency of site selection, clarity of presentation and explanation of when sites may be released. Such sites cannot be relied on to meet housing need. Likely to be a need to release land in flood zone in Doncaster. Should be carefully considered in light of overarching patterns of sustainable development and technical / environmental information.

05205 Johnson Mowat (on behalf of Harworth Group PLC - 247)

Site 247 - amended boundary submitted. Site 247 is a logical urban extension. Well located for employment (iport) and aligns with LP regeneration objectives. Existing outline on the colliery will not deliver 1200, but 984 (-216). Newly proposed site boundary of 14.1ha which could have 2.5ha POS and deliver 406 dwellings (35dph net/29dph gross). Illustrative masterplan provided. Change due to clarity of the post-mining/material recycling restoration scheme. Restoration masterplan shows what will become open space, and what is a 'proposed development platform' - a generally flat area of land topographically compatible with approved development to the north, and the POS / country park to the south. Lower densities delivered mean that 1200 will not be realised on site 662. Reason for rejecting site 247 is therefore changed by up to date info. This land is therefore needed to make up the shortfall and deliver an additional 190, perhaps to the end of the plan period (1390 total across 247 & 662). Assumed delivery rate on site 662 not realistic or reflective of progress made. Anticipate 50dph on both plots with reserved matters (100dph total) meaning completion in 2022/23. Also potential for a third house builder. Site will be complete by 2028/29 - 984 delivered with 3 years of the plan remaining. Therefore reason for rejecting based on delivery of approved scheme is unrealistic. Exhausted with 3 years remaining and 216 dwellings short. 12/01107/OUTA indicated land to the south as a POS / country park, but it is understood no boundary was defined for this. The parameters plan of the outline indicates that an area south of the development area to be a 'potential future development site', and the approved restoration masterplan indicates

a proposed development platform, which is now what is proposed for this allocation. Any allocation would therefore not reduce the area of land currently approved for POS/Country park under the restoration scheme. Inaccurate to base any justification for the rejection of an additional housing site allocation in this location (as the Council does in part regarding Site 247) on the illustration of public open space within the masterplan (but beyond the red line) of the outline permission. Plans, Vision document and masterplan included. Reserve sites: Are reserve development sites safeguarded? Info in the document does not tally with info in the consultation maps. Six reserve development sites are identified, 5 in FZ 3. Greater consideration needs to be given to the consistency of site selection, clarity of presentation and explanation of when sites may be released. Such sites cannot be relied on to meet housing need. Likely to be a need to release land in flood zone in Doncaster. Should be carefully considered in light of overarching patterns of sustainable development and technical / environmental information.

05175 PB Planning (on behalf of Belway Homes)

New site - Land at Doncaster Road, Branton - Concept masterplan supplied - 12.17ha site to the east of Branton, currently countryside. Largely in FZ1. Sustainable location in relation to Branton. Logical extension to Branton. Site could achieve high standard of design. Enclosed nature means that openness of the countryside would remain. Would ensure no coalescence with Auckley. No housing in Branton restricts the ability to meet the housing needs of the village. Village is sustainable - primary schools, pub, post office, local businesses, close to McAuley High school, and employment opportunities at the wildlife park. As or more sustainable as Sprotbrough, Barnby Dun, Auckley, Barnburgh Harlington and Finningley - and closer to the MUA. Object to distribution strategy. Branton clearly sustainable, more sustainable than Core Strategy designation, has same or more services than Service Towns and Villages. Should be a Service Town and Village, and site should be allocated. Will retain core shape and form, not significantly harm character and appearance, or countryside / rural setting. Access can be achieved on to Doncaster Road. Transport appraisal undertaken. Ecological appraisal undertaken, no issues that would prevent development. High level flood risk and drainage assessment undertaken, recommendations made can be taken account of as site progresses, no issues stopping development. Suitable, available, achievable and deliverable. Mix of market and affordable houses. Ecology technical note, flood risk review, transport appraisal, concept masterplan and promo doc also included.

05035 Estate of J Shipley

115 - object - executor of estate of neighbouring farm. Farming on both 115 and adjacent site. Land floods from Warmsworth Beck with heavy rain and water backs up St Catherine's Well Stream from the M18 through Quarry Farm. Ditch from railway bridge on Springwell Lane to Warmsworth Beck is full to capacity at peak times of heavy rain. This will increase surface water into these. Would make it impossible to farm the land. Cannot graze cattle and grass cannot be made into food. Good quality farmland should not be developed ahead of brownfield land. Traffic congestion - no local amenities and traffic already managed on Alverley Lane, busy and queuing at peak times. Difficult to join A60. Would severely impact adjacent farm and business.

05001 Sirius Planning (on behalf of FCC Environment) (113)

Site 113 - no supporting information on site, and not part of rep. Site 112 and 114 still promoted.


Site 112 all adjacent and rejected due to isolation. No mention in NPPF of sites needing to be part of settlement or able to become part of. Should not therefore discount the site on this. Refer to NPPF para 78 and PPG 019. Policy makes specific allowances for affordable housing development in rural locations as rural exception sites. Lack of allocation would not prevent future development of the site if it is in accordance with NPPF para 77 and 145. Site split north (brownfield quarry) and south (agricultural). Quarry could be redeveloped, surrounded by a cutting / embankment to ensure Green Belt openness will not be impacted. Turner v Secretary of State (2017) 2 P & CR1 confirms visibility should be a consideration in assessing openness. Development would be in the quarry void.


Site 112 all adjacent and rejected due to isolation. No mention in NPPF of sites needing to be part of settlement or able to become part of. Should not therefore discount the site on this. Refer to NPPF para 78 and PPG 019. Policy makes specific allowances for affordable housing development in rural locations as rural exception sites. Lack of allocation would not prevent future development of the site if it is in accordance with NPPF para 77 and 145. Site split north (brownfield quarry) and south (agricultural). South (114) provides perfect opportunity for affordable housing infill to meet local needs along Burghwallis Lane.

05172 Pegasus Group - (on behalf of Wilson and McKay Families)

185 - supporting site - 11ha east of Mill Lane, Carcroft & Skellow. Site promo document attached. Green Belt boundary can be made strong with woodland planting to the limits. Site can respond to local characteristics. Will have local and borough wide economic benefits. 185 can assist in providing a flexible land supply for the settlement in addition to site 186. Disagree with rejection of Flood Zone reasons. Flood zone only a small proportion of the site and does not make site unsuitable in its entirety. Site promo material shows how this can be designed in a way to exclude development from flood zone areas. Flood risk mitigation is also possible over the wider site area. Resi would be in FZ1so no failure in sequential flood terms. Site available, landowner supports, development could contribute to borough supply. Promo document provided.

05173 Pegasus Group (on behalf of Metacre Ltd)

186 - support - site promo document attached which looks at design, range, type and tenure of housing that can be delivered. Site will have local and borough wide benefits. Site available, willing landowner. Site is identified as being par of wider site with land to the north. This is a sole site, although it is acknowledged in the promo material it is necessary to link to the land to the north to make a comprehensive well designed development.

05203 Johnson Mowat (on behalf of Harworth Group Plc - 1035)

251 / 1035 - Object to rejection of Site 251. Should be identified as a mixed use allocation or as a split allocation of employment and housing. Vision document attached. Identified as a remaining potential option but not proposed for allocation. Not clear in the LP process how this potential site is to be considered. Clarification sought regarding the intention of these potential sites. There is a lack of allocated sites identified in Conisbrough and Edlington compared to the other Main Towns. Both include a number of rejected employment sites and no employment permissions. Newly proposed site boundaries differ to those previously submitted. Now proposed for employment (4.2ha) and housing (7.3ha). This is c. 7000sqm floorspace and c. 200 dwellings. Access to Eland Road expected to be achievable. Harworth is the promoter / developer and has a track record of delivering sites. Viability concerns are unjustified (as referred to in Colliers report pp. 58 and pp. 70). Not likely to impact Denaby Wood ecologically. Can be a landscape buffer, sensitive design. Housing in settlement only towards lower end of the range. There is scope for housing in this settlement. Site is attractive to local employers. Can contribute to improving deprivation in Denaby in line with the Settlement Background Paper. Deprived areas need the allocation of land to facilitate inward investment and create job opportunities. Housing will attract new residents and improve viability of shops and services. Significant risk to the plan which directs employment and mixed use development away from settlements like Denaby Main. This is detrimental to prospects of economic growth and regeneration to be achieved. This in itself means there are exceptional circumstances. Green Belt can be amended without significant harm to the Green Belt. In light of access concerns from Hill

Top Road, consultants have reviewed access arrangements (drawings and assessment supplied) which deem that this can be achieved. Higher quality housing can be delivered here, which will boost the area. Vision document provided. Methodology is inconsistent with the information on the consultation maps. Are reserve development sites safeguarded? Info in the document does not tally with info in the consultation maps. Six reserve development sites are identified, 5 in FZ 3. Greater consideration needs to be given to the consistency of site selection, clarity of presentation and explanation of when sites may be released. Such sites cannot be relied on to meet housing need. Likely to be a need to release land in flood zone in Doncaster. Should be carefully considered in light of overarching patterns of sustainable development and technical / environmental information.

1017 Peter Pennington

160 - Object - Site previously withdrawn in 2008 and refused in 2009 and it is Countryside Policy Area. Documents show there has been a shift in the councils position on this site, despite facts on the ground not changing. Documents only deal with merits of site for commercial purposes. Do not discriminate between agricultural or landscape value. CPA should be protected. Land in this country is at a premium. Good agricultural land should not be wasted. Need to balance economic, environmental and social factors. Brownfield should be priority over greenfield. Only want greenfield as costs are lower. Should not be permitted in a speculative and footloose manner, as SA para 4.11 indicates it is. Should protect countryside between settlements.

05174 Pegasus Group (on behalf of Metacre Ltd)

185 - supporting site - 11ha east of Mill Lane, Carcroft & Skellow. Site promo document attached. Green Belt boundary can be made strong with woodland planting to the limits. Site can respond to local characteristics. Will have local and borough wide economic benefits. 185 can assist in providing a flexible land supply for the settlement in addition to site 186. Disagree with rejection of Flood Zone reasons. Flood zone only a small proportion of the site and does not make site unsuitable in its entirety. Site promo material shows how this can be designed in a way to exclude development from flood zone areas. Flood risk mitigation is also possible over the wider site area. Resi would be in FZ1so no failure in sequential flood terms. Site available, landowner supports, development could contribute to borough supply. Promo document provided.

05171 Airedon Planning and Design (on behalf of Mr and Mrs Morrell)

021 - Land adjacent to Scawthorpe Cottages, Scawthorpe - see Green Belt/Boundary Review evidence base summary.

05169 Brian & Geraldine Jones

164 - objects to proposed housing allocation. Response states it is representing residents from 6 streets in the locality of the proposed site (petition attached to the correspondence). Reason for objecting are: increase in traffic and the roads are already gridlocked and in need of repairs. The Yorkshire Wildlife Park and local schools are also exacerbating volumes of traffic and will impact on emergency services being able to pass through the area. Residents already struggle to get out of driveways onto the road at peak times. Increase in noise and pollution. Packington Road is very narrow and there are safety issues and residents cars have been damaged by lorries and buses already using this route. There are capacity issues with schools, dentists and health facilities and the site supports local wildlife.

04331 Oxalis Planning (on behalf of MerryVale Developments)

825 - objects that the consultation does not support the inclusion of Fields off Drake Head Lane, Conisbrough. One of the proposed sites (383) narrows the gap between the built-up parts of the urban area, contrary to one of the fundamental intentions of the Green Belt. Allocating the site as well will bring the settlement further into the growth range and there is palpably a need for more home sin Conisbrough.

01716 Waystone Ltd 418 - support the inclusion of Unity/The DN7 initiative for housing and employment. We support the inclusion of a larger site area than that covered by the outline planning application. We welcome the inclusion of the former colliery land and lay-down area and we propose that the site area be further extended to include the former Ashfield Tips to the north of Kirton Lane and have included a plan

4418 Longwall Property (on behalf of Inherent Property)

930 - There are no access constraints that would prevent the development of the site, either in isolation or in conjunction with the adjoining site (reference 281). Submitted evidence for this via a Transport Issues Report by Croft Transport Solutions. Re-submitted a Development Statement which shows that there are no other technical reasons why the site could not be developed, and demonstrates that there would not be an unacceptable impact on the Green Belt.

04434 John Handley Associates Ltd (on behalf of Klondyke Group Ltd)

1000 - requests site is fully assessed through the local plan process and removed from the Green Belt and allocated for housing. Scope for a larger allocation at the settlement to take the supply towards the top of the growth range. Green Belt sites will be required in order to meet the strategy. The site is available, deliverable and viable and could provide 50-60 new dwellings. Further details provided in the Development Bid document including site review/layout/proposed point of access etc. Also proposed as part of a separate proposal - a new landscaped boundary can be provided which would help define and strengthen the Green Belt boundary here.

02343 JVH Town Planning Consultants (on behalf of A Waddington – 166)

Site 166 – East of warning Tongue Lane. Objects to proposed none allocation of the site. Main reasons: Site could provide homes to meet the top of the range of the Urban Area homes figure. Site is not an intrusion into Countryside. Has good transport links into Doncaster. There is no interference to the Wildlife Park access. No Red negatives in the SA analysis.

Reasons for not allocating have little weight. Is a highly sustainable location. Not Green belt and not flood risk. Site in single ownership and is sustainable and deliverable for MUA. Should be allocated as an urban extension to MUA.

03259 JVH Town Planning Consultants (on behalf of GB Turnbull - 165)

186 & 165 Crabgate Skellow Supports proposed allocation of these sites. Response contains further detail.

03453 JVH Town Planning Consultants (on behalf of GB Turnbull - 164)

430 & 164 – Warning Tongue lane Supports the proposed allocation of the site. Response has additional detail.

05003 David Roberts 777 – Harlington Objects to proposed site allocation. Main concerns: Would add to existing traffic problems Is a Green Belt site Lack of local facilities School is already full.

Sewerage problems Land is on edge of a floodplain HS2 will be close by – will these properties sell? Plenty of BF land elsewhere in DMBC and adjoining local authorities.

05004 Julie Aidla-Robson

164/430 – Warning Tongue lane Objects to proposed site allocation. Main concerns: Roads are busy enough. Loss of Green Space.

05030 Mary Summers

165/186 – Skellow Concerns re proposed allocation: Increase in traffic and access to A1. Already a very dangerous junction. Impact on schools and Doctors. Impact on wildlife Alternative site not considered because of flooding – Hampolebalk Lane not flooded in 50 years.

