Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council...Although the Local Plan process is considering far more Green Belt site representations than just the 55 sites identified by the Council, Doncaster

Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council Doncaster Green Belt Review Stage 3 Green Belt Sites Re-appraisal

ISSUE

Issue | 9 May 2017

This report takes into account the particular instructions and requirements of our client.

It is not intended for and should not be relied upon by any third party and no responsibility is undertaken to any third party. Job number 245498-00245498-00

Ove Arup & Partners Ltd Admiral House Rose Wharf 78 East Street Leeds LS9 8EE United Kingdom www.arup.com


ISSUE | Issue | 9 May 2017 J:\240000\245498-00\0 ARUP\0-09 PLANNING\0-09-08 REPORTS\10. STAGE 3 GREEN BELT APPRAISL 2017\7. FINAL ISSUE FOLDER\STAGE 3 GREEN BELT SITES RE-APPRAISAL_DONCASTER MBC_ISSUE_110517.DOCX

Contents Page

1 Introduction 1

1.1 Overview 1 1.2 Background 2 1.3 Summary of the Method to Assessing the Green Belt in

Doncaster 3 1.4 Relationship with Local Plan-making 4 1.5 Structure of this Report 4

2 Policy Guidance and Context 5

2.1 Overview 5 2.2 National Planning Context 5 2.3 Local Planning Context 9

3 Approach to Green Belt Site Re-appraisal 15

3.1 Overview 15 3.2 Starting Point for Assessment 15 3.3 Proposed Methodology for Assessment 15 3.4 Assumptions 21

4 Summarising the Stage 3 Green Belt Sites Re-appraisal 23

4.1 Overview 23 4.2 Grading 23

5 Conclusion 25

5.1 Overview 25 5.2 Summary of Assessment Outcomes 25 5.3 Aligning Outputs from the Stage 3 Re-appraisal with

Progression of Sites through the Local Plan 27 5.4 Next Steps 27



Page 1

1 Introduction

1.1 Overview Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council are currently preparing a Local Plan which will replace the adopted Unitary Development Plan and Local Development Framework (adopted Core Strategy). Since September 2015, Ove Arup and Partners (‘Arup’) has been appointed by Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (‘Doncaster MBC’) to prepare a series of documents that review the South Yorkshire Green Belt around the Local Authority Area of Doncaster.

This report represents Stage 3 of the overall work, and is a more detailed appraisal of sites which have emerged through the process so far, which includes a Stage 1 Green Belt Review: Methodology and Proformas (produced by Arup), and a Stage 2 Technical Sites Assessment (produced by Doncaster MBC).

The aim of this Stage 3 Green Belt Sites Re-appraisal is to assess the implications of potentially removing any of the 55 identified individual sites from the South Yorkshire Green Belt, and to judge the sites against the “Local Interpretation” of the five purposes of the Green Belt.

Doncaster MBC anticipates, having regard to the development requirement and growth distribution strategy, that only a relatively small number of the total 55 sites may be required for release from the Green Belt. In doing so, the Council needs to understand the relative merits of the different sites, in terms of their role within the Green Belt; and then factor this intelligence alongside other site selection considerations including: Sustainability Appraisal findings, viability appraisals, and flood risk sequential testing, to inform overall decision-making about site selection choices in the emerging local plan.

This Stage 3 Green Belt Sites Re-appraisal work will follow the methodology set out below:

• Reflect on the changes in evidence base since the Stage 1 Green Belt Review, and understand the implications for the re-appraisal of 55 potential Green Belt sites;

• Where necessary, recalibrate1 the Stage 1 Green Belt Review’s “General Areas” to understand the specific Green Belt implications of releasing any of the 55 potential Green Belt sites. This involves looking again at each of the sites against the five Green Belt purposes. It is advised therefore that the Stage 3 work is read in conjunction with the Stage 1 Green Belt Review.

• Review the Resultant Boundary created if one of the 55 proposed Green Belt sites is removed from the “General Area”.

1 “Recalibrate” and “re-define” in this sense does not change the outcomes of the Stage 1 Green Belt Review. However, given the change in scale of sites for assessment, these terms define a method to ‘check, adjust or standardise’ against the accepted model of the Stage 1 Green Belt Review.



Page 2

1.2 Background

Stage 1 Green Belt Review The Stage 1 Green Belt Review analysed 64 General Areas of Green Belt against the local interpretation of five Green Belt purposes. The assessment concluded:

• That almost all Green Belt areas performed strongly or very strongly on at least one of the Purpose Sub-Criteria.

• General Areas adjacent to the built form of the ‘Large Built up Area of Doncaster’ had a stronger role in ‘checking the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas’, however, there were a large number of areas that connected to the South Yorkshire Green Belt which performed a strategic role in checking the unrestricted sprawl of conurbations.

• Few General Areas were considered to play an essential role in preserving a land gap between settlements. However, a relatively large number of General Areas were considered to support a ‘wide, but largely essential’ strategic gap within the South Yorkshire Green Belt. Areas to the north and south of the Borough, which were predominantly more rural, were considered to have a weaker role in preserving a land gap between settlements.

• There was a relatively even split of General Areas which resisted ribbon development, those which permitted ribbon development in part, and those General Areas which were not considered to have had a role in restricting ribbon development. Only two areas were considered to have permitted unrestricted ribbon development.

• The majority of General Areas were considered to display moderate levels of sensitivity to encroachment or higher, which reflects the open, rural and largely undeveloped nature of Green Belt away from the main settlements within Doncaster. Similarly, the majority of General Areas were considered to display a moderately strong, strong, or strong unspoilt rural character.