05029 John Southern and P James

234 – Broad-axe Field Objects to proposed site allocation. Main concerns:

Greenbelt site Morally wrong to develop when there are large urban areas available. Wrong to overlook other site in FZ3. EA assessment takes no account of existing flood defences. Questions why sites 257, 438 and 439 cannot be considered. Loss of Countryside . Loss of good value agricultural land. Archaeologically important site. Impact on traffic congestion. Schools overcrowding. Why not use empty properties in the Borough? – Doncaster has the highest number of empty properties in South Yorkshire. Proximity to and impact on ‘Roman Ridge’ Allocation is contrary to the LP Vison. Wrong to ignore BF sites and ‘plunder’ the Greenbelt. 257, 438, 439 Regeneration of Doncaster is being held up by not allocating these sites. None allocation is contrary to the LP Vision for the Waterfront. Detailed flood risk assessment and creative design could bring these sites forward.

05217 JM Hunt (on behalf of S George)

123 - Sheep Bridge lane. Is proposing an amended boundary to make site more acceptable in relation to flood risk and heritage impacts.

05224 Nicola Price 115 - Alverley lane objects to proposed site allocation main concerns: Increased traffic. Impact on already difficult access. Loss of countryside Existing run down areas should be improved before creating more housing.

03430 Persimmon Homes Ltd

116 - support site being considered for allocation - site is sustainable and deliverable in line with the strategic aspirations of the plan. Document in support of the site has been prepared (attached to response). Site has been discounted as it is FZ3a and subject to national policy constraints. This fails to take accent of the wider sustainability credentials of the site nor the opportunities that such designations can present. The area in FZ3 is in the north of the site and does not prevent the southern 75% of the site coming forward. Site could accommodate 300 - 400 new homes. Power lines on the site could be buried (accompanying document). Site is in the MUA and is a sustainable location for growth and the area that can accommodate the highest level of houses in the plan period. Well served by shops and services. Site selection has not taken account of how most of the land falls in Flood Zone 1, provided no development occurs in Flood Zone 3 the sequential test is passed. The NPPF and PPG does not say if any part of the site falls within flood zone it should be discounted, this is a matter of judgement for the LPA in drawing boundaries and making allocations. Most other sites rejected for this reason have more land in the flood zone. The non FZ land could be allocated. Land should not be in the countryside protection policy area as the land does not follow the purposes of it. The site adjoins the MUA and Armthorpe Lane is the logical and fixed boundary here to safeguard countryside. The power lines on the site dominate the view and comprising the attractiveness of the setting for Kirk Sandall. Nearest opportunity for coalescence is Barnby Dun, where the gap could be made to remain open as the land to the north of the site is FZ and could be open space. This site would assist in directing development towards urban areas. Accompanying site promotion material is up to date and aside from FZ issue there is no technical constraints preventing this site being allocated. Access points, no areas of ecological sensitivity, not contaminated and can be suitably drained. Site owned outright by Persimmon Homes - available and deliverable. A number of other proposed allocations are less sustainably located and have a track record of failed delivery (i.e. Bombardier). This site is therefore more sustainable and deliverable. 164 - support - sustainable and deliverable in line with strategic aspirations of the plan. Site should not be overburdened by site requirement criteria. Specific technical design matters should be dealt with through planning process where possible.

05227 Anonymous 1 115 - Objects to proposed housing allocation. Reasons being that there are a high volume of empty properties in the borough; using Green Belt land requires demonstration of exceptional circumstances; should develop brownfield and industrial sites first; the field should remain available for framing and agriculture after we leave the EU; there are severe drainage and sewerage problems on the site; impact on wildlife and loss of trees and hedgerows; traffic issues at peak times and accessing onto Tickhill Rd; development will put pressure on local services which are already at capacity; Woodfield Plantation has ceased development and possible land banking from the development industry; the site was previously rejected through he Local Development Framework; planning permission on Green Belt land could increase the value of the land by up to 500 fold.

05228 Anonymous 2 379 - objects to proposed housing allocation. No reasons or details given.

05231 Anonymous 5 234 0 objects to proposed housing allocation. The development will have an adverse impact on local amenity and existing residents due to noise, disturbance, overlooking and loss of privacy, nuisance, shading/loss of light, loss of Green Belt, over-development or overcrowding of the site, negative/adverse visual impact on landscape, detrimental effect on local character, highway safety concerns and congestion, strain on local services in particular GP and schools. If the site were to be developed then a limited amount of the south side of the site should be considered with a buffer between the new houses and The Sycamores which will reduce some of the concerns above and could provide some facilities such as new public open space to the north of the site. Development should not be driven by profit maximisation. Local people are considering crowdfunding to fund a legal challenge.

05233 Anonymous 7 115 0 objects to proposed housing allocation. Reasons being too much traffic already on Alverley Lane and access onto Tickhill Road is too narrow and dangerous. Drainage problems with pumping station already unable to cope as demonstrated during the summer when raw sewerage was running down Alverley Lane from the drainage covers and this is not the first time the pumping station has been unable to cope.

05234 Tangent Properties (on behalf of ION Property Developments Ltd)

New site - Land south-west of Conisbrough (540ha). Clients are working with the principal landowners to promote the site for mixed use development.

02346 Lichfields (on behalf of Hallam Land Management)

240 / 1038 - Site at Doncaster road should be allocated in advance of the council seeking to revise its Green Belt boundary. Wider land around the allocated site of 970 should also be allocated for development. The site is sustainable for residential and should be allocated in its entirety to meet local housing needs. Significant issues with how sites have been allocated. Exceptional circumstances are deemed to exist to allocate Green Belt land, however non - Green Belt sites are available in sustainable locations. Council as attributing as much or more weight to countryside as it is to Green Belt - inconsistent with national policy. Method of selection

therefore unsound and needs significant revisions to ensure that sustainable sites such as this is allocated in advance of any requirement for Green Belt release. This countryside / green belt approach was criticised by the inspector at the Examination of the Sites and Policies DPD.

05212 Lichfields (on behalf of Hallam Land Management)

240 / 1038 - Site at Doncaster road should be allocated in advance of the council seeking to revise its Green Belt boundary. Wider land around the allocated site of 970 should also be allocated for development. The site is sustainable for residential and should be allocated in its entirety to meet local housing needs. Significant issues with how sites have been allocated. Exceptional circumstances are deemed to exist to allocate Green Belt land, however non - Green Belt sites are available in sustainable locations. Council as attributing as much or more weight to countryside as it is to Green Belt - inconsistent with national policy. Method of selection therefore unsound and needs significant revisions to ensure that sustainable sites such as this is allocated in advance of any requirement for Green Belt release. This countryside / green belt approach was criticised by the inspector at the Examination of the Sites and Policies DPD.








145 - Skellow Rejected Site Disagree with rejection of site. Response contains detailed site justification. 144 - Trundle Lane, Fishlake rejected Site Disagree with rejection of site. Response contains detailed site justification. 143 - Church Lane, Barnburgh rejected Site Disagree with rejection of site.

Response contains detailed site justification. 142 - Sheffield Road, Conisbrough rejected Site Disagree with rejection of site. Response contains detailed site justification.


145 - Skellow Rejected Site Disagree with rejection of site. Response contains detailed site justification. 144 - Trundle Lane, Fishlake rejected Site Disagree with rejection of site. Response contains detailed site justification. 143 - Church Lane, Barnburgh rejected Site Disagree with rejection of site.

Response contains detailed site justification. 142 - Sheffield Road, Conisbrough rejected Site Disagree with rejection of site. Response contains detailed site justification.


944 - Brodsworth Colliery site Unviable site. Has planning permission but has still not come forward. No guarantee or evidence that this site will deliver. Therefore there is headroom for additional sites. Site will never deliver any economic growth. 459 (housing) Objects to site not being proposed for allocation. Site is not a flood risk – is zone 1. 458 (Housing) Has never been proposed for residential use but for community, retail, care uses.

512 Objects to site not being proposed for allocation. Site is not flood risk. It is in Zone 1. 513 Objects to site not being proposed for allocation. Disputes the reasons for discounting site in terms of archaeology, agricultural land, landscape impacts, and impact on schools. Brodsworth Estate had addressed all of these issues.


944 - Brodsworth Colliery site Unviable site. Has planning permission but has still not come forward. No guarantee or evidence that this site will deliver. Therefore there is headroom for additional sites. Site will never deliver any economic growth. 459 (housing) Objects to site not being proposed for allocation. Site is not a flood risk – is zone 1. 458 (Housing)

Has never been proposed for residential use but for community, retail, care uses. 512 Objects to site not being proposed for allocation. Site is not flood risk. It is in Zone 1. 513 Objects to site not being proposed for allocation. Disputes the reasons for discounting site in terms of archaeology, agricultural land, landscape impacts, and impact on schools. Brodsworth Estate had addressed all of these issues.


944 - Brodsworth Colliery site Unviable site. Has planning permission but has still not come forward. No guarantee or evidence that this site will deliver. Therefore there is headroom for additional sites. Site will never deliver any economic growth. 459 (housing) Objects to site not being proposed for allocation. Site is not a flood risk – is zone 1.

458 (Housing) Has never been proposed for residential use but for community, retail, care uses. 512 Objects to site not being proposed for allocation. Site is not flood risk. It is in Zone 1. 513 Objects to site not being proposed for allocation. Disputes the reasons for discounting site in terms of archaeology, agricultural land, landscape impacts, and impact on schools. Brodsworth Estate had addressed all of these issues.


944 - Brodsworth Colliery site Unviable site. Has planning permission but has still not come forward. No guarantee or evidence that this site will deliver. Therefore there is headroom for additional sites. Site will never deliver any economic growth. 459 (housing)

Objects to site not being proposed for allocation. Site is not a flood risk – is zone 1. 458 (Housing) Has never been proposed for residential use but for community, retail, care uses. 512 Objects to site not being proposed for allocation. Site is not flood risk. It is in Zone 1. 513 Objects to site not being proposed for allocation. Disputes the reasons for discounting site in terms of archaeology, agricultural land, landscape impacts, and impact on schools. Brodsworth Estate had addressed all of these issues.


944 - Brodsworth Colliery site Unviable site. Has planning permission but has still not come forward. No guarantee or evidence that this site will deliver. Therefore there is headroom for additional sites. Site will never deliver any economic growth.

459 (housing) Objects to site not being proposed for allocation. Site is not a flood risk – is zone 1. 458 (Housing) Has never been proposed for residential use but for community, retail, care uses. 512 Objects to site not being proposed for allocation. Site is not flood risk. It is in Zone 1. 513 Objects to site not being proposed for allocation. Disputes the reasons for discounting site in terms of archaeology, agricultural land, landscape impacts, and impact on schools. Brodsworth Estate had addressed all of these issues.


944 - Brodsworth Colliery site Unviable site. Has planning permission but has still not come forward. No guarantee or evidence that this site will deliver.

Therefore there is headroom for additional sites. Site will never deliver any economic growth. 459 (housing) Objects to site not being proposed for allocation. Site is not a flood risk – is zone 1. 458 (Housing) Has never been proposed for residential use but for community, retail, care uses. 512 Objects to site not being proposed for allocation. Site is not flood risk. It is in Zone 1. 513 Objects to site not being proposed for allocation. Disputes the reasons for discounting site in terms of archaeology, agricultural land, landscape impacts, and impact on schools. Brodsworth Estate had addressed all of these issues.


944 - Brodsworth Colliery site Unviable site. Has planning permission but has still not come forward. No guarantee or evidence that this site will deliver. Therefore there is headroom for additional sites. Site will never deliver any economic growth. 459 (housing) Objects to site not being proposed for allocation. Site is not a flood risk – is zone 1. 458 (Housing) Has never been proposed for residential use but for community, retail, care uses. 512 Objects to site not being proposed for allocation. Site is not flood risk. It is in Zone 1. 513 Objects to site not being proposed for allocation.

Disputes the reasons for discounting site in terms of archaeology, agricultural land, landscape impacts, and impact on schools. Brodsworth Estate had addressed all of these issues.


944 - Brodsworth Colliery site Unviable site. Has planning permission but has still not come forward. No guarantee or evidence that this site will deliver. Therefore there is headroom for additional sites. Site will never deliver any economic growth. 459 (housing) Objects to site not being proposed for allocation. Site is not a flood risk – is zone 1. 458 (Housing) Has never been proposed for residential use but for community, retail, care uses. 512 Objects to site not being proposed for allocation. Site is not flood risk. It is in Zone 1.

513 Objects to site not being proposed for allocation. Disputes the reasons for discounting site in terms of archaeology, agricultural land, landscape impacts, and impact on schools. Brodsworth Estate had addressed all of these issues.


944 - Brodsworth Colliery site Unviable site. Has planning permission but has still not come forward. No guarantee or evidence that this site will deliver. Therefore there is headroom for additional sites. Site will never deliver any economic growth. 459 (housing) Objects to site not being proposed for allocation. Site is not a flood risk – is zone 1. 458 (Housing) Has never been proposed for residential use but for community, retail, care uses. 512 Objects to site not being proposed for allocation.

Site is not flood risk. It is in Zone 1. 513 Objects to site not being proposed for allocation. Disputes the reasons for discounting site in terms of archaeology, agricultural land, landscape impacts, and impact on schools. Brodsworth Estate had addressed all of these issues.


944 - Brodsworth Colliery site Unviable site. Has planning permission but has still not come forward. No guarantee or evidence that this site will deliver. Therefore there is headroom for additional sites. Site will never deliver any economic growth. 459 (housing) Objects to site not being proposed for allocation. Site is not a flood risk – is zone 1. 458 (Housing) Has never been proposed for residential use but for community, retail, care uses.

512 Objects to site not being proposed for allocation. Site is not flood risk. It is in Zone 1. 513 Objects to site not being proposed for allocation. Disputes the reasons for discounting site in terms of archaeology, agricultural land, landscape impacts, and impact on schools. Brodsworth Estate had addressed all of these issues.


944 - Brodsworth Colliery site Unviable site. Has planning permission but has still not come forward. No guarantee or evidence that this site will deliver. Therefore there is headroom for additional sites. Site will never deliver any economic growth. 459 (housing) Objects to site not being proposed for allocation. Site is not a flood risk – is zone 1. 458 (Housing)

Has never been proposed for residential use but for community, retail, care uses. 512 Objects to site not being proposed for allocation. Site is not flood risk. It is in Zone 1. 513 Objects to site not being proposed for allocation. Disputes the reasons for discounting site in terms of archaeology, agricultural land, landscape impacts, and impact on schools. Brodsworth Estate had addressed all of these issues.

04784 Jacqueline Bickerstaffe

115 - Objects to proposed housing allocation. Reasons being: flooding and surface water drainage and impact on an already overloaded sewage system; Intense rainfall already leads to raw sewage at the Arden Gate Estate; Springwell Lane pumping station cannot cope with existing levels of sewage and Yorkshire Water are already having to take excess volumes away in tankers; Would need to be significantly improved infrastructure to address all of this; Alverley Lane properties flooding in 2008 and some cannot now get insurance; Traffic on Alverley Lane and Springwell Lane is also a problem which will be exacerbated by a further 150 new houses; Junction with Alverley Lane and Tickhill Road is gridlocked at rush hours and likewise Springwell Lane and Broomhouse Lane and impossible to get emergency vehicles to access Alverley Lane at these busy times; Repeated efforts to have traffic lights installed have been rejected; existing public transport consists of just 2 buses per hour; current speed limit of 50mph on Tickhill Road means school children and other pedestrians are at risk when crossing and you have to cross on Alverley Lane to access the bus stop; Loss of agricultural land and Green Belt to development including loss of wildlife; evidence suggests the landowner is preparing the site for building and they are confident of gaining planning permission even though the consultation says it does not end until 26th October so there is concern locally about transparency and fairness of the process.

04818 Caroline Whittington

115 - Objects to proposed housing allocation. Reasons being: increase in heavy traffic on the Alverley Estate and Alverley Lane which is far busier now following increase in recent developments, such as Dominion/Woodfield which still has further capacity to be built. Junction with Tickhill Road/Alverley Lane is a nightmare and will only get worse and only a matter of time until a serious accident occurs and the road is not wide enough.

05236 Mr Hughes (1 & 2)

Site 139 - object. Owns the land adjacent to the site. It is prime agricultural land. Mr Hughes is a farmer and is keen to expand his business which is diifficult for them to do as there is no agricultural land left particularly close by so that it does not require extensive travel. His land is Grade 3 3a agricultural land and would expect site 139 to be the same. He council’s agricultural; specialist has said that the current far is not big enough for them to sustain themselves and by losing land around them this will stop them from having opportunities to expand and keep running a family business. Also concerned about the potential risk a housing development may have upon current livestock operations. He is mindful that new property owners may not be accustomed to its rural location leading to complaints about issues such as odours, cattle noises, vehicle movements and restrictions on building new sheds. Site 139 is within the Green Belt and the council should stick to its word that it will be developed only under special circumstances. Acknowledges that the council has to provide affordable housing within a certain timescale in Mexborough but there are far more appropriate sites and land that are more suited to this development without using prime agricultural land and affecting a family business which wished to expand. Has concerns that the site is in Green Belt and that he could have restrictions put on his land to offset the loss such as formal or informal public open space, that he would not have been consulted on. Wishes to be kept informed. If site 139 is allocation then Mr Hughes' land should also be considered. The Council should look at other sites first before considering prime agricultural land. His site has road access and a Mexborough postcode. He could then relocate to a bigger farm and carry on the business within another area with more land around and no threat of a housing estate being built near.

05196 Banks Property Ltd

824 - objects to not proposing site as an allocation. Response includes a promotional document with an overview of the site location, planning context, settlement character, site assessment and analysis, landscape framework, design concept, indicative masterplan, and benefits.

Additional Comments


Technical work can be provided where necessary

03569 Savills (on behalf of


Sandbeck Estate)








Masterplan enclosed. Would welcome meeting to discuss site in greater detail.

0756 Warmsworth Parish Council

Keep GB. There are plenty of BF sites for development.

0951 Barbara Hartley

There is abundant BF land available for development.

03002 Cllr jane Nightingale

Original rep includes "lacing this Green Belt Land onto the Local Plan will cause extensive damage to the reputation of the Council Panning Department"

03100 The Planning and Environment Studios Ltd (on behalf of Barry Smith and Peter Kelson)

Rep includes plan of site to show proposed reduction in site boundary to accommodate 56 dwellings.


Response has comments on approx. 50 individual sites (too many to list on this form) see details in response form. Also suggest boundary changes for numerous sites (see Q8). See comments re Q10. Q11, Q12

0758 Cantley with Branton Parish Council

Does not agree with acceptance of new sites which will then not be consulted on. It undermines the democratic process.

01937 Lichfields (on behalf of Theakston Estates Ltd)

A lot of info provided in support of 436 - Detailed archaeological report and site layout provided.

0746 Marr Parish Council

Would like to congratulate the Council on their in-depth analysis and acknowledge the work and effort of DMBC staff in collating these reports. Would like to pass on personal thanks to the planning officers for throe assistance. We believe that the resident's views are important and will be carefully considered. We appreciate that the time of the consultation has avoided holiday periods but would appreciate if reports are made available as and when they are completed rather than being released at once. Housing Stock Marr Parish recognises that if Doncaster is to flourish there could be a need for additional, sustainable housing stock but it should not be delivered to the detriment of rural communities or at the expense of Green Belt land. Marr Parish urges DMBC to use compulsory purchase orders to bring vacant houses and disused buildings back into residential use. 31% of the 13,800 new homes needed could be delivered without taking land out of the Green Belt. Urge DMBC to ascertain how much housing stock is currently vacant before making a commitment to invest in developing new housing stock. Marr Parish has noted that money from Section 106 Agreements has amassed a total of £5.7 million. We do not agree with the current policy that this Section 106 money is accumulated to create a large fund, only to be spent on a bigger project unrelated to the areas that have been impacted by new development. We believe that DMBC must have identified the impact on communities before requesting contributions from developers. We firmly believe that money collected from developers should benefit and be spent in the communities where development has taken place.

Development land allocation Supportive of DMBC’s strategies provided existing redundant and brownfield sites are prioritised over Greenbelt locations and do not believe, job creation can be considered ‘very special circumstances’. Agree that no development should occur along the A1(M) until it has been upgraded, since it will restrict options for it to be widened and lead to further congestion. The widening of the A1(M) should be to the east, since rural, Green Belt Conservation villages are located too closely to the west. Marr Parish fully support development of brownfield land along the M18.

05153 Anthony Purchase

Quarter of a mile within Poppy Fields illegally built.

04716 Claire Kelly Land available in Mexborough such as the Windhill area which would be more suitable.

04719 David Glover Proposal adjacent to A1 motorway that was rejected previously would be more suitable.

04655 Lynden Evans Many of the sites refused are only partially affected by flood risk and should be reconsidered. As should the Bullcroft pit tip site.

04656 Phil Evans Many of the sites refused are only partially affected by flood risk and should be reconsidered. As should Bullcroft pit tip site.

04762 Alan Kaye Site is subject to subsidence.

04961 Jeff Machin A18 road should form a boundary for housing in Thorne at the end of the town. Site along the M18 near Waterside should be used first.

04647 Richard Thompson

Should consider site as you head out towards Barnby Dun towards Stainforth; off main road not off local roads.

04651 Andrew Ward Site of Bullcroft tip (between B1220 and railway) has not been considered.

04673 Anne Nicklin Very hard top provide new developments that fit with air quality management. Difficult at this time to allocate sites along A1(M) as it is unclear what land-take the road will require and unlikely the extra traffic will be supported by Highways England. Development should only be done in phases after it is demonstrated the job growth is in place and therefore the houses are needed. Brownfield sites within the urban built up environment such as Case tractor site should be developed first - only after this environment is exhausted should other development be considered.

04674 JR Ashby Construct houses on Clayfield Road instead.

04683 Lesley Saxelby

Sites 228, 347, 116 and 125 have been dismissed due to flooding, how is this the case when they border an existing estate which has never flooded?

04740 James M Irvine

A development on the north side of Thorne seems to have a lot of space still to be developed.

04817 S Hirst Grassed area adjacent to site 095 should be considered as should the sizable arable land off the right hand side of Church lane below the park and school.

04824 Val Jones Priority should be given to brown field sites and reusing empty properties.

04931 Mr and Mrs Halifax

Merging Loversall and Balby together.

0271 Blaxton Parish Council

Land on New Street currently used for garages to be earmarked for housing for the elderly (only six bungalows in Blaxton at present) to help reduce single occupancy of larger dwellings and improve the street scene.

05143 Rachel Yates (Q2) Polices are not supported by the current evidence base. Criteria used to assess the suitability of sites for development within the North East quadrant of the borough is flawed (see further detail in response)

05149 Graham Wren Objects to all building on Greenfield sites. Once it’s gone it’s lost forever. Prefer to see BF sites re-used.

04851 Susan Norcliffe

Concerns of a repeat in fraudulent activity that occurred previously. Significant decline noticed in Doncaster with people not enjoying the town centre. Worthwhile considering a similar policy as adopted by Hull about utilising empty areas of the town for housing, and to develop Doncaster as an area of culture. Like to see the development of old industrial sites along the canal and Wheatley Hall road as housing for families and areas for fine dining, cinema, cafes, veggie restaurants etc. As with Kelham Island in Sheffield, convert remaining empty industrial units into flats.

04970 Les Jones The proposal should have been published better with leaflets. Also question the role of local councillors as they have not heard from them about the issue. Believe a site formerly Freeway Motors was granted planning permission but is still undeveloped. If the reasons for this are transport related then the same objection should be made for this site.

04972 Phil Allam Acknowledge the need for housing across the Borough, however some locations that look good on a map are practically unreasonable. Due to impact on residents and eco-system.

04992 Philip and Pauline Machin

Current Countryside Protection Policy in force and Warning Tongue Lane is protected from development through C96 Doncaster UDP Appendix 7.


Consultation response also includes - landscape rebuttal document, which considers and evaluates the site not the area within which the site sits. In landscape terms there is no evidence to say the site cannot be considered for housing and can deliver appropriate mitigation.

04956 Barton Wilmore (on behalf of Barratt and

Consultation response also includes - landscape rebuttal document, which considers and evaluates the site not the area within which the site sits. In landscape terms there is no evidence to say the site cannot be considered for housing and can deliver appropriate mitigation.

David Wilson Homes)

03160 Paul Whiting Considering S106 monies over town centre regeneration

05063 Lee Gravil Object to Local Plan as it does not align with "neighbourhood". Ignores local town council consultation and peoples views, which are being disregarded.

04900 Richard Jones No consideration of Neighbourhood Plan statement of no further building in this area, have been told others can have an adjustment to accommodate this.

05071 WYG (on behalf of Miller Homes)

Local Plan as currently drafted is unsound. does not follow the most sustainable distribution of development. does not provide enough allocations and the exceptional circumstances to change Green Belt boundaries are not demonstrated. Plan needs amending to alter distribution re-focusing on MUA and main towns. Emphasise the role of non-greenbelt sites in housing delivery. Armthorpe NP should not be a reason for not allocating sites in Armthorpe. Grange Farm, Armthorpe should be included as an allocation within the emerging Local Plan.

Employment Sites Comments

Representation Reference Name

Representation Name

Representation Summary

01484 Thorne and Moorends Town Council

Site 160 Bradholme Farm: contrary to para 170 NPPF. Environmental consequences for Humberhead levels. Loss of high agricultural value. Contrary to Countryside Protection Policy. Contrary to emerging Thorne NDP. Infrastructure insufficient to accommodate.

01346 Thomas Merrills 160 object: Greenfield/countryside/working farm; Thorne Council provide alt sites; noise; historic (destroyed); flood risk & surface run off - impact neighbours; water table already high; wildlife impacts; light pollution (neighbours & wildlife); ground vibrations; lorries will be directed through Thorne instead of motorways - cannot sustain; hgv's may be directed onto canal bridge and cannot navigate; where can foul water sewage go - nearby properties use septic tanks. WHO have released environmental noise guidelines stating noise

pollution is a environmental hazard to physical and mental health and relates to depression and anxiety. Noise would be chaotic and intermittent - vehicles, workings of site and shouting etc. Particularly alarming at night. This site would disrupt the lifestyle here.

02101 Adrian Newell 160 - Objects to proposed allocation. The site has previously been refused so why still being promoted by DMBC. Would ruin the local area and this type of development better suited adjacent to j6/existing employment uses. Flood risk will get worse in the future. Traffic would be increased with a risk to safety. Residential amenity concerns. Should not merge Hatfield with Thorne.

02120 Angela Welsh 160 - object: flood zone 3 risk and increase to flood risk; surrounding roads unsuitable for heavy traffic, will lead to congestion on minor roads and in Thorne town centre; increase in noise and air pollution; wildlife impacts; landscape will be lost, buildings will be an eyesore, losing green belt areas; Thorne has an industrial site north of the town; reasons for 2009 refusal of PP still exist; Thorne council are unanimously opposed.

04569 Linda Syson 160 - Bradholme Objects to proposed allocation Main Concerns: Loss of countryside impact on lifestyle Loss of walking area Loss of peaceful area.

04579 Carol Wileman Hope you have exhausted the re-use of brownfield sites before you start gobbling up green land. Concerned that villages and communities are losing their identities by becoming absorbed into each other.

04607 Joan and Roland Barnsley

Site 160 Object.

02108 David J Eden 160 - Bradholme Objects to proposed allocation. Main Concerns

Flood Risk - major concern (response contains lengthy detail) Site 1 is preferable - close to Mway junction, and within easy by walking/bicycle from Thorne. Not beside a full Mway junction. Will destroy open countryside. Out of character with area. Only accessible for workers via car. Would impact on pollution problems. 418 (unity) has pp but nothing happening - surely this should be developed before allocating another large site in same area. Noise/light pollution. Increased heavy traffic. Would increase traffic through Thorne TC if problems on Mway.

0591 Keith Heywood 160 - Bradholme Objects to proposed allocation: Main Concerns: Contradicts Thorne Local Plan. Is Countryside Policy area Mway access is poor - via inadequate junction. Isa flood risk area (SUDS is not a viable option or holding ponds), would put areas of Thorne at risk. Traffic on existing roads is already a problem.

Loss of pedestrian access to open countryside and canal towpath. J6 north of Thorne is preferable.

0077 CPRE 441 - Adwick Depends on type of development if it is to tackle deprivation. 941 - Airport Would only be justifiable on basis of robust sustainability strategy with regard to new railway access and carbon reduction strategy. 160 - Bradholme NP makes to reference to major urban extension. Development may draw away development from Unity (and therefore inconsistent with NPPF). Sustainable case not presented.

0586 Brodsworth Parish Council

184 - Brodsworth Quarry Supports none allocation of site.

0734 Auckley Parish Council

941 - Airport (have assumed they refer to this site) Concerns: Lack of public transport to site. Lack of footpaths and cycle paths. Impact on local roads Impact of increased wildlife park traffic.