• There are a number of General Areas which are adjacent to the Historic Core of a Historic Town, however relatively few General Areas supported key views into and out of a Historic Town.

• Only one General Area is considered to fall within a Regeneration Priority Area, however, there are 20 General Areas which are considered to be ‘contiguous’ with a defined Regeneration Priority Area.

Doncaster MBC-led Stage 2 Assessment Since the production of the Stage 1 Green Belt Review, Doncaster MBC has consulted on a range of other evidence based documents, and has used those documents to help clarify potential Green Belt sites for re-appraisal.

These documents include: the Site Selection Methodology and Housing/ Employment Needs Assessments (2015), Housing and Employment Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) (2015/6), Doncaster Local Plan Homes and



Page 3

Settlements paper (March 2016), and Sustainability Appraisal (SA) of Doncaster’s Growth Options (March 2016).

Against this background of evidence and further work, Doncaster MBC has identified 55 potential Green Belt sites which have been shown to be deliverable / developable through the HELAA; and which Doncaster MBC consider to be capable of contributing to the Local Plan and SA objectives.

Although the Local Plan process is considering far more Green Belt site representations than just the 55 sites identified by the Council, Doncaster MBC has chosen to omit other Green Belt site options. Doncaster MBC has confirmed that this is due to them being located at (or near) settlements where sufficient sites have already been identified that far exceed the growth and distribution requirements set out in the Homes & Settlements consultation (March 2016).

As such, the Council has considered that an exceptional circumstances case could not be made for new development plan allocations on the other Green Belt sites, when other non-Green Belt sites have already been identified. Should any further sites be put forward which could be considered as being reasonable options capable of contributing towards the identified strategy; or sites omitted previously from the study potentially become required, these will be assessed in line with the methodology and included as a subsequent Addendum to this report if necessary.

With regards to employment, there is a reduced pool of potential employment allocations compared to residential. Doncaster MBC therefore considered that they have some scope as allocations and therefore all representations were looked at.

1.3 Summary of the Method to Assessing the Green Belt in Doncaster

As set out, the overall review of Green Belt in Doncaster has been iterative, and has been undertaken in three stages. Specifically, this report focuses on Stage 3 Green Belt Sites Re-appraisal. To highlight the iterative nature of the work, Figure 1 provides a summary of the process carried out so far, which comprises:

• Stage 1 Green Belt Review: This was completed in 2015 and 2016, and supports the objective assessment of General Areas of Green Belt against a Local Interpretation of the Five Purposes of the Green Belt.

• Stage 2 Technical Site Constraints Assessment: Following the assessment of General Areas of Green Belt within Doncaster, the technical site constraints assessment work has been undertaken by Doncaster MBC.

• Stage 3 Green Belt Site Re-appraisal: Areas that have evolved through the Stage 1 and 2 assessments will be re-appraised against the “Local Interpretation” of the five Green Belt purposes. The ‘Resultant Green Belt boundary’ will be appraised to determine its likely strength. This Stage will need to be supported by a specific demonstration of “exceptional circumstances”. Re-appraisal is necessary to capture the different scales of assessment.



Page 4

Figure 1 Conceptual diagram for progressing from the Stage 1 General Area assessment to Stage 3 Green Belt Site Re-appraisal

1.4 Relationship with Local Plan-making Importantly, this Stage 3 report does not set out whether sites should be released from the Green Belt. This will remain a decision for Doncaster MBC. The final decision on whether to select sites to be released from the Green Belt will be reached via a combination of factors, which will emerge as the Council progresses the Local Plan to Publication Draft in autumn 20172. Doncaster MBC will also reflect on matters such as: • Acuteness and intensity of housing need; • Constraints on the supply and availability of other land; • The nature and extent of harm to the Green Belt; and, • The balance between realising sustainable development without impinging on

the Green Belt – in order to support any definition of “exceptional circumstances”3.

1.5 Structure of this Report The proposed structure of this report is set out as follows: • Section 2 sets out any changes to the national planning guidance on

undertaking Green Belt reviews; • Section 3 reviews the approach to Green Belt Site Re-Appraisal, including

establishing the ‘starting point’ for assessment, the proposed methodology, scenarios for different outputs and key assumptions; and,

• Section 4 and 5 summarises the outcomes of assessing 55 Potential Green Belt Site Re-appraisals.

2 Doncaster Local Plan (December 2016) Local Development Scheme 3 Set out within recent case law and expanded upon further in Chapter 2: Calverton Parish Council v Nottingham City Council, Broxtowe Borough Council and Gedling Borough Council



Page 5

2 Policy Guidance and Context

2.1 Overview The national context is defined by the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG), case law, and relevant Ministerial Statements.

2.2 National Planning Context The planning policy context for Green Belt is set out within the NPPF and PPG. This context remains largely unchanged since the Stage 1 Green Belt assessment.

National Planning Policy Framework The NPPF (2012) is founded on the ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’, which for plan-making means that Local Planning Authorities should positively seek opportunities to meet objectively assessed needs, unless specific policies in the NPPF indicate that development should be restricted. Protection of Green Belt around urban areas is a core planning principle of the NPPF; policies setting out the role of Green Belt land and protecting its function are set out in the Chapter 9 of the NPPF. These policies set out the following concepts and requirements:

• The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy as being to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open (Paragraph 79);

• The Five Purposes of the Green Belt (Paragraph 80);

• The responsibility on Local Authorities with Green Belts in their area to establish boundaries in their Local Plans, and once established, alter Green Belt only in exceptional circumstances, or through the review of the Local Plan (Paragraph 83);

• Promoting sustainable patterns of development when reviewing Green Belt, by directing development towards urban areas inside the Green Belt boundary towards and villages inset within the Green Belt’ (Paragraph 84).