05007 Grace Nortcliffe Site 160 Object


Site 149 Support.

05053 Sheila Parkinson

Site 160 Object.

0951 Barbara Hartley 001 - Thorne North & 160 - Bradholme Objects to proposed allocation of site 160 and potential of 001 being ever allocated. Main Concerns: contradicts Core Strategy policies 27,31,32,33,34,47,59 and 61. lack of public transport. Cant walk to sites (no pavements). Increased congestion on M18 and M180 and local roads. Loss of countryside. Loss of flora and fauna. Increase in pollution - air, noise, light. Both sites in high flood risk zones. Loss of high grade agricultural land. No demand for additional sites in Thorne (see additional comments in response)

Development of these sites would disincentives dev of Unity and Iport.

01076 South Yorkshire Archaeology Service

418 - Unity Object to site See comments in the response re potential archaeological importance of the site.

02106 Simon Trotter 160 - Bradholme Objects to proposed allocation. Main concerns: No justification for inclusion of 160 and exclusion of site 001. badly related to Thorne - rail and canal are a barrier. Increased likelihood of increased traffic through the town centre. Loss of Countryside. Negative impact on TC shops if site has own shops. Site a long way from Moorends and labour supply. NP demands that new developments should be well integrated into the Town.

02107 Annette Trotter 160 - Bradholme Objects to proposed allocation. Main concerns: No justification for inclusion of 160 and exclusion of site 001. badly related to Thorne - rail and canal are a barrier.

Increased likelihood of increased traffic through the town centre. Loss of Countryside. Negative impact on TC shops if site has own shops. Site a long way from Moorends and labour supply. NP demands that new developments should be well integrated into the Town.

02110 D and A Billadeau

Site 160 - object. Reasons: flood risk; wildlife and unspoilt countryside; local road won't support extra traffic; workforce - I won't support the local community but bring workers from surrounding areas.

02600 J & B Johnson 001 - Thorne North Objects to this site being allocated. Main concerns: Loss of Countryside. Loss of flora and fauna. Inadequate sewage system. Increased pollution. Increased noise. Disruption (doesn’t state to what) No footpaths or cycleways Minimal employment opportunities. Northside "ruination" (??) to spread beyond M18 Mway.

05050 Craig Nicholls Site 160 Object. Increase traffic at a determent to safety of residents and users of area. Employment to the area welcomed but other brownfield and part developed sites more suited.

05049 Sylvia Nicholls Site 160 Object. Previous site near motorway better placed.

03073 John Coxon Site 160 Object. Too close to many homes. Traffic already a growing concern. Overcrowding already in Thorne. Should continue any further development around junction 6 of M18.

03651 Cllr Mark Houlbrook

Site 160 Object. Not the views of the local people. Prefer M18 junction 6.

01191 Walton and Co (on behalf of West Moor Holdings Ltd)

013 - West Moor Park North Objects to site not being proposed for allocation. Provides details to rebut decision based on: 1. Deliverability 2. Over Supply 3. Flood Risk Also provides analysis of 'competing' sites.

01427 David Yule 160 - Bradholme Objects to proposed allocation. Loss of countryside. Loss of agricultural land. Does not integrate in Thorne - twin barriers rail and canal.

Increased traffic through Thorne where there are already problems. Increased pollution- dust, diesel fumes engine noise.


418, 222, 941, 517, 553, 748 Objects to proposed allocations of above sites. Also provides comments on lots of other sites.

02092 David Heath 160 - Bradholme. Objects to proposed allocation. Main concerns: Same reasons as 2009 plan app refusal. Increase in traffic through Southend between Mway and site. Loss of rural amenity. Flood risk. There are more appropriate sites elsewhere. Type of jobs created would not be of benefit to local community.

03089 Canal and River Trust

160 - Bradholme any development should retain the existing hedgerow between the canal and the site. Existing Towpath could support sustainable travel between town centre and site. Improvements would be required prior to occupation of site. Flooding - full survey of embankment required to assess flood risk to site. 768 & 769 HELAA rejected sites.

Has comments (see rep) if proposal is reversed 155 - Leach Lane Mexborough washed over existing site. Has comments re if site ever redeveloped. 769 -Mexborough HELAA rejected sites. Has comments (see rep) if proposal is reversed

01335 Elsie Holden 160 - objects to proposed allocation. Increase in traffic and local network insufficient to accommodate more vehicles; current 20mph speed restrictions are not adhered to; the land is often flooded and development will increase risk of flooding and impact on wildlife; further scope for development at the Capitol Park site first and this would destroy the beautiful local area.

02080 Mark O'Neil 160 - objects to proposed allocation. The site is at high risk of flooding and this will get worse with climate change; local road network insufficient and will lead to congestion in Thorne Town Centre; impact on wildlife and landscape; Thorne already has an industrial site at the north of the Town and does not need any more units such as this on Green Belt land; planning permission has already been refused for the site and the Town Council has objected again to the proposal.

01850 Melvyn Geoffrey Firth

160 - Bradholme. Objects to proposed allocation. Main concerns: Has previously been refused PP. Site does not connect well with Thorne (barriers - canal, rail) Against wishes of N. Plan. Loss of Countryside. Development would be better located at other end of Thorne in Hatfield Woodhouse.

Increase in traffic Increase in traffic will cause problems at junction of A16 and A614.

05092 Mrs D Brixey Site 001 Object. Area of Thorne heavily polluted from M18 (air quality). Lorries getting lost add to traffic and safety on local roads. Pressure on flood risk. Loss of habitat and environment. Wrong side of M18.

05091 Joan Potter Site 160 Object. Amount of traffic will significantly increase. Smaller back roads not big enough some unsuitable. Deliveries make roads quite bust so extra deliveries of both ends of Thorne would make it difficult to access Thorne. Wipe out countryside. Does not fit with Thorne and Moorends Neighbourhood Plan.

05090 Victoria Price Site 160 Object. Does not fit with Thorne and Moorends Neighbourhood Plan. Current view ruined. Extra traffic created. Dust noise and pollution created.

05089 Thorne and Moorends Neighbourhood Plan Working Group

Site 160 Object. Represent a real loss of ecological heritage. Refer to DMBC to ‘Thorne Mere’ book.

05088 Karen Cuttell Site 160 Object. Yet another business use. So many towns filling up with unnecessary warehousing.

05086 LR Price Site 160 Object. Increase in traffic dangerous and detriment to householders living in area. Users will not head up to M18/180 Junction 5 to access M180 but use A18 via A161 to access M180. Instead 9of using motorway network more local roads will be used. Countryside spoilt by development. Water logged. Junction 6 already been developed should continue to develop this area. Provide lorry park to help.

05085 Jacqueline Price Site 160 Object. Increase in traffic dangerous and detriment to householders living in area. Users will not head up to M18/180 Junction 5 to access M180 but use A18 via A161 to access M180. Instead 9of using motorway network more local roads will be used. Countryside spoilt by development. Water logged. Junction 6 already been developed should continue to develop this area. Provide lorry park to help.

05130 John R Ward Site 160 Object. Does not fit with the residents wishes already expressed in Thorne and Moorends Neighbourhood Plan.

01837 John Waggitt Support restrictions for waste recycling plants.

03661 Gillian Mason Site 001 and 160. Comments on both sites have been represented. Site 001 does not have the benefit of extensive flood basins it is further away from the motorway than the proposed site for allocation Site 160 Bradholme. Site 160 is in single ownership site 001 is not.

01849 Angela Shoulder 160: object: reverses previous decision for keeping development accessible to previously developed areas. Should be near Capitol Park / range warehouse and not in countryside. PP refused in 2009. Goes against Thorne TC wishes in last local plan. Will increase traffic in Hatfield Woodhouse and surrounding areas. Road already congested and dangerous near Woodhouse school. Accident likely. Development leading to traffic in Hatfield Woodhouse against wishes of Hatfield Woodhouse Local Plan. Risk to children and residents.

05159 A and AJ Pearson

Site 160 Object. Huge impact on wildlife, noise pollution and effect on biodiversity. Large amount of traffic on local roads. Traffic impacts speed/safety issues. Too many huge developments at Thorne (what happens when/if they become surplus).

05158 Lesley Anne Hemingway

Site 160 Object. Countryside area, flood risk and traffic impacts. Dangerous junctions which doesn’t need extra traffic.

05151 Justin and Liesel Bullas

Site 001 Object. Road safety. Volume of traffic. Noise pollution. Damage and disruption to local environment and wildlife. Traffic problems through Thorne.

05134 Anne Ward Object to site 160 as it does not fit with the wishes of Thorne and Moorends residents as expressed in the Thorne and Moorends neighbourhood plan.

04895 Nichola Bray Objection to site 160 on grounds of flood risk, environmental issues around animal's habitats, the impact on the countryside and the site being counter-productive to the work done by Canals and River Trust. There is also traffic demand issues around the A18. Proposal would negatively impact current resident's quality of life. Site was previously rejected so why is it allocated now?

04721 Paul Tootell Opposed to site 160 - Opposed on the detrimental effect to wildlife and views of the countryside. The land is isolated and not close enough to current facilities and infrastructure.

04769 John Finnegan Objection to site 160. Farm land should be kept as farm land.

04770 Susan Finnegan Objection to site 160. Site does not fit in with the wishes of Thorne and Moorends as expressed in the Thorne and Moorends neighbourhood plan.

04768 James O'Neill Objection to site 160. Objection on the grounds the site is a flood risk zone 3, the surrounding roads are unsuitable for continual heavy traffic, increase in noise and pollution levels, impact on wildlife and landscape, Thorne already has an industrial site and does not need anymore eyesore buildings, the site was refused in 2009 and say reasons for refusal still stand. Thorne Town Council voted to object to the proposal.

04961 Jeff Machin Objection to site 160. Site should be left as it is for now, but if in the future it has to be developed it would be more beneficial as housing and not employment.

04965 Rita Howard Opposed to site 001 (which is not allocated at the moment). Objection to the site due to impact on pollution (air and noise), this was felt during the hot summer and residents felt they couldn't open their windows due to dust and pollution in the air.

04966 Janet Margrave Opposed to site 160. Site does not fit in with the wishes of the residents of Thorne and Moorends as expressed in the Thorne and Moorends neighbourhood plan. There is also a concern on the impact of noise, volume of traffic and air pollution.

05083 Wilfred Mitchell supports decision Re: Site 001 A614 Selby Road Thorne North not to propose the representation for Employment Land fails the flood risk sequential test as it in Flood zone 3 site 001 isolated from Thorne and Moorends. Pollution control officer stated as part of the planning application “If development goes ahead it will worsen further the already poor air quality in this part of Thorne Site 001 does not have the benefit of extensive flood basins it is further away from the motorway unsafe pedestrian cycle infrastructure. HE recommended planning not be granted until outstanding issues are solved. Habitat destruction and wildlife impact

NE Agricultural Land Map shows this area of land as Grade 3 - very good (mentions Core Strategy policy CS18 too) Area is part of The Humberhead Levels, a vast area of this 182acres of Land is classified as Coastal and Floodplain Grazing Marsh - Priority Habitat Inventory. Repeats Yorkshire Wildlife’s planning application consultation comments asking for refusal of the application. No public consultation evidence to support site 001 compiling of a Neighbourhood Plan, Planning Aid state ‘policies should be based on robust evidence, facts and figures… Thorne & Moorends Neighbourhood Plan have not adhered to the above. On the 16 October 2018 an online petition was set up “Stop Major Development Selby Road Thorne “ to date it has 585 signatures, members of the public who do not want development in this area, members of the public who want to keep Site 001 as open Countryside

05082 Florence Mitchell

supports decision Re: Site 001 A614 Selby Road Thorne North not to propose the representation for Employment Land fails the flood risk sequential test as it in Flood zone 3 site 001 isolated from Thorne and Moorends. Pollution control officer stated as part of the planning application “If development goes ahead it will worsen further the already poor air quality in this part of Thorne Site 001 does not have the benefit of extensive flood basins it is further away from the motorway unsafe pedestrian cycle infrastructure. HE recommended planning not be granted until outstanding issues are solved. Habitat destruction and wildlife impact NE Agricultural Land Map shows this area of land as Grade 3 - very good (mentions Core Strategy policy CS18 too)

Area is part of The Humberhead Levels, a vast area of this 182acres of Land is classified as Coastal and Floodplain Grazing Marsh - Priority Habitat Inventory. Repeats Yorkshire Wildlife’s planning application consultation comments asking for refusal of the application. No public consultation evidence to support site 001 compiling of a Neighbourhood Plan, Planning Aid state ‘policies should be based on robust evidence, facts and figures… Thorne & Moorends Neighbourhood Plan have not adhered to the above. On the 16 October 2018 an online petition was set up “Stop Major Development Selby Road Thorne “ to date it has 585 signatures, members of the public who do not want development in this area, members of the public who want to keep Site 001 as open Countryside

05081 Anthony Marsden

supports decision Re: Site 001 A614 Selby Road Thorne North not to propose the representation for Employment Land fails the flood risk sequential test as it in Flood zone 3 site 001 isolated from Thorne and Moorends. Pollution control officer stated as part of the planning application “If development goes ahead it will worsen further the already poor air quality in this part of Thorne Site 001 does not have the benefit of extensive flood basins it is further away from the motorway unsafe pedestrian cycle infrastructure. HE recommended planning not be granted until outstanding issues are solved. Habitat destruction and wildlife impact NE Agricultural Land Map shows this area of land as Grade 3 - very good (mentions Core Strategy policy CS18 too) Area is part of The Humberhead Levels, a vast area of this 182acres of Land is classified as Coastal and Floodplain Grazing Marsh - Priority Habitat Inventory. Repeats Yorkshire Wildlife’s planning application consultation comments asking for refusal of the application.

No public consultation evidence to support site 001 compiling of a Neighbourhood Plan, Planning Aid state ‘policies should be based on robust evidence, facts and figures… Thorne & Moorends Neighbourhood Plan have not adhered to the above. On the 16 October 2018 an online petition was set up “Stop Major Development Selby Road Thorne “ to date it has 585 signatures, members of the public who do not want development in this area, members of the public who want to keep Site 001 as open Countryside

05075 Amy Mason supports decision Re: Site 001 A614 Selby Road Thorne North not to propose the representation for Employment Land fails the flood risk sequential test as it in Flood zone 3 site 001 isolated from Thorne and Moorends. Pollution control officer stated as part of the planning application “If development goes ahead it will worsen further the already poor air quality in this part of Thorne Site 001 does not have the benefit of extensive flood basins it is further away from the motorway unsafe pedestrian cycle infrastructure. HE recommended planning not be granted until outstanding issues are solved. Habitat destruction and wildlife impact NE Agricultural Land Map shows this area of land as Grade 3 - very good (mentions Core Strategy policy CS18 too) Area is part of The Humberhead Levels, a vast area of this 182acres of Land is classified as Coastal and Floodplain Grazing Marsh - Priority Habitat Inventory. Repeats Yorkshire Wildlife’s planning application consultation comments asking for refusal of the application.

04740 James M Irvine Objection to site 160 - The site and plan does not fit in with the wishes of the people of Thorne and Moorends as expressed in the Thorne and Moorends Neighbourhood Plan. Road infrastructure around site 160 could not sustain a development of this size.

04745 Richard Walsh Objection to site 160 - Objection to development at Bradholme as it does not fit in with the wishes of the residents of Thorne and Moorends as expressed in the Thorne and Moorends neighbourhood plan.

04748 Neil Poskitt Objection to site 160 - Objection on the basis: the site is open countryside; there was a rejection nearly ten years ago why has this changed? There is a drainage problem in the area, throne does not need any more infrastructure development, proposed access area will not be able to take increased vehicle flow, the development dopes not link in with the local area which has countryside, canals etc. There is also no need for local employment of this scale and Thorne does not benefit from the low skilled employment the infrastructure developments attract.

04749 Nicola Hardy Objection to site 160 - Objection to development at Bradholme as it does not fit in with the wishes of the residents of Thorne and Moorends as expressed in the Thorne and Moorends neighbourhood plan.

04752 Marianne Mackenzie

Objection to site 160 - Objection to development at Bradholme as it does not fit in with the wishes of the residents of Thorne and Moorends as expressed in the Thorne and Moorends neighbourhood plan.

04753 Dennis Rees Objection to site 160 - Proposal does not fit in with the Thorne and Moorends Neighbourhood plan and the town council confirmed their opposition. The proposed area if high flood risk, traffic along South end is likely to increase and already poses a danger, the area is a contributor to the local wildlife and countryside.

04755 Christine Rees Objection to site 160 - Proposal does not fit in with the Thorne and Moorends Neighbourhood plan and the town council confirmed their opposition. The proposed area if high flood risk, traffic along South end is likely to increase and already poses a danger, the area is a contributor to the local wildlife and countryside.

04757 Anthea Lugton Objection to site 160 - Objection to site 160; the proposal ignores the last local Plan of 2014, planning permission was refused in 2009 for good reasons which still stand, the increased flow of traffic on unsuitable country lanes will impact unspoiled areas such as Moor Edges Rd and Moor Rd, the town of Thorne is gradually being surrounded by huge concrete industrialised areas.

04820 Brian Drake Objection to site 160 - Objections due to the increase in industry and traffic the development would bring. The residents of Thorne also want to keep their countryside

04821 Scott Berry Objection to site 160 - Objection based on the development not fitting in with the wishes of the residents of Thorne and Moorends as expressed in the Thorne and Moorends neighbourhood plan. The site will also encroach upon countryside, increase already congested traffic which the road infrastructure around Thorne and Moorends cannot cope with.

04822 Clare Holiday Objection to site 160 - Objection because, the site is within a level 3 flood zone area, the surrounding roads are unsuitable for continual heavy traffic, there would be an increase in air and noise pollution, negative impact on wildlife and landscape, Thorne already has an industrial site and does not need another one. The site was refused in 2009 and the same reasons apply now.

04823 Damon Holiday Objection to site 160 - Objection because, the site is within a level 3 flood zone area, the surrounding roads are unsuitable for continual heavy traffic, there would be an increase in air and noise pollution, negative impact on wildlife and landscape, Thorne already has an industrial site and does not need another one. The site was refused in 2009 and the same reasons apply now.

04825 Nicola Robson Objection to site 160 - Objection because, the site is within a level 3 flood zone area, the surrounding roads are unsuitable for continual heavy traffic, there would be an increase in air and noise pollution, negative impact on wildlife and landscape, Thorne already has an industrial site and does not need another one. The site was refused in 2009 and the same reasons apply now.

04828 Margaret Jackson

objection to site 160 - Thorne already has many large industrial warehouse sites with vacant units so it does not need more. Current traffic is already congested, and site 160 would increase the problems, increase drainage issues, and potential risk of pollution to the canal.

04426 Vigo Group Site 939 – support An option after other sites have been developed due to the availability of more deliverable sites adjacent to the urban area. As with all sites it fails the flood risk sequential test and scores similar to the other sites through the Sustainability Process. A pre-application enquiry was made in 2017 further to a Lorry Park Steering Group led by DMBC and private sector partners. It stated that further work needed to be carried out in order to meet Highway and Transport requirements. It has accessibility and sustainability credentials as a potential site for formal lorry parking and associated welfare amenities for drivers. Work is underway with Transport Consultants and Engineers to form preliminary designs, road widening, and costings/feasibility. DMBC Transport Team have expressed their support for the identification of this site as a lorry park facility and the landowner is working closely with Business Doncaster. It is suitable and available for employment allocation as a lorry park for 3 reasons: • Social – reduce the need for enforcement to be deployed when lorries are parked up in laybys and roads causing congestion along major trunk roads and routes in and out of the Borough; • Economic – the running of the lorry park along with welfare facilities such as café, washroom, retail etc. will generate employment and investment into the area; • Environmental – a dedicated safe site for lorries and drivers to rest and refresh;

The general character of the area would not be compromised due to the industrial nature of the area. A landscape package would benefit the appearance of the countryside policy area and the amount of built development would only be small to house amenities.

05015 Barbara Pike Site 160 is against the wishes of Thorne and Moorends residents as expressed in the Thorne and Moorends neighbourhood plan. The development should be on the West Side of Thorne by Junction 6 of the M18 as it was planned for in 2014. Already light industry and warehouses and more would spoil the countryside.

05018 Lisa Hallam Objection to site 160. Objections based on a few issues: there are already empty commercial units along the M18 corridor and the M62 highlighting the lack of need for another employment site; the development will destroy countryside and natural habitats; increase in pollution; traffic would increase alarmingly with the A614 not being able to cope; and there is a weight limit on Thorne Canal Flyover Bridge which would make the site unsustainable.

05026 Paula Sanderson

Agree that site 001 should not be allocated. Site 001 should remain allocated to Countryside Policy Area. Site should also stay rejected due to: current traffic issues which the site would increase, the fact the land is good agricultural land supporting wildlife and is part of the Humberhead levels, the impact on pollution and noise not being outweighed by the increase in employment the development would bring.

04779 Ian Watson Objection to site 160. Development will increase traffic of large vehicles and cars which is already getting worse. Also would like to keep one of the last pieces of green belt in Thorne.

04780 Nicola Davenport

Objection to site 160. The proposals at Bradholme do not fit in with the wishes of the residents of Thorne and Moorends as expressed in the neighbourhood plan. Concern about the amount of traffic, which is already too high. Concerns about pollution, and concerns about the attractiveness of proposal.

04785 Becky Jones Objection to site 160. Site was rejected in 2009 so why should it be allocated now? Area is prone to flooding and is important for wildlife. The development would destroy the surrounding countryside and current road infrastructure cannot cope with the potential increase in traffic. The proposal does not fit in with the area and would be better suited to the opposite end of Thorne where the capitol park development is.

04923 Stephen Watson Site 160 Object. Destroy tranquil and unspoilt countryside. Destroy wide range of wildlife. Result in increase of traffic and not accessible by public transport thus increase in air pollution affecting overall quality of life. Thorne already has large industrial and retail sites so does not need any more.

04924 Sharon Watson Site 160 Object. Destroy tranquil and unspoilt countryside. Destroy wide range of wildlife. Result in increase of traffic and not accessible by public transport thus increase in air pollution affecting overall quality of life. Thorne already has large industrial and retail sites so does not need any more.

04925 Anne Ellis Site 160 Object. Living on the A614 is a nightmare, blighted by number of HGV’s. Unsafe on roads and add to chaos. Thorne and Moorends already expressed objections to proposal.

04929 Norah Foster Site 160 Object. Presently junction of A614/Green Tree Pub has more heavy traffic than can cope with. Will make junction unsafe and unnecessary when there’s other better options.

04935 R and G Blake Site 160 Object. Would be better suited to the Capitol Park rather than a new site.

04936 VL Bielby Site 160 Object. Cause traffic and pollution problems. Thorne will be trapped. Rural setting.

04937 JA Bielby Site 160 Object. Does not fit with the residents of Thorne and Moorends as expressed in Neighbourhood Plan.

04832 farry, Philippa, Leo and Faith Cousins

Site 001 (not currently allocated). Objections to site 001 ever being allocated. Propose the land remains as countryside policy area. Land is crucial to the local equilibrium and the development would only detract from the area’s natural beauty. The development would create extra air pollution and an increase in traffic.

04833 Kevin Grant Objection to site 160. This is because it does not fit in with the wishes of the residents of Thorne and Moorends as expressed in the Thorne and Moorends Neighbourhood Plan.

04838 Keith Marks Objection to site 160. This is because it does not fit in with the wishes of the residents of Thorne and Moorends as expressed in the Thorne and Moorends Neighbourhood Plan.

04839 Susan Worthington

Objection to site 160. The development does not have the residents approval as expressed in the Thorne and Moorends Neighbourhood Plan. Development would better positioned around Capital park and Junction 6.

04840 Mr and Mrs Parcell

Objection to site 001 (site not allocated). Opposed to site due to its impact on noise, air pollution and increase in traffic.

04841 John White Objection to site 160. The road infrastructure is not suited for the current demand let alone an increased need. The drainage and sewage system is inadequate, resulting in frequent visits from Yorkshire Water. There are no local facilities for children and the proposal is mainly affordable housing which would bring more children to the area.

04844 Dave Garbutt Objection to site 160. The land is a vibrant agricultural resource and allowing the proposal would alter the character of the area. There is space at the North Side of Thorne with excellent motorway access that would be better.

04848 Mr and Mrs Dale Objection to site 160. Firstly, the centre of Thorne is an eyesore and money should be spent to improve it, not add to the problem, the site is prone to flooding and the traffic issue is already bad, more development will increase this further.

03442 Savills (on behalf of Boulter, Hackett, Hill and Holford)

Site 101 Support. Following assessment of employment sites in the HELAA and update of July 2017, consider that site 101 should be proposed for allocation as an employment site in the Local Plan.

04618 John Pinder Walker

Site 160 – Object. It will lead to social injustices for local people in Thorne, Moorends, Stainforth, Dunscroft and the surrounding area. Lives have already been blighted by decisions made in the past. It is time decision making bodies started to listen to the views of local people. There is a desperate shortage of employment so most people have to travel which makes the cost of travel and childcare very high. Jobs need to be made available locally. There are serious omissions and inaccuracies which have led to the authors drawing the wrong conclusions for the local area. It is suggested that the authors of the plan are unfamiliar with the Thorne area and its history. This site is miles away from any existing commercial or industrial development. Land at junction 6 is a much better proposition. All major development over the last 20 years has been focussed on land around Junction 6. This has happened as DMBC have chosen it as their preferred site for development. A planning application has been lodged with DMBC for 2 years and is still waiting determination. No explanation has been given regarding this hold-up. There has been very little opposition to the proposed development at junction 6. The opposition to Junction 5 is very strong. Local people went development at Junction 5 where land has already been developed and it is within walking distance for people living in Thorne and Moorends.

05140 Don Turner 160 – Bradholme Objects to proposed allocation. Main Concerns: It’s a departure from the original LP

Congestion at Tudworth Roundabout and M18 approaches. Disruption into Hatfield Woodhouse

05141 Keith Jacques 160 – Bradholme Objects to proposed allocation. Main Concerns: Impact of increased traffic through Hatfield Woodhouse ‘rat run’. Increased pollution and noise Better location would be West of M18 and close to existing MWay junction.

05135 Jolanta Wdowikowska

160 – Bradholme. Objects to proposed allocation Main Concerns: Does not fit in with the wishes of the residents of Thorne and Moorends as expressed in the Thorne and Moorends Neighbourhood Plan.

05131 Axis PED Ltd (on behalf of Attero Recycling Ltd)

New site - East of Attero

Would be a logical extension to the IPort site.

New link road would allow access.

Principal of development has been established on the site (approval for lorry park)

New site

East of Attero

Would be a logical extension to the IPort site.

New link road would allow access.

Principal of development has been established on the site (approval for lorry park)

Response includes detailed supporting evidence for the site.

05110 Kimberley Smith 160 – Bradholme Objects to proposed allocation. Main Concerns: Will ruin unspoilt countryside. Impact on wildlife. Increased traffic through Thorne Badly related to rest of Thorne – twin barriers of rai and canal. Negative impact on local house prices. Increased pollution and noise Area to West of Thorne near Selby Road (J6 M81/A614) already allocated.

05112 Pamela Heath 160 – Bradholme Objects to proposed allocation. Main Concerns:

Unsuitable because of same reasons for 2009 plan app refusal. Increase in traffic in Southend. Already accidents in this area. Loss of rural amenity. Unlikely that flooding issues can be overcome as suggested in the plan. More appropriate sites elsewhere. Type of jobs created would not be of benefit to community (low paid/low skilled)

05107 Shane Holiday 001 – Thorne Objects to potential allocation of site. Main concerns: Site not in single ownership No evidence re expressions of interest to purchase or develop site. Constraints – power lines on site. Drainage – fails Flood risk sequential test (FZ3) More deliverable sites in the area. No in vicinity of other warehousing (Nimbus Park, Capitol Park) Separated from Urban areas of Thorne/Moorends by rail and MWay. Isolated from Thorne and Moorends Not a sustainable urban extension Impact on Air quality (quotes DMBC senior pollution control officer, Lisa Croft)

Will not fit in with DMBC air quality action plan. Site does not have flood basins. Is further away from MWay than 160 Bradholme. No safe cycle or pedestrian routes to the site. Issue with highways – says Highways England recommend planning not to be granted until issue resolved. Destruction of Countryside. Loss of flora and fauna. Important wildlife habitat – part of Humberhead Levels Yorkshire Wildlife recommends current planning application is refused. Loss of high value agricultural land (contrary to Core Strategy). Encroachment on the Countryside. Would not enhance the character of the landscape. Neighbourhood Plan consultation – just 3 people voted for this site. No evidence from consultation to support 001. Community want employment locations on established locations to south of M18 and former Thorne Colliery. Neighbourhood Plan has disregarded local communities’ opinions. Steering group has 3 members of same family. Online petition against this site (October 2018) has 585 signatures.