Specifically, in relation to defining boundaries for Green Belt, Local Planning Authorities should:

• ‘Ensure consistency with the Local Plan strategy for meeting identified requirements for sustainable development;

• Not include land which it is unnecessary to keep permanently open;

• Where necessary identify in their plans areas of “safeguarded land” between the urban area and the Green Belt, in order to meet longer term development needs stretching well beyond the plan period;

• Make clear that the safeguarded land is not allocated for development at the present time. Planning permission for the permanent development of



Page 6

safeguarded land should only be granted following a Local Plan review which proposes the development;

• Satisfy themselves that Green Belt boundaries will not need to be altered at the end of the development plan period; and

• Define boundaries clearly, using physical features that are readily recognisable and likely to be permanent.’ (Paragraph 85)

National Planning Practice Guidance The PPG is intended to provide up-to-date, accessible and useful guidance on the requirements of the planning system. The PPG was updated in October 2014, reiterating the importance of the Green Belt and acknowledging that Green Belt may restrain the ability to meet housing need. The following paragraphs are relevant to Green Belt Assessment:

Paragraph 044 Do housing and economic needs override constraints on the use of land, such as Green Belt? – ‘The NPPF should be read as a whole: need alone is not the only factor to be considered when drawing up a Local Plan. The Framework is clear that local planning authorities should, through their Local Plans, meet objectively assessed needs unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework as a whole, or specific policies in the Framework indicate that development should be restricted’ (as it is with land designated as Green Belt). ‘The Framework makes clear that, once established, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances, through the preparation or review of the Local Plan.’

Paragraph 045 Do local planning authorities have to meet in full housing needs identified in needs assessments? - ‘Assessing need is just the first stage in developing a local plan. Once need has been assessed, the local planning authority should prepare a Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment to establish realistic assumptions about the availability, suitability and the likely economic viability of land to meet the identified need for housing over the plan period, and in so doing take account of any constraints such as Green Belt, which indicate that development should be restricted and which may restrain the ability of an authority to meet its need.’

Government Initiatives The Stage 1 Green Belt Review largely covers national perspectives on Green Belt assessment and the role of Green Belt. However, since the production of the Stage 1 Green Belt Review, the Government have released the Housing White Paper4. Within this, the Government states that it will ‘maintain existing strong protections for the Green Belt and clarify that Green Belt boundaries should only be amended in exceptional circumstances, when Local Authorities can demonstrate that they have fully examined all other reasonable options for

4 DCLG (2017) Fixing Our Broken Housing Market – Housing White Paper



Page 7

meeting their identified housing requirements’. These reasonable options comprise:

• Making effective use of suitable Brownfield site and the opportunities offered by estate regeneration;

• The potential offered by land which is currently underused, including surplus public sector land where appropriate;

• Optimising the proposed density of development; and

• Exploring where other authorities can help to meet some of the identified development requirement.

In addition, the White Paper sets out that ‘where land is removed from the Green Belt, local policies should require the impact to be offset by compensatory improvements to the environmental quality of accessibility of the remaining Green Belt land’. The Planning Advisory Service (PAS) published updated guidance for undertaking a review of the Green Belt in February 2015. This guidance will still remain relevant for the Stage 3 Green Belt Re-appraisal.

Summary: There has been no change in national policy since the Stage 1 Review. However, given the change in scale of sites, it is necessary to recalibrate the Stage 1 assessment to re-appraise land against the five national purposes of the Green Belt (Paragraph 80), use physical features and readily recognisable boundaries to define a Green Belt boundary and to demonstrate exceptional circumstances prior to any Green Belt release.

Whilst the Housing White Paper does represent a change for the future of Green Belt, the impact on the re-appraisal is limited. Indeed, it could be argued that the Housing White Paper adds additional clarity to the ‘tests’ required to demonstrate exceptional circumstances. If the proposals in the Housing White Paper are implemented it will mean the outputs from the Stage 3 Green Belt Site Re-appraisal will need to be reviewed to understand if reasonable Brownfield options exist; and whether appropriate densities and compensatory policies have been put forward.

Recent Case Law In considering the possibility of releasing sites from the Green Belt, recent case law has re-iterated the importance of understanding and defining ‘exceptional circumstances’. In preparing the Local Plan, Doncaster MBC will need to reflect on whether there are exceptional circumstances which justify the alteration of Green Belt boundaries.

There is no definition of ‘exceptional circumstances’ within the NPPF, and there is very limited case history relating to decisions about the meaning. However, there are three recent relevant examples which could support local interpretation of this concept within Doncaster.



Page 8

Solihull Local Plan (Solihull Metropolitan District Council)

In this case, a developer’s sites in Tidbury Green were placed into the Green Belt by the Solihull Local Plan (SLP) adopted in December 2013. The developer challenged the SLP on three grounds: (i) that it was not supported by an objectively assessed figure for housing need; (ii) the Council has failed in its duty to cooperate; and (iii) the Council adopted a plan without regard to the proper test for revising Green Belt boundaries. The claim succeeded at the High Court.

Solihull appealed against the decision, but the appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal. The Court held that the Inspector and Solihull had failed to identify a figure for the objective assessment of housing need as a separate and prior exercise, and that was an error of law. In addition, the Judge dismissed the Inspector’s reasons for returning the developer’s sites to the Green Belt, saying that:

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

Calverton Parish Council v Nottingham City Council, Broxtowe Borough Council and Gedling Borough Council

In this case, the Parish Council applied to the High Court to quash parts of the Aligned Code Strategies of the three authorities, arguing that: (i) it had failed to consider whether housing numbers should be reduced to prevent the release of Green Belt land; and (ii) it had failed to apply national policy in considering its release. However, the Claim was rejected.