01378 Cllr Richard Jones

223 Provides comments (site has PP for a sports facility) The evidence base has no credibility for site selection re use of this site.

Any reference to a Station adjacent to this site does not make economic sense. Would be better in a future airport rail connection.

04653 Richard Nicklin Comment - development of the Carcroft industrial estate along the proposed new road from Redhouse to the A19 is the only possibility for future expansion of local employment

04788 Anthony Wright (1) (2)

Site 160 – object. The main concerns are traffic and noise. What type of industry will be allowed?

04777 Christine White Site 160 – object. It does not fit in with wishes of residents of Thorne and Moorends as expressed in the Thorne and Moorends Neighbourhood Plan.

04735 B Proctor Site 160 – object. Do not spoil anymore of Thorne’s countryside.

04829 Wendy Wilkinson (1) (2)

Site 160 – object. It is against the wishes of local residents.

04830 T Wilkinson (1) (2)

Site 160 – object. It is against the wishes of local residents.

04951 Paula McGarry Objection to site 160. Development will impact what is left of the green areas of Thorne, development is an inappropriate scale for the area, increase in traffic and noise will affect the local area. Impact on the enjoyment of current homes.

04952 Geoff McGarry Objection to site 160. Hate the thought of even ore industrial development on what is left of Thorne’s green spaces.

04953 Andrew Mattholie

Objection to site 160. Proposal does not fit in with the wishes of the residents of Thorne and Moorends as expressed in the Thorne and Moorends neighbourhood plan. No justification for development on green field site.

02116 William and Joan Parlett

Site 160 – object. This area is the old River Don route and flood plain. The traffic along South End is bad now with nearly everyone ignoring the 20mph speed limit.

04977 Mark A Pike Objection to site 160. The proposal is against the wishes of Thorne and Moorends residents as expressed in the Thorne and Moorends neighbourhood plan. Building on fields that are not currently used for commerce and industry makes no sense, as such development should be around Thorne North and Thorne South. The proposal would alter the built environment considerably, when the M18 corridor is already a well-established location.

04978 Natalie Bate Objection to site 160. n Thorne there are many industrial estates unused or areas better suited for development. Scunthorpe Road cannot cope with the traffic as it and would not support this site. Building on a flood zone would be idiotic regardless of size. Light pollution would diminish views and cause confusion for migrating birds and humans. The proposal would damage the nature, peace and landscape and deter from wanting to raise a family here.

04997 Kevin Marshall Objection to site 001 (site not allocated). Objections due to: development would destroy open countryside home to wildlife, the land belongs to the humberhead levels and we should preserve not to destroy it. Air pollution is already poor and development will generate dangerous levels of nitrogen dioxide – as stated by a senior pollution control officer at DMBC. The development will increase traffic and pose issues to Junction 6 and increase accidents on the junction to Jubilee bridge. The development is the wrong side of the motorway to integrate with Thorne and Moorends and would not provide large employment opportunities. There are also major developments at Junction 3 & 4 of the M18 which has encroached massively into the countryside and is still growing – housing is what we need, in the right place, not this type of development.

04804 Elaine Sprott Site 160 Object. Does not fit wishes of residents of Thorne and Moorends as expressed in Neighbourhood Plan.

04805 Kimberley Sprott Site 160 Object. Does not fit wishes of residents of Thorne and Moorends as expressed in Neighbourhood Plan.

04806 Paul Sprott Site 160 Object. Does not fit wishes of residents of Thorne and Moorends as expressed in Neighbourhood Plan.

04807 Steven Watts Site 160 Object. Does not fit wishes of residents of Thorne and Moorends as expressed in Neighbourhood Plan.

04808 Janet Chapman Site 160 Object to employment. If housing had been proposed then would be different. Warehousing and some light manufacturing should be at Junction 6. Damage the face of Thorne, impact on historic towns. Raising water levels in old river previous disturbances to families due to flooding.

04809 Andrew Measures

Site 160 Object. Does not fit wishes of residents of Thorne and Moorends as expressed in Neighbourhood Plan. Logistically site 001 would be better.

04811 LR and J Price Site 160 Object. Increase in traffic would create a dangerous and be a great detriment to households. Impact on localised area. Junction 6 Site 001 would be ideally suited for purposes of manufacturing and light industries. Site 160 is set in an unspoilt countryside, low laying land (water logged area) and would be effect this is covered in concrete. In favour of bringing jobs but feel Junction 6 is better suited.

04812 Patricia Marks Site 160 Object. Does not fit wishes of residents of Thorne and Moorends as expressed in Neighbourhood Plan

04813 Lynn C Grant Site 160 Object. Destroy remaining countryside areas of Thorne. Drains issues struggling to cope. It was discussed and opposed to in the Neighbourhood Plan process.


441 -Bentley Moor lane Site has not come forward. Provides comment on the DTZ study (2007). Re link road requirement – Brodsworth Estate could part fund this – a message that has not been conveyed by Council officers. Counter intuitive that this site should be allocated. Flood risk credentials are worse than site 462 (Redhouse Lane) Is being proposed contrary to finding of Colliers report. Colliers do not take into consideration the DTZ report (2007) or the market attractiveness. No technical evidence commissioned to demonstrate that the site is deliverable. 461 – Redhouse lane

Can’t understand why this site is not proposed for allocation ahead of 441. Have addressed issues raised in Colliers re land levels and drainage. Have master-planning and technical assessments which address a range of issues – topography, utilities, drainage and access. States that the Colliers summary findings for the site as misguided when the site is in fact outperforms many other sites. 514/515/516 Could all be delivered. To say they are not deliverable or marketable is utter nonsense. 462 – Adwick lane Site should be allocated. Is a better choice than 441 More contiguous to developed area – is an ‘edge of centre site’ Closer to rail station Better access than 441 Technical assessments show site is free from flooding constraint Reference to archaeology in Colliers is incorrect. Would accept site being ‘safeguarded land for post 2032 with regard to A1-A19 link being delivered. 757

Has poor access. Site is effectively land locked. To assume that this site can come forward is entirely wrong.

05197 Peacock and Smith (on behalf of Blue Anchor Leisure Limited)

Site 937 Objects. Should be allocated for employment. Concerns regarding the soundness of Sites 160 and 441 in respect of the flood risk sequential test, accessibility and access to the motorway network.

04855 John Turner Site 160 – object. It is against the wishes of the people of Thorne in particular those within earshot of the proposed development. The development would generate a huge amount of traffic in and around junction 1 of the M180. The site has been refused planning permission due to it being prone to flood risk and several factors were outlined as to why approval should be denied. If the flood risk can be controlled, I would much rather see housing. It is not a beauty spot but it wold be marred by any development of this kind.

04856 Irene Turner Site 160 – object. It is against the wishes of the people of Thorne in particular those within earshot of the proposed development. The development would generate a huge amount of traffic in and around junction 1 of the M180. The site has been refused planning permission due to it being prone to flood risk and several factors were outlined as to why approval should be denied. If the flood risk can be controlled, I would much rather see housing. It is not a beauty spot but it wold be marred by any development of this kind.

04858 David and Ann Smith

Site 160 – object. There is no justification for adding another area which is in rural countryside. The area is used widely by local residents and the wildlife area and adjacent scenery to the canal is of great importance. Traffic congestion in Thorne is a major issue and this will exacerbate the problem

05177 RPS Group (on behalf of Troy Verdion)

Objections to sites. proposals sites equal 418.54 ha which surpasses the 407ha requirement identified using the ‘EFAHNA’ . no other B8 site forms part of a strategic SCR vision. Provides comment on Colliers report. If the full 388.17ha of the proposed sites were allocated as majority B8 use in the Local Plan, this would result in 93% of the total employment land being allocated for B8 use, leaving only 7% for other employment usage.

03659 Julia Thomson 001 - Support rejection of site. Should not be employment site due to air quality concerns, as highlighted in responses to app 16/02136/OUTM (including from DMBC air quality officer). Development will lead to a decline in air quality in this part of Thorne which will have a cumulative impact and affect all residents / wildlife. Site is in FZ3, no flood water compensation area agreed with the Environment Agency - whereas site 160 has extensive basins. Site 001 has three owners - constraint. Ongoing issues with Highways England about access to the site. North Common Lane is narrow and there have been accidents. Junction with A614 is unsafe for pedestrians and cyclists coming from Moorends. Level crossing also a risk. As part of 16/02136/OUTM, there has been no soil survey to determine whether land is BMV 3a or 3b. Agricultural land will be lost. No support in the Thorne Neighbourhood Plan or in the accompanying consultations for this site. No previous evidence in planning applications for 001 (16/02136/OUTM). No evidence residents oppose development at M18/M180 junction. Believes NP misrepresents local feeling towards 001. Additional, site 001 is a

floodplain, home to wildlife and agricultural land, would be unforgivable to develop. The River Don adjacent regularly flows very high and site will increase flood risk.

03820 Natural England Employment - Rossington Site 159 is very large and may be on BMV land Consider an Agricultural Land Classification Survey Hatfield, Stainforth, Thorne - 160 in proximity to Thorne and Hatfield Moors SAC. Recommend that potential hydrological impacts, traffic and industrial emissions and loss of foraging habitat for nightjar are considered in the Habitats Regulations Assessment for the plan. Agricultural Land Classification Survey recommended.

05065 Jade Bate 160 - object - massive eyesore for adjacent residents and many in Thorne & Moorends. Connecting country roads will be impacted. Countryside will be impacted and spoiled. Planning permission previously declined. On an old river bed, a little amount of rain leads to the area flooding. Fields should be a conservation area, wildlife impacted. Vehicles will ruin ecosystems and emissions would increase.

04664 Nigel Hall 160 - object - in process of buying adjacent land to develop for local community to fish, walk, enjoy using. Site disregards the Neighbourhood Plan and their identification of employment sites in the area. Site is in Flood Zone 3 - will lead to flood risk, noise, traffic, waster and light pollution, destruction of habitats, unacceptable traffic on single track and residential roads. Drains cannot cope with amount of water run off from an industrial site - Swanlands fishing lake were flooded from the Bradholme Drain in 2007. Bradholme is a working farm and should be preserved as such. Site includes wildlife protected under Schedule 1 of Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Should respect local decision to further develop site to the north of Thorne, which have been identified as suitable in Thorne and Moorends Neighbourhood Plan. Permission previously refused in 2009. Community opposed.

04663 Carol Hall 160 - object - in process of buying adjacent land to develop for local community to fish, walk, enjoy using. Site disregards the Neighbourhood Plan and their identification of employment sites in the area. Site is in Flood Zone 3 - will lead to flood risk, noise, traffic, waster and light pollution, destruction of habitats, unacceptable traffic on single track and residential roads. Drains cannot cope with amount of water run off from an industrial site - Swanlands fishing lake were flooded from the Bradholme Drain in 2007. Bradholme is a working farm and should be preserved as such. Site includes wildlife protected under Schedule 1 of Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Should respect local decision to further develop site to the north of Thorne, which have been identified as suitable in Thorne and Moorends Neighbourhood Plan. Permission previously refused in 2009. Community opposed.

04662 Florence Hall 160 - Object - only site in Thorne where the environment can flourish and people can walk and enjoy the local countryside. Bradholme previously rejected in 2008 due to flood risk, environment impact. The area is habitat to many wildlife species such as kingfishers and water voles. North Thorne has seen major unfinished development with plenty of room for further distribution if required. Infrastructure and planning is already in place for this. Nothing has changed since 2008, unnecessary to land lock Thorne further due to climate change. Catastrophic for local area, please listen to locals.

04661 Stephen Hall 160 - Object - only site in Thorne where the environment can flourish and people can walk and enjoy the local countryside. Bradholme previously rejected in 2008 due to flood risk, environment impact. The area is habitat to many wildlife species such as kingfishers and water voles. North Thorne has seen major unfinished development with plenty of room for further distribution if required. Infrastructure and planning is already in place for this. Nothing has changed since 2008, unnecessary to land lock Thorne further due to climate change. Catastrophic for local area, please listen to locals.

04660 Susan Whitehead

160 - Object - only site in Thorne where the environment can flourish and people can walk and enjoy the local countryside. Bradholme previously rejected in 2008 due to flood risk, environment impact. The area is habitat to many wildlife species such as kingfishers and water voles. North Thorne has seen major unfinished development with plenty of room for further distribution if required. Infrastructure and planning is already in place for this. Nothing has changed since 2008, unnecessary to land lock Thorne further due to climate change. Catastrophic for local area, please listen to locals.

04616 Mark Simmonds Planning Services Ltd (on behalf of W Stead)

Proposed employment site - Yorkshire Water services Ltd, Sewage works, Lands End Road, Thorne. Site vacant former sewage works. Currently in countryside, restricted by Core Strategy Countryside policies. Would positively contribute to implementation of growth strategy. Mix of flood zones - 1, 2 and 3a. A sequential test has been carried out in line with the 2018 NPPF. This showed there are alternative comparable sites in the borough, but this shows that the site is appropriate for this use and this outweighs flood risk. Development would be safe for its lifetime and not increase flood risk elsewhere. The site is located in the core strategy Strategic Warehousing Area, and is therefore preferable to sites not in such areas. Storage and distribution is less vulnerable and is appropriate in FZ 3a, 2 and 1 in line with national planning guidance. Proposals will be accompanied by a SUDS strategy and measures put in place to prevent flooding and avoid risk elsewhere. Site connected to the A614 to the west via Lands End Road. This is appropriate for road vehicles associated with distribution and warehousing. Existing access could be used for any future distribution on the premise. Would not represent an unacceptable encroachment into the countryside. Site visibly delineated with adjoining buildings / boundary treatments. Land to the north awaiting industrial development. Existing boundary could be supplemented. Could be designed not to impact on adjacent residential caravan site, including consideration of operational hours.

04728 W and L Clark 160 - object - will spoil Thorne, lots of industrial units around, do not need more. Countryside will be spoilt, loss of wildlife. Increase in traffic, traffic and parking already bad in the area. Schools will be impacted. Concern about flooding and air quality. Site was turned down in 2009.

04726 SR Martin-Keene

160 - object - endorsed by local councillors - will ruin area of countryside and become an eyesore for local residents. Local opposition being garnered.

04725 Barbara Camm 160 - object - does not fit in with local views as expressed in the Neighbourhood Plan

04723 Roger Wilmot 160 - object - does not fit in with local views as expressed in the Neighbourhood Plan

04722 Dorina Wilmot 160 - object - does not fit in with local views as expressed in the Neighbourhood Plan

04703 David & Kathleen Coleman

160 - concerns - area suffers from a low water table, and considering amount of local development concerns for severe flooding problems in future. Have already been issues with insurance companies in the area related to this. Roads inadequate and increase in noise and vehicle pollution. Green Belt rapidly declining. Thorne a small market town.