In Paragraph 42 of the decision, referring to the earlier Solihull decision, the Judge stated:

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

While supporting the earlier Solihull case, the judgement also confirms that ‘exceptional circumstances’ may override the purposes set out in the NPPF, depending on the strength of these purposes. In determining what is exceptional, an authority should ‘identify and then grapple with the following matters’5:

• The ‘acuteness/intensity of the housing need’;

• The ‘constraints on the supply/availability of land…suitable for development’;

5 Paragraph 51, Case No: CO/4846/2014: Calverton Parish Council Claimant and (1) Nottingham City Council; (2) Broxtowe Borough Council, (3) Gedling Borough Council and (1) Peveril Securities Limited (2) Ukpp (Toton) Limited



Page 9

• The ‘difficulties in achieving sustainability without impinging on the green belt’;

• The ‘nature and extent of the harm to this green belt’; and

• How far the impacts on green belt purposes could be reduced.

In his decision, the Judge believed the Inspector had taken a ‘sensible and appropriate’ approach to adjudging the weight of exceptional circumstances versus the strength of the Green Belt purposes by weighing up the advantages and disadvantages of different alternative options for meeting housing need, including those which would not have involved Green Belt adjustments.

There is no definition of matters which constitute ‘exceptional circumstances’, as set out within Paragraph 83. Recent case law provides some context to the possible interpretation within Doncaster. However, there may be additional local factors which may be applicable to Doncaster, and therefore it is advised that the potential local interpretation of ‘exceptional circumstances’ is defined and reflected on as the Local Plan progresses. This reflection process will be particularly necessary should the ‘tests’ within the Housing White Paper be taken through Parliament.

2.3 Local Planning Context The development plan for Doncaster comprises the Core Strategy (adopted May 2012), and the Joint Waste Plan (March 2012) saved policies from the Unitary Development Plan (adopted July 1998). The Council is currently pursuing a new composite Local Plan that will include strategic policies and site specific allocations.

The Stage 1 Green Belt Review Methodology and Proformas details the Local Policy Context and relevant policies within these Local Plan documents. Therefore, it is only necessary to review the documents that have been released since which include:

• Site Selection Methodology and Housing/ Employment Needs Assessments (2015);

• Doncaster Local Plan Homes and Settlements paper (March 2016);

• Sustainability Appraisal (SA) of Doncaster’s Growth Options (March 2016).

Doncaster Local Plan Homes and Settlements Paper (March 2016) The Doncaster Local Plan Consultation: Homes and Settlements (March 2016) paper, which was consulted on between March and April 2016, sets out the proposed number of new homes planned and their proposed distribution across Doncaster.

Following emerging information from the Issues and Options consultation, the proposed housing distribution and the settlement hierarchy has changed since the Stage 1 Green Belt Review. The changes to the settlement hierarchy have important implications for the Stage 3 Green Belt Site Re-appraisal. The changes



Page 10

mean it is necessary to look again at the local interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes, especially Purpose 1 ‘To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas’; and Purpose 2 ‘To prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another’.

The changes in the settlement hierarchy and the effect of these changes are explored in detail below.

Purpose 1: Comparing Definitions of the Main Urban Area

The definition of the Main Urban Area set out within the Core Strategy (2012) was amended by the Issues and Options Draft of the Local Plan in July 2015. This amend resulted in the Main Urban Area containing ‘continuous built-up area from Bentley in the north to Bessacarr and Cantley in the south, and from Warmsworth in the west to Edenthorpe and Kirk Sandall in the east.

This change was already reflected in the Stage 1 Green Belt Review, and therefore does not affect the approach taken to analysing the Green Belt, as all of the locations mentioned above were already included as part of the Main Urban Area.

Proposed Revisions to the Stage 1 Local Interpretation of the Five Purposes of the Green Belt

No, the definition of ‘Large Built-up Area’ will remain the same as set out in the Stage 1 Green Belt Review (which used the Core Strategy definition of the ‘Main Urban Area’ as amended by the Issues and Options Draft, as advised by DMBC). The local interpretation as defined in Purpose 1 will remain the same.

Purpose 2: Comparing Definitions of Tier 2 and Tier 3 Settlements

Since the Stage 1 Green Belt Review, the Doncaster Local Plan Consultation: Homes and Settlements (March 2016) has re-structured the Tier 2 and Tier 3 settlements:

• Settlements previously named “Large Urban Areas”, have now become “Main Towns”, but the number of settlements within this category has remained unchanged.

• Settlements previously named “Small Urban Areas”, have become “Service Towns and Villages”. In addition, this tier of settlement has been split and sub-categories created, called “Smaller Coalfield Towns” and “Larger Villages”.

• All of the settlements previously called “Small Urban Areas” have in fact now become “Small Coalfield Towns”. However, the introduction of the sub-category of “Larger Villages” within the overall “Service Towns and Villages” means that certain settlements gain an elevated status. Table 1 compares the change in settlements included for Tier 2 and Tier 3 settlements.

The change in categories and sub-categories represents a material change since the original Stage 1 Green Belt Review. The effect is that Barnburgh and Harlington (as the only settlement within this sub-category that is within the Green Belt) is elevated to ‘neighbouring towns’ status within the local interpretation of Purpose 2.



Page 11

Table 1 Settlements included in Tier 2 and Tier 3 of the settlement hierarchy Draft Issues and Options (2015) Homes and Settlements Strategy Consultation

(2016) Large Urban Areas: Small Urban Areas Main Towns Service towns and villages,

formed by Smaller Coalfield Towns and Larger Villages

Dunscroft, Dunsville, Hatfield and Stainforth Thorne and Moorends Conisbrough and Denaby Mexborough Armthorpe Rossington Adwick and Woodlands

Carcroft and Skellow, Sprotbrough, Edlington, Askern, Tickhill Bawtry.

Dunscroft, Dunsville, Hatfield, Stainforth; Thorne & Moorends; Conisbrough & Denaby; Mexborough; Armthorpe; Rossington; Adwick & Woodlands.

Carcroft & Skellow, Sprotbrough Village, Edlington, Askern Tickhill, Bawtry. Barnby Dun, Auckley & Hayfield Green, Barnburgh & Harlington, Finningley.


• Given the ‘Small Urban Areas’ within the Draft Issues and Options (2015) are the same as the ‘Smaller Coalfield Towns’ within the Homes and Settlements paper, it is prudent to consider both of these within the Assessment of Purpose 2.

• Both the ‘Larger Villages’ and ‘Smaller Coalfield Towns’ have been given a new housing requirement, it is prudent to consider both of these within the Assessment of Purpose 2.

• This means only ‘Barnburgh and Harlington’, which are settlements in the Green Belt will be elevated to ‘Neighbouring Towns’ within local interpretation of Purpose 2, when compared to the Stage 1 assessment.

Comparing Definitions of ‘Larger Villages’ and ‘Defined Villages’

As noted above, the Doncaster Local Plan Consultation: Homes and Settlements (March 2016) paper elevates some of the ‘Larger Villages’ within a higher overall category in the settlement hierarchy.

As such, there are some settlements which were previously known as “Larger Villages”, but which have now become “Defined Villages”. Table 2 compares the settlements as previously defined in the Local Plan Issues and Options Draft (July 2015), versus what is now proposed in the Homes and Settlements paper.

The Stage 1 Green Belt Review considered, through dialogue with Doncaster Officers, that there were a number of ‘inset villages’ which could be at risk of coalescing with defined ‘towns’. The interpretation of Purpose 2 has therefore been locally adapted to retain the existing development pattern between ‘towns’ and ‘inset villages’.

The change in categorisation therefore represents a material change since the original Stage 1 Green Belt Review. The effect is that all of the “Defined Villages” will be assessed under Purpose 2, and considered as ‘inset villages’. Purpose 2 will consider their opportunity to merge with Tier 2 or Tier 3 settlements as set out above.



Page 12

Table 2 Comparison of Large Villages defined in Issues and Options and Defined Villages in the Homes and Settlements paper

Issues and Options Draft Local Plan Settlement Hierarchy (2015)

Homes and Settlements Strategy Consultation Version (2016)

Larger Villages (which become ‘Service Towns and Villages’ in the Homes and Settlements Strategy)

40 Defined Villages

Barnby Dun Auckley & Hayfield Green Barnburgh & Harlington

Finningley Adwick-upon-Dearne; Arksey; Austerfield; Blaxton; Braithwell; Braithwaite; Branton; Brodsworth; Burghwallis; Cadeby; Campsall; Clayton; Clifton; Fenwick; Fishlake; Hampole; Hatfield Woodhouse; Hickelton; Highfields; High Melton; Hooton Pagnell; Kirk Bramwith; Lindholme; Loversall; Marr; Micklebring; Moss; Norton; Old Cantley; Old Denaby; Old Edlington; Owston; Pickburn; Skelbrooke; Stainton; Sutton; Sykehouse; Thorpe in Balne; Toll Bar; Wadworth

Larger Villages (which become ‘Defined Villages’ in the Homes and Settlements Strategy) Toll Bar and Almholme Hatfield Woodhouse Highfields Wadworth

Branton Norton Campsall Arksey Blaxton


All Large Villages, which have become ‘Defined Villages’ will all be considered as ‘inset villages’ and assessed under Purpose 2 where they have an opportunity to merge with Tier 2 or Tier 3 settlements.

Sustainability Appraisal of Doncaster’s Growth Options Report (March 2016) Alongside the Homes and Settlements paper, Doncaster MBC also consulted on an updated Sustainability Appraisal (SA) of Doncaster's Growth Options. These growth options were:

• Growth Option 1: Core Strategy approach (business as usual), which maintains the current strategy contained within the Core Strategy.

• Growth Option 2: Doncaster main town focus, which is based on higher levels of growth in the main urban area of Doncaster and main towns (e.g. Armthorpe, Mexborough and Thorne) with reductions in the surrounding areas.

• Growth Option 3: Greater Dispersal, an option which distributes growth across a wider range of settlements such as smaller market towns and free-standing villages.

• Hybrid Option: The consultation also focusses on a fourth, preferred approach, which is largely based on a combination of Options 1 and 2. This option highlights the benefits of concentrating growth within the main urban area, main towns and existing service centres, which provide good access to infrastructure and service, such as public transport links, shops, leisure facilities and open space.



Page 13

Summary: Whilst the SA is likely to have a limited impact on the definition of the methodology for re-appraising Green Belt sites, the Homes and Settlements paper has generated some material changes in the settlement hierarchy, and it is important that these changes are reflected within the Stage 3 Green Belt Site Re-appraisal of the Green Belt.

The most significant effect is on the use of Purpose 2 in the re-appraisal. The following changes to Purpose 2 are:

• ‘Smaller Coalfield Towns’ and ‘Larger Villages’ have been incorporated as Tier 3 settlements, and will be included within the assessment of ‘Neighbouring Towns’ within the re-appraisal against Purpose 2. Specifically, Barnburgh and Harlington will be considered as a ‘Neighbouring Town’ under Purpose 2.