04702 PK Jones 160 - object - concerns supported by local councillors. Site will ruin the countryside and be an eyesore for local residents. Views from adjacent property will be lost.

04701 Richard Sennett 160 - object - Flooding - FZ3 and no defences, already had proposals rejected due to this, will increase risk of flooding to surrounding areas. Traffic - Roads cannot cope with increased traffic levels, including bridges, A18 at capacity and cannot cope with increases. Ecology - Diverse ecosystem including Barn Owls at Double Bridges Farm will be destroyed. Important breeding ground for bats and hedgehogs. Pollution - air and water pollution would increase, impacting ecology and residents. 24 hour access will lead to noise. Residential impact - proposed development too close to residential areas, will impact quality of life; homes devalued, Thorne will be surrounded by unsightly industrial units; Agriculture and countryside - site on prime agricultural land, goes against brownfield first mantra, site rejected in 2008 due to countryside impact - what has changed? Canals and River trust investing heavily in improving local canals here, this would be counterproductive. When consultees home was purchased, DMBC planning dept. advised the council that site would not be developed due to FZ3 risk. Purchased property to rebuilt in this knowledge. Planning department were very strict in appearance and materials etc. How can a large industrial site therefore be acceptable and in keeping? Double standards. Would destroy rural area. It is not in the M18 corridor, but the M180. There are sites closer to the M18, e.g. The North Common, but this has been downgraded to an "option". Surely this is a better site due to M18 proximity and existing development in the area. Thorne is already overdeveloped with logistics and will not cope with extra traffic. The small field corner of Moor Road and Southend is not suitable at all and should not be considered. Surely there should be a big buffer between the site and residential properties.

04700 Michael Welsh 160 - object - land is FZ3 and climate change will lead to increased flooding; surrounding roads unsuitable for continual heavy traffic and will lead to possible Thorne town centre congestion and minor local roads; noise and air pollution; wildlife and landscape loss; already an industrial site to the north of Thorne; does not need more 'eyesore' buildings which take away Green Belt areas. Planning refused in 2009 for some reasons above, still apply. Thorne Town Council have unanimously voted to object.

04698 Yvonne Carolan 160 - object - traffic, pollution, spoiling the countryside, impact on house prices and there are already empty units in Thorne. Flood Plain so could create further problems in the area.

04868 Ken Guest 160 - object - How many more warehouses do we want? Sheds should be kept to Junction 6 Capitol Park. Site 160 would result in a loss of farmland and Thorne surrounded by sheds. Plenty of existing places to buy/rent. Pollution on Hatfield Road would be unacceptable. Bradholme already wet without 43 acres of concrete and roofs. Traffic is an issue - Thorne cannot cope if anything happens on the motorway network.

04869 Kath Guest 160 - object - How many more warehouses do we want? Sheds should be kept to Junction 6 Capitol Park. Site 160 would result in a loss of farmland and Thorne surrounded by sheds. Plenty of existing places to buy/rent. Pollution on Hatfield Road would be

unacceptable. Bradholme already wet without 43 acres of concrete and roofs. Traffic is an issue - Thorne cannot cope if anything happens on the motorway network.

04870 Elaine Hedley 160 - object - How many more warehouses do we want? Sheds should be kept to Junction 6 Capitol Park. Site 160 would result in a loss of farmland and Thorne surrounded by sheds. Plenty of existing places to buy/rent. Pollution on Hatfield Road would be unacceptable. Bradholme already wet without 43 acres of concrete and roofs. Traffic is an issue - Thorne cannot cope if anything happens on the motorway network.

04871 Christine Payne 160 - object - How many more warehouses do we want? Sheds should be kept to Junction 6 Capitol Park. Site 160 would result in a loss of farmland and Thorne surrounded by sheds. Plenty of existing places to buy/rent. Bradholme already wet without 43 acres of concrete and roofs. Traffic is an issue - Thorne cannot cope if anything happens on the motorway network.

04872 Gary Payne 160 - object - How many more warehouses do we want? Sheds should be kept to Junction 6 Capitol Park. Site 160 would result in a loss of farmland and Thorne surrounded by sheds. Plenty of existing places to buy/rent. Bradholme already wet without 43 acres of concrete and roofs. Traffic is an issue - Thorne cannot cope if anything happens on the motorway network.

04873 G Walters 160 - object - How many more warehouses do we want? Sheds should be kept to Junction 6 Capitol Park. Site 160 would result in a loss of farmland and Thorne surrounded by sheds. Plenty of existing places to buy/rent. Bradholme already wet without 43 acres of concrete and roofs. Traffic is an issue - Thorne cannot cope if anything happens on the motorway network.

04874 H Walters 160 - object - How many more warehouses do we want? Sheds should be kept to Junction 6 Capitol Park. Site 160 would result in a loss of farmland and Thorne surrounded by sheds. Plenty of existing places to buy/rent. Bradholme already wet without 43 acres of concrete and roofs. Traffic is an issue - Thorne cannot cope if anything happens on the motorway network.

04875 John Hedley 160 - object - How many more warehouses do we want? Sheds should be kept to Junction 6 Capitol Park. Site 160 would result in a loss of farmland and Thorne surrounded by sheds. Plenty of existing places to buy/rent. Pollution on Hatfield Road would be unacceptable. Bradholme already wet without 43 acres of concrete and roofs. Traffic is an issue - Thorne cannot cope if anything happens on the motorway network.

04882 Ann Pennington 160 - object - should not allocate in FZ3. DMBC have not accepted help from Thorne Neighbourhood Plan - site work has therefore been ongoing without local knowledge. Would spoil countryside and create an eyesore.

04883 D Walton 160 - object - Traffic already bad in the day, everyone trying to access same road. Hard to access Hatfield Road to catch a bus. Do not need issues to be made worse, already bad enough.

04903 Gavin Foster Sites - who has decided it is unacceptable to develop in FZ 3? Thorne and Moorends is a protected flood zone, and with the help of flood risk assessments you can lower the flood risk to an acceptable level.

04909 Paul Kerrigan 160 - strongly object - flood risk, traffic flow and loss of countryside. Thorne becoming too industrialised, fear of community impacts.

04906 Gillian Eden 160 - object - site refused in 2009, shocked to see it return. Issues remain. Flood issues. Fields are constantly flooded. In 2007 many homes along Grampian Way and Pennine Road were devastated by flooding due to poor infrastructure related to this. Insurance increased. Roads and drainage not maintained by the council adequately any more. If DN7 (unity) is developed, drainage water will head towards Thorne through this site. J1 of M180 is a limited half junction with awkward motorway access. Additional heavy vehicles will make this worse. Drivers will start using Thorne as a rat run when there are motorway issues. No one polices weight limit on the canal bridge. Bridge and A614 will not cope. Too many of the same shops in Thorne which impact on the success of others. If employment is needed, plenty could get jobs with gardening, street cleaning, bin emptying etc. instead. Community overstretched. (2009 planning application response attached).

04910 Patricia Ricketts Thorne - will bring more HGVs through Thorne. Already caused water leakage near traffic lights. Already enough houses that have been built in the area, these will all bring more cars. Council will get revenue from house and shops being built. South End Bridge will be damaged by HGVs.

04867 Mr and Mrs Swift

Site 160 – object. The development would spoil one entrance and exit to Thorne. Flood risk is an overwhelming factor that cannot be overcome. Where will the water drain to? The people who live near the site will see water devastating their homes. Thorne has had enough large buildings on the outskirts including at Tudworth roundabout and the old prison farm. Enough is enough we don’t want Bradholme it will generate a large amount of traffic. Leave the green belt alone and look elsewhere. Thorne people have had enough of being the dumping ground.

05033 Jeffrey Hill Objection to site 160. Concerns about the loss of countryside and impact on wildlife in an unspoilt area of town. Site may create jobs but those people could live elsewhere in the area so Thorne will not see a positive impact from potential jobs. Traffic already busy and could not cope with any more.

05034 Karl Cawkwell Objection to site 160. Objection based on impact it will have on green belt area.

05036 Linda Hill Objection to site 160. Employment welcome, but at what cost? Site would impact on countryside and wildlife. Extra traffic would lead to congestion and negatively impact visiting the town and that would impact on businesses.

05179 Jackie Simpson Supports the decision not to allocate site 001. Due to: lack of evidence from the owners that highlights the deliverability of the site; the site is isolated from Thorne and Moorends and is on the wrong side of the motorway; DMBC senior pollution control officer stated the development will worsen the already poor air quality in this part of Thorne; The development would not fit into the criteria of DMBC air quality action plan; site does not have the benefit of extensive flood basins than site 160; there are no safe cycle/pedestrian route to the site and any potential employers would have to cross the M18 slip roads; Highways England recommended planning not to be granted to the site; it would destroy vast open countryside home to wildlife; Natural England’s Agricultural land map shows the areas as Grade 3 0 very good and the loss of this is contrary to Policy CS18 of the Doncaster Core Strategy and Para 112 of the NPPF; the site is part of the Humberhead levels this helped inform the Wildlife park to oppose the site as it would be disruptive and harmful to the character and wider landscape; in a 2012 public consultation only 6 votes out of 100 was for the site and in the neighbourhood plan consultation only three people stated they would prefer an employment site in this area of Thorne, the Thorne and Moorends Town Council misrepresented the findings of the public consultations and disregarded the local communities views on the site so it should be ignored; on 16th October there was an online petition against the site with 585 signatures wanting it to be kept as countryside policy area.

05200 George F White (on behalf of R and G Parker)

Employment Allocation – Site 13 – deliverability doubts as a reason for non-allocation, but Doncaster Employment Land Review (February 2018), recognise that the site is excellently located strategically, is in a good employment location. No abnormal or significant constraints were identified by the Council in their site assessment. Concerns can be addressed.

05198 ID Planning (on behalf of Tanks and Vessels)

Representation to continue use of land at the industrial estate for employment and consider residential on Site ‘A’. Provides a site description and details of planning consents, a summary of the land area as allocated in the UDP, Core strategy and emerging Local Plan. Draft Policies and Proposed Sites… supports policy 2 identifying Rossington as a main town. Policy 5 – support criteria based approach as it allows flexibility. TVI support the identification of Bankwood Lane Industrial Estate as an Employment Policy Area ‘Site 878 – Bankwood Lane Industrial Estate’ on the Rossington plan in the Site Selection Methodology includes only part of the wider Bankwood Lane Industrial Estate with much of the land allocated as an Employment Site or Employment Policy Area on the adopted UDP Proposals Map (1998) excluded from the plan. Need to refer to plan 1 in the response. Area A on enclosed Plan 1 is identified as an Employment Site in the UDP (Policy EMP6) and is currently in use as an employment site associated with TVIs wider operations on the site, it is considered that land to be washed over as an Employment Policy Area at Bankwood Lane Industrial Estate should incorporate the remainder of TVIs land to the east which forms part of the wider industrial estate. Area B, should also be included as an employment policy area designation.

05182 Vigo Group New site to be included within the Local Development Plan as a rail led commercial development of strategic importance to the local economy


Site 160 - object and Site 1 - support. Core shape and form of the settlement: the development of Site 160 would not retain the core shape and form of the settlement. The development of Bradholme would extend the town southwards in a linear pattern where Moorends would be distant from Bradholme

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14

and vice versa. The compact shape of the settlement would be lost. Bradholme has little connectivity to Thorne. Access in limited in practical terms to the A614. Visitors and workers from the south side of Thorne would be able to reach it on foot or by cycle but any car traffic would have to go through the town centre. Site 1 is nearer for the greater part of the population. The appearance and character of the settlement: significant harm. Thorne is essentially a market town with engineering and agricultural functions. Development at Bradholme would not adjoin any existing commercial area. Residents would lose a sense of immediate contact with the countryside. A 2nd commercial zone in an isolated rural setting, close to residential development would spoil Thorne’s sense of identity as a market town. The character and appearance of the surrounding countryside or rural setting: significant harm. The Doncaster Landscape Character and capacity Study 2007 placed both Site 1 and Site 160 in Zone G2 Thorne and Hatfield Peat Moorlands. It says that: the area assessed is considered to be a high quality landscape with a distinctive character and in good condition. The landscape value is considered to be moderate. Strategic employment development would have a major negative impact on the strongly rural character of the site and its setting. It would have a negative impact on the setting of the current recreational activities on and alongside the canal. Development would not fit with the scale of the existing buildings and scale of Thorne. A planning application (08/03189/FULM) was refused in September 2009 showing the development of Bradholme would have a harmful effect on the countryside. There is also a huge local objection from the public. Site 1 – support Core shape and form of the settlement: The development of Site 1 would retain the core shape and form of the settlement. The site map for the Thorne and Moorends Neighbourhood Plan (Oct 2014) shows that Site 121 is close to the centre of gravity of the settlement. The later edition omitted the site. The main employment development has taken place to the west of the town. The railway forms the physical boundary to the residential parts of the town. Nimbus Park consists of modern development. The development of Site 101, submitted as part of the Call for Sites, is dependent upon Site 1 and together these sites would form an extension of an already successful commercial area. Site is contained by physical features which form natural boundaries and Junction 6 provides an immediate entry point to the motorway system. There is strong connectivity to Thorne and Moorends. Workers who live in Moorends walk or cycle daily to Nimbus Park and beyond. The appearance and character of the settlement: no harm. It is insulated from al residential parts of Thorne and Moorends by existing commercial development. The character and appearance of the surrounding countryside or rural setting: no harm. Site 1 is within Countryside Policy Area and within the Thorne and Hatfield Peat Moorlands. However it is a featureless tract of arable land with vestigial hedgerows and few trees. It is not valued for recreation or views. The landscape is of such low sensitivity that no significant harm would be done to the surrounding countryside or rural setting.

A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment was carried out for the planning application. It states that the existing landscape of Site 1 has no variations or complexities within its boundaries. It has no sense of place and its character is that of industrialised agriculture, no different from a large geographical area around it. Visually the site is remarkably well contained by existing features. There are scattered around the site which will undoubtedly be affected by the proposed development. However the access to the site is limited to a single point. Beyond these areas the new presence in the landscape of the development would not be discordant in the scale of the wide and spacious rural area which would be its setting.