• All Large Villages, which become ‘Defined Villages’ in the Homes and Settlements paper will all be considered as ‘inset villages’. These will be assessed under Purpose 2 where they have an opportunity to merge with Tier 2 or Tier 3 settlements.



Page 14

Figure 2 Revised Settlement Hierarchy (note changes to Hierarchy tiers and the revision to the status of Barnburgh and Harlington)



Page 15

3 Approach to Green Belt Site Re-appraisal

3.1 Overview The following section of the report sets out the approach to the re-appraisal of Green Belt sites. Specifically, it sets out the ‘starting point’ for the assessment, followed by a detailed review of the methodology for assessment. This methodology largely utilises that approach set out within the Stage 1 Green Belt Review: Methodology and Proformas. The final section of this chapter sets out scenarios for using outcomes from this appraisal.

3.2 Starting Point for Assessment The ‘Starting Point for Assessment’ uses the Stage 2 Technical Site Assessment work that has been undertaken in-house by Doncaster MBC. Specifically, this includes sites that have emerged through the ‘Call for Sites’ which have then been assessed against the criteria within the HELAA and the SA.

The outcomes of these assessments, a total of 55 Green Belt sites, will be used as the ‘starting point’ for the Stage 3 Green Belt Site Re-appraisal.

To ensure an independent and objective assessment, this report does not seek to validate or review the detail within the site selection methodologies or SA (the Stage 2 Technical Site Constraints Assessment) undertaken by Doncaster MBC.

3.3 Proposed Methodology for Assessment

Step 1 – Summarise the Performance of the General Area The first stage of the assessment is to summarise the performance of the General Area against the “Local Interpretation” of the five purposes of the Green Belt, undertaken in the Stage 1 Green Belt Review: Methodology and Proformas.

As Green Belt is a strategic designation, this step is necessary to summarise the wider context for each of the Green Belt sites. In addition, the Stage 1 Green Belt Review: Methodology and Proformas assessment assumed that the ‘score offered to each General Area represents a professional judgement and will be the most reflective of the characteristics of the area’.

Given the proposed Green Belt sites for assessment in the Stage 3 work are more reflective of a ‘local’ rather than ‘strategic’ scale, there may be instances where the assessment attributable to the individual proposed Green Belt site is not wholly reflective of the assessment of the wider General Area.



Page 16

Step 2 – Extent to which Resultant Green Belt boundary forms a ‘clearly defined, readily recognisable boundary which is likely to be permanent’ Requirement

Chapter 9 of the NPPF sets out policies relating to the purpose, role and designation of Green Belt. The chapter emphasises that the ‘essential characteristics of Green Belt are their openness and permanence’ (Paragraph 79).

Paragraph 85 of the NPPF states that: “when defining boundaries, Local Planning Authorities should:

• Ensure consistency with the Local Plan strategy for meeting identified requirements for sustainable development;

• Not include land which it is unnecessary to keep permanently open;

• Where necessary, identify in their plans areas of ‘safeguarded land’ between the urban area and the Green Belt, in order to meet longer-term development needs stretching well beyond the plan period;

• Make clear that the safeguarded land is not allocated for development at the present time. Planning permission for the permanent development of safeguarded land should only be granted following a Local Plan review which proposes the development;

• Satisfy themselves that Green Belt boundaries will not need to be altered at the end of the development plan period; and

• Define boundaries clearly, using physical features that are readily recognisable and likely to be permanent”.

It is therefore necessary to assess whether the Resultant Green Belt boundary created through release of the site would be a clearly defined, readily recognisable and boundary which is likely to be permanent.

Proposed Approach

Within the Stage 3 Green Belt Site Re-appraisal, the proposed Resultant Green Belt boundary, created by indentation around the proposed Green Belt site, will be assessed for its ability to demonstrate a boundary which is clearly defined, using physical features that are readily recognisable and which are likely to be permanent. Boundary identification reflects this national requirement as stated in Table 3.

The assessment is concluded with a review of whether the boundaries are considered to be:

• ‘Strong’ Features which define the outer ‘Resultant’ boundary of the Green Belt are strongly defined, recognisable and likely to be permanent.

• ‘Mixed in Strength’ boundary features, which contain a number of outer features that are considered to be strong, durable and likely to be permanent,



Page 17

and a number of outer boundary features which are weak, not recognisable and not likely to be permanent.

• ‘Weak’ boundary features. This description will be applied to proposed Green Belt sites where the Resultant Green Belt boundary will be predominantly defined by features lacking in durability, or on sites where there is a single boundary that is not defined using any visible infrastructure or natural feature on the ground (unless other features are very strong).

Table 3 Assessing the Strength of the Resultant Green Belt Boundaries NPPF Strength of Boundary

Description

Durable/ ‘Recognisable and likely to be Permanent’ Features

Infrastructure: • Motorway; • Public and made roads or strongly defined footpath/track; • A railway line (operational or disused); • Existing residential, industrial or mixed use development with a clearly

established, regular or consistent boundaries. Landform: • Strongly defined stream, river, canal or other watercourse; • Prominent physical features (e.g. ridgeline); • Protected woodland, dense woodland or hedges which are continuous or dense; •

Features lacking in durability/ Not readily recognisable or likely to be permanent

Infrastructure: • Private/ unmade roads; • Existing development with weak, irregular, inconsistent or intermediate

boundaries. Natural: • Field Boundary; • Sparse or gappy tree line; • Shallow drainage ditch, field drain or culverted watercourse.

Step 3 – Re-appraise the Proposed Site against the Local Interpretation of Green Belt Purposes Step 3 of the Green Belt re-appraisal comprises the review of proposed Green Belt sites against the “Local Interpretation” of the five Green Belt purposes. The outcome of this assessment will be the identification of a score against each sub-criteria for each of the 55 proposed Green Belt sites.

For consistency, proposed Green Belt sites will be assessed using largely the same methodology as that set out in Stage 1 Green Belt Review from February 20166, however, it is possible for overall outcomes to be different given the difference in scales of assessment. The Purpose of this assessment is therefore not to repeat the Stage 1 assessment in its entirety, it is to calibrate the assessment of the General Area for the proposed Green Belt site. The full detailed Stage 1 Methodology has been appended to this Report.

The following section summarises the overall approach to assessment and sets out variations as necessary to proposed Stage 1 Green Belt Review.

6 http://www.doncaster.gov.uk/services/planning/green-belt-review



Page 18

Purpose 1: To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas

Sub-Criteria • Proposed Green Belt site represents open land which is contiguous to, connected to or in close proximity to a ‘large built up area’.

• Proposed Green Belt site sprawl of the built form, which would not otherwise be restricted by a durable boundary.

The scoring of this purpose, the definition of the ‘Large Built up Areas’ and the method for the assessment of the extent to which the designation within the proposed Green Belt site is considered to check the unrestricted sprawl of this ‘Large Built up Area’ will remain the same as the Stage 1 Green Belt Review.

Purpose 2: To prevent Neighbouring Towns from merging into one another

Sub-Criteria

• Proposed Green Belt site resists development that would result in merging, coalescence or significant erosion, both physical or visually of a valued gap between neighbouring settlements within the District.

• Proposed Green Belt boundary has resisted ribbon development which would otherwise have resulted in the reduction of perceived separation between settlements.

Given the settlement hierarchy has changed since the Stage 1 Green Belt Review, it is now prudent to consider the Doncaster Main Urban, Seven Main Towns7 and 10 Service Towns and Villages8 as ‘neighbouring towns’.

The definition of ‘Towns’ within neighbouring Local Authorities (set out in Table 8 within the Stage 1 Green Belt Assessment) will remain the same for the assessment of Purpose 2. The assessment will also be based on reviewing the physical, visual and perceptual scale of the gap (in the landscape context, visual context and perceptual context). Similar to the Stage 1 Green Belt Review, the Stage 3 Green Belt Site Re-appraisal assesses whether the ‘potential Green Belt site’ falls within and maintains or erodes an ‘Essential’, ‘Largely Essential or Wide Gap’ and ‘Less Essential Gap’.

The second sub-criteria, will include a review of whether the existing Green Belt boundary and the proposed Green Belt site would continue to ‘resist’, ‘resist in part’ or ‘allow unrestricted ribbon development’ which would perceptibly reduce the separation between settlements and which does not pre-date the existing Green Belt boundary. The definitions within the Stage 1 Green Belt Review and the scoring this assessment will be retained.

7 Dunscroft, Dunsville, Hatfield, Stainforth; Thorne & Moorends; Conisbrough & Denaby; Mexborough; Armthorpe; Rossington; Adwick & Woodlands. 8 Carcroft & Skellow, Sprotbrough Village Edlington, Askern Tickhill, Bawtry.Barnby Dun Auckley & Hayfield Green Barnburgh & Harlington Finningley



Page 19

Purpose 3: To assist in Safeguarding the Countryside from Encroachment

Sub-Criteria

Sensitivity of the Green Belt and features within the proposed site important to the appreciation of the countryside to change.

Extent to which these Green Belt features within the proposed site have been impacted by ‘Encroachment’.

Using the methodology and scoring set out in the Stage 1 Green Belt Review, proposed Green Belt sites will be re-appraised against the ‘Arup-defined Green Belt Sensitivity to Development’9 to understand the extent to which these areas contain features sensitive to encroachment.

Features within proposed Green Belt sites will then be assessed for the extent to which this role has been impacted by encroachment of built form. Each proposed Green Belt site will then be attributed to one of the following criteria. These are lifted from the Stage 1 Green Belt Review, and the percentages remain the same:

• Strong Unspoilt Rural Character: A proposed Green Belt site which contains almost no built form (less than 0.05%) and displays unspoilt levels of openness.

• Strong Rural Character: A proposed Green Belt site which contains a general lack of built form (between 0.05% and 1%) and is mostly characterised by rural land uses, such as agricultural uses, outdoor sport and recreational facilities, cemeteries and other ‘open’ uses of land. There is sporadic built form and a limited number of man-made structures however this is largely linked to rural land uses.

• Moderately Strong Rural Character: A proposed Green Belt site where there is low levels of built form (between 1% and 2%) which is largely linked to rural land uses, but there is evidence of low levels of ‘non-Green Belt’ or urbanised uses.

• Semi-Urban Character: A proposed Green Belt site where there is a semi-urban character (between 2% and 6%), with apparent levels of ‘non Green Belt uses’.

• Moderately-Urban Character: A proposed Green Belt site which is characterised by moderately strong urban character (6% and above) and non-Green Belt uses.

Again, qualification is necessary at this stage as there may be a number of Green Belt uses10 which strongly impact on the openness of the proposed Green Belt site. Assessments may be calibrated by one category. In addition, there may be instances where there is no built form within a proposed Green Belt site, however where the area is not considered to display an ‘unspoilt character’ as a result of strategic infrastructure or levels of containment. Again, these sites will be calibrated by one category.

9 Table 11, Stage 1 Green Belt Review 10 Set out in Paragraph 89 of the NPPF.



Page 20

Purpose 4: To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns

Sub-Criteria Proposed Green Belt site has a role in supporting the character of the Historic Town or Place within the Borough.