05190 Carter Jonas (on behalf of Harworth Group)

Site 160 – support. Wholly support the allocation of the land for ‘B’ use classes. As scheme details including technical issues progress we will liaise with the council and stakeholders to ensure: all material consideration are addressed; deliverability is demonstrated maintained; and effective use of land is demonstrated. Updated masterplan - an updated master plan is attached at Appendix 4. The site is currently within Flood Zone 3. The main source of flooding is the potential failure of a pumping station. The EA and LLFA do not regard this site as being located within the design standard floodplain and it will not increase flood risk elsewhere. There is no requirement for any floodplain compensation on the site. The previous masterplan allowed for large areas of flood compensation and as these are no longer required, a more efficient layout showing increased development potential has been developed. Therefore the net developable area can increase to 68ha. The updated masterplan retains the existing ‘blue’ corridor which creates visual amenity value and biodiversity and habitat creation opportunities. Market issues and deliverability – Harworth Group is fully committed to building on its successful development in Doncaster and bringing this site forward. It will deliver valuable em0loyment uses to this M18 corridor site and contribute to the inward economic investment and assisting the regeneration of Thorne and Moorends. There will be demand by occupiers if the site is brought forward for employment uses. Deliverability is the key to meeting the borough’s employment needs for the plan period. Gateway 180 is a clear choice.

The rise of the online retail marker means the industrial property is the most desired property sector for investors. We consider the market advice promotes an optimistic trajectory for the delivery of the site and agree that at least 70% of the NDA can be brought forward during the plan period with 30% being developed before. There are questions over the deliverability of the other employment proposals. Bradholme is under single ownership and is unlikely to require new infrastructure. It is very accessible, located off a major junction. There are no technical or environmental factors that would preclude development or harm deliverability. The site has unique accessibility with direct access to the motorway and walking distance of residential neighbourhoods. It also has potential for excellent public transport, pedestrian and cyclist accessibility. Allocation of the site would support the plan-making advice within Section 3 of the NPPF. Wholly agree with the selection of Bradholme Farm and the non-allocation of other HELAA options. These outcomes are wholly justified under the published Housing and Employment Site Selection Methodology. The site has high levels of accessibility and connectivity with direct access to the motorway network. One key issue has been the concern over the inability to directly access the M180 in an eastwards direction. There are 2 alternative routes to travel eastwards on the M180 and “either of these options would appear to be viable and not overly tortuous” (as stated in Preliminary Feasibility Study by Development Planning Limited. Flood risk was a main issue to be resolved. However discussions with the EA, LLAFA and IDB have been positive and there is agreement about finished floor levels. See enclosed Flood Risk and Drainage Vision document (May 18). Have sought to engage with Thorne and Moorends Town Council note that the draft Neighbourhood Plan text supports the allocation of

sites along the M18 corridor and that provision is expected to be made within development to promote the physical connectivity with Thorne and Moorends. Hope to gain the support of the Town Council. Also aim to formally consult ward members.

05166 Petition 4 160 - petition signed by 62 objectors to the proposed employment site allocation. Reasons given being: the site is at high risk of flooding (FRZ3) and this will get worse with climate change. The road network is not sufficient to accommodate more traffic and will lead to congestion. Increase in noise and air pollution. Loss of wildlife and impact on landscape. Thorne already has an industrial site to the north of the town. No need for anymore warehouse buildings in Thorne using Green Belt land. Planning permission has been refused in the past on the site for many of the reasons above. Thorne Town Council unanimously objects to the site.

01716 Waystone Ltd 418 - support the inclusion of Unity/The DN7 initiative for housing and employment. We support the inclusion of a larger site area than that covered by the outline planning application. We welcome the inclusion of the former colliery land and lay-down area and we propose that the site area be further extended to include the former Ashfield Tips to the north of Kirton Lane and have included a plan

5024 Kim Parkinson Sites 1 and 160 - Provides analysis and comment as to why Site 1 is a better option than site 160. Concludes that the Colliers assessment of site 1 is negative in tone in comparison to site 160. Colliers is ‘partisan’ in favour of site 160. Site 1 Deliverability is not an issue Colliers have omitted various positive attributes in report. Disputes Colliers findings on: Odour from water treatment works – not an issue. No mention of proximity of rail station (Thorne North) with better service than Thorne south near Bradholme. Fails to mention proximity of Humber Ports as it does with 160. Site closer to Hull and Goole than 160.

Remoteness – remote from what? It is right next door to Thorne and Moorends. Fails to mention is in ‘good proximity to the West Yorkshire conurbation’ as it does 160. Is closer to M62 route to WYC than 160. Site 1 is a large flat site with few trees and hedges. Is more flexible in terms of potential layout than 160. Site less damaging to environment than 160 Makes no reference to site being by the ‘development’ hub’ at J6 Site ideally situated for people to walk from Thorne & Moorends Very large flat site – more development potential than site 160 More attractive to an ‘end user’ than 160 Site 1 has better connections to the road network than 160. For Mway accessibility 1 is a better option than 160 Site is ideal expansion site for users from Coulman Road. Site 1 could qualify as an ‘infill site’ it has development on 3 sides with minimal impact on residential. Site 160 Deliverability could be an issue Considerable local protest against site Archaeological and historic implications could be significant.

Colliers have omitted various negative attributes in report. Close to rail station but poorer service than Thorne North near site 1 Is a more fragmented site than site 1 – less flexible than site 1. M180 junction is only one way – ignored by Colliers More damaging to environment than site 1 No mention in Colliers of landscape value Is a long walk from Moorends and most of Thorne Colliers does not mention potential impact of additional traffic to the South of Thorne. Not as attractive to end users as Site 1. To state that a site has ‘clear developer intentions’ is meaningless – how is that an advantage. Anybody can say that. 160 has poorer connections to the road network than site 1. Site 1 has better MWay connectivity. Could be significant archaeology on site – Thorne Mere is a very important site. Is a much more valuable wildlife site than 1 which is farmland. Site was major water management issues – could be potentially costly to resolve – it is not as simple as building large ponds.

05234 Tangent Properties (on behalf of ION Property Developments Ltd)

Land south-west of Conisbrough (540ha). Clients are working with the principal landowners to promote the site for mixed use development.


441 -Bentley Moor lane Site has not come forward. Provides comment on the DTZ study (2007). Re link road requirement – Brodsworth Estate could part fund this – a message that has not been conveyed by Council officers. Counter intuitive that this site should be allocated. Flood risk credentials are worse than site 462 (Redhouse Lane) Is being proposed contrary to finding of Colliers report. Colliers do not take into consideration the DTZ report (2007) or the market attractiveness. No technical evidence commissioned to demonstrate that the site is deliverable. 461 – Redhouse lane Can’t understand why this site is not proposed for allocation ahead of 441. Have addressed issues raised in Colliers re land levels and drainage. Have master-planning and technical assessments which address a range of issues – topography, utilities, drainage and access. States that the Colliers summary findings for the site as misguided when the site is in fact outperforms many other sites. 514/515/516 Could all be delivered. To say they are not deliverable or marketable is utter nonsense. 462 – Adwick lane Site should be allocated.

Is a better choice than 441 More contiguous to developed area – is an ‘edge of centre site’ Closer to rail station Better access than 441 Technical assessments show site is free from flooding constraint Reference to archaeology in Colliers is incorrect. Would accept site being ‘safeguarded land for post 2032 with regard to A1-A19 link being delivered. 757 Has poor access. Site is effectively land locked. To assume that this site can come forward is entirely wrong.


441 -Bentley Moor lane Site has not come forward. Provides comment on the DTZ study (2007). Re link road requirement – Brodsworth Estate could part fund this – a message that has not been conveyed by Council officers. Counter intuitive that this site should be allocated. Flood risk credentials are worse than site 462 (Redhouse Lane) Is being proposed contrary to finding of Colliers report. Colliers do not take into consideration the DTZ report (2007) or the market attractiveness.

No technical evidence commissioned to demonstrate that the site is deliverable. 461 – Redhouse lane Can’t understand why this site is not proposed for allocation ahead of 441. Have addressed issues raised in Colliers re land levels and drainage. Have master-planning and technical assessments which address a range of issues – topography, utilities, drainage and access. States that the Colliers summary findings for the site as misguided when the site is in fact outperforms many other sites. 514/515/516 Could all be delivered. To say they are not deliverable or marketable is utter nonsense. 462 – Adwick lane Site should be allocated. Is a better choice than 441 More contiguous to developed area – is an ‘edge of centre site’ Closer to rail station Better access than 441 Technical assessments show site is free from flooding constraint Reference to archaeology in Colliers is incorrect. Would accept site being ‘safeguarded land for post 2032 with regard to A1-A19 link being delivered.

757 Has poor access. Site is effectively land locked. To assume that this site can come forward is entirely wrong.


441 -Bentley Moor lane Site has not come forward. Provides comment on the DTZ study (2007). Re link road requirement – Brodsworth Estate could part fund this – a message that has not been conveyed by Council officers. Counter intuitive that this site should be allocated. Flood risk credentials are worse than site 462 (Redhouse Lane) Is being proposed contrary to finding of Colliers report. Colliers do not take into consideration the DTZ report (2007) or the market attractiveness. No technical evidence commissioned to demonstrate that the site is deliverable. 461 – Redhouse lane Can’t understand why this site is not proposed for allocation ahead of 441. Have addressed issues raised in Colliers re land levels and drainage. Have master-planning and technical assessments which address a range of issues – topography, utilities, drainage and access. States that the Colliers summary findings for the site as misguided when the site is in fact outperforms many other sites.

514/515/516 Could all be delivered. To say they are not deliverable or marketable is utter nonsense. 462 – Adwick lane Site should be allocated. Is a better choice than 441 More contiguous to developed area – is an ‘edge of centre site’ Closer to rail station Better access than 441 Technical assessments show site is free from flooding constraint Reference to archaeology in Colliers is incorrect. Would accept site being ‘safeguarded land for post 2032 with regard to A1-A19 link being delivered. 757 Has poor access. Site is effectively land locked. To assume that this site can come forward is entirely wrong.




























5102 Andrew Bate 160 Object to Bradholme Reasons - inappropriate rural land use, does not contribute to rural diversification, increase traffic, flood risk area, home to wildlife and protected species

5101 Kim Bright 160 - Object to Bradholme. Reasons detriment to local area, impacts on wildlife and increased traffic Revisit site at 6 of the M18 and A614 Selby Road

5100 Pam Bate 160 Object to Bradholme Reasons - inappropriate rural land use, does not contribute to rural diversification, increase traffic, flood risk area, home to wildlife and protected species

5078 Alan Hemingway

160 Bradholme Thorne - objects to proposed development, it was refused in 2009! Reasons - unspoilt countryside, flood risk, extra traffic

5077 Joy Yule 160 Objects to Bradholme reasons - destroy unspoilt countryside Badly sited to integrate with the rest of Thorne due to twin barriers of the railway and canal Heavier traffic through Thorne Increase in air pollution from dust, diesel fumes

5121 Kate Heywood Site 160 Object to the proposed allocation of the site at Bradholme for industrial/warehousing. Will only benefit developer

4797 Rosemary Sprakes

Site Objection - 160 Bradholme Farm, Thorne Reasons: good quality agricultural land, ancient flood plain, flood risk 3, increased traffic, pollution (clean air). The Bradholme site (as farmland) is acres of greenspace next to Thorne, for clean air, not recreation. Consider people of Thorne not warehousing. Doncaster BAP says… protect and conserve wildlife, it’s a special landscape. Policy and practice should not damage biodiversity.

4734 E John McGarry Site Objection – 160 Bradholme Reasons. Greenbelt land. Impact on infrastructure. Hatfield and Thorne historic towns. Golf course less than a mile… suitable activity to maintain character of greenbelt. Additional golf course would provide employment and tourism. Prime agricultural land. Better alternative sites…428, 733, 736. Allocate land to north of Moorends between A614 Selby Road and Goole Road. Site 160 would compete with the Iport. Increased traffic. Development would severely impact on open countryside aspect. Public opposition to proposals. Impact on hedgerows. Proposes secretary of state ‘call in’ and legal proceedings should site be allocated.

4625 Ann Walker Site Objection – 160 Bradholme (ticked boxes for commenting on policies, proposed sites and evidence base) States that the identical measures have not been used to draw conclusions therefore author(s) conclusion regarding the best site for development is incorrect. The author/s stated for the J5 south site that there is “clear developer intention to develop the site”, but no evidence provided to support the claim. Comment not made for Junction 6 although a planning application has been submitted. Local people don’t want Jct 5, Bradholme, but little objection for Jct 6. Follow recommendations in HELAA and stop changing your mind.

1017 Peter Pennington

160 - Object - Site previously withdrawn in 2008 and refused in 2009 and it is Countryside Policy Area. Documents show there has been a shift in the councils position on this site, despite facts on the ground not changing. Documents only deal with merits of site for commercial purposes. Do not discriminate between agricultural or landscape value. CPA should be protected. Land in this country is at a premium. Good agricultural land should not be wasted. Need to balance economic, environmental and social factors. Brownfield should be priority over greenfield. Only want greenfield as costs are lower. Should not be permitted in a speculative and footloose manner, as SA para 4.11 indicates it is. Should protect countryside between settlements.

01346 Thomas Merrills Lack of information from developer on proposals Thorne Council, DMBC members, Thorne residents and other national parties voted unanimously against site 160 in 2009.

05197 Peacock and Smith (on behalf of Blue Anchor Leisure Limited)

Representation has a Vision Statement (and Appendices) attached, detailing information demonstrating the deliverability and suitability of Site 937.

04721 Paul Tootell Better having development closer to existing infrastructure such as the other side of Thorne.

04769 John Finnegan Other sites more suitable for industry in the area.

04753 Dennis Rees There is already development in Thorne adjacent to the M18 junction 6, developing here would build on existing infrastructure with minimal disruption.

04755 Christine Rees There is already development in Thorne adjacent to the M18 junction 6, developing here would build on existing infrastructure with minimal disruption.

05182 Vigo Group Representation was made to DMBC on 16th October 2017 and an acknowledgement was received from J Johnson on 19th October 2017. The site is predominantly marked in pink on the minerals sites map with a smaller area to the north east marked in green which indicates an area of minerals search. Site is of strategic importance in respect of the rail industry. Emailed local plans team to submit site for inclusion as key infrastructure location in the Local Development Plan. site was previously submitted for residential development (Site number not given, but could be site 153?) A previous operator on the site had contracted DB Schenker to carry out a feasibility study in to the rail connection on site, which demonstrated that it was feasible and relatively low cost, with a low impact on the rail network. This was presented to the Local Authority at the time and demonstrated delivery of the rail access with less than £1,000,000 of direct cost. Further information included in the response includes information on timescales, commercial space and attracting inward investment of over £1,000,000,000 to Doncaster and working with Economic Development Team