Proposed Green Belt site has a role in supporting the views into and out of the historic core.

The assessment will be the same as in the Stage 1 Green Belt Review. The scoring set out within the Stage 1 Green Belt Review and the proposed assessment criteria will be retained, summarised as follows:

• The definition of ‘Historic Towns’ within Doncaster will remain the same as those set out within Table 13 of the Stage 1 Green Belt Review: these include Doncaster, Conisbrough, Mexborough, Tickhill and Bawtry.

• The Historic Places within a 5km radius of Doncaster’s Local Authority boundary will also remain the same as that set out within Table 14.

• Nearby Historic Elements will be assessed for their proximity to the Proposed Green Belt site. This will be followed by the Green Belt within the area will be assessed for its role in preserving the historic core.

Purpose 5: Assisting in Urban Regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land’

The Doncaster Core Strategy (2012) defines a number of regeneration objectives for specific areas within the Borough which are set out in the Stage 1 Green Belt Review as above. Proposed Green Belt sites which are considered to be contiguous or connected to any of the regeneration priority areas outlined the settlements listed above. The assessment criteria for Purpose 5 have therefore been retained within the Stage 3 Green Belt Sites Re-appraisal.

Step 4 – Summary of Re-appraisal The final stage of the Stage 3 Green Belt Sites Re-appraisal will provide a summary of the following:

• A review of how the Stage 1 General Area performed against the strategic assessment of Green Belt;

• An appraisal of the proposed Green Belt boundary, and whether this would represent a ‘strongly defined and durable’ resultant Green Belt site boundary; and

• A review of the re-appraisal of land against the “Local Interpretation” of the five purposes of the Green Belt, which will also include an assessment of how the site would functionally relate to an inset settlement.

Sub-Criteria • Doncaster Urban Area. • Askern. • Adwick / Woodlands. • Carcroft / Skellow. • Mexborough.

• Conisborough. • Edlington. • Rossington. • Denaby



Page 21

3.4 Assumptions The Stage 3 Green Belt Sites Re-appraisal of land is based on the following assumptions.

• That the Stage 3 Green Belt Site Re-appraisal is read in conjunction with the Stage 1 Green Belt Review: Methodology and Proformas.

• The Stage 3 Green Belt Site Re-appraisal does not seek to validate the site selection work undertaken in-house by Doncaster MBC. Instead, the re-appraisal seeks to assess the implications of removing an area of Green Belt against the “Local Interpretation” of the five purposes of the Green Belt, and to re-appraise the strength of a Resultant Green Belt boundary.

• Whilst proposed Green Belt sites will be assessed using largely the same methodology as that set out in Stage 1 Green Belt Review from February 201611, it is possible for overall outcomes to be different given the difference in scales of assessment. The purpose of this assessment is not to repeat the Stage 1 work, but it to calibrate the original assessment of the General Area for the proposed Green Belt site.

• The Stage 3 Green Belt Site Re-appraisal does not set out whether sites should be released from the Green Belt. This will remain a decision for Doncaster MBC based of a combination of factors, such as: acuteness and intensity of housing need, constraints on the supply and availability of land, nature and extent of harm to the Green Belt and balance between sustainable developments without impinging on the Green Belt to support the definition of exceptional circumstances.

• Professional judgement will be used to assess the strength of proposed Green Belt boundary, or the extent to which a proposed Green Belt site performs against the “Local Interpretation” of the five Green Belt purposes in circumstances where the site has a mixed role.

• The “Local Interpretation” of Green Belt Purpose 4 (‘Preserving the Setting and Special Character of a Historic Town’) focuses on the ‘Complex Historic Town Cores’ within the South Yorkshire Historic Environmental Characterisation Project (2004 – 2008). Given the high level and strategic nature of the Stage 1 Green Belt Review, and the Stage 3 Green Belt Sites Re-appraisal, this assessment does not preclude the needs for a Heritage Impact Assessment to be carried out within future site selection processes, or as part of any subsequent planning applications.

• Again, as the Stage 3 Green Belt Sites Re-appraisal focuses on the extent to which the Green Belt site fulfils the “Local Interpretation” of the five Green Belt purposes; and does not substitute any other local plan evidence base documents, this assessment does not preclude the need for a Green Infrastructure Strategy, Landscape Strategy, Landscape Character Assessment or Landscape and Visual Assessment of specific sites.

11 http://www.doncaster.gov.uk/services/planning/green-belt-review



Page 22

• The summary of the Stage 3 Green Belt Sites Re-appraisal is not based on an aggregate scoring system, or an assessment against pre-determined thresholds. It is considered that aggregation of scoring hides the often subtle variation between the Green Belt sites, and their role within the South Yorkshire Green Belt. Therefore, the summaries provided will require further consideration alongside other evidence, and will need to be incorporated as part of the Council’s own site selection work before any sites could be identified in the emerging Local Plan.

• Each of the proposed Green Belt sites has been assessed in isolation for the strength of their proposed Green Belt boundary features and the Resultant Boundary, followed by an assessment of the extent to which the Green Belt site performs against the “Local Interpretation” of the five Green Belt purposes. Should it be the case, that later within the local plan-making process proposed Green Belt sites are amalgamated by Doncaster MBC, then it is suggested that these newly constructed sites will need to be re-assessed against the Stage 3 Green Belt Site Re-appraisal methodology.

• Both proposed sites for employment and proposed sites for housing have been assessed in the same approach.

• Doncaster MBC anticipates, having regard to the development requirement and growth distribution strategy, that only a relatively small number of the 55 sites will be required for release from the green belt but need to understand the relative merits of different sites in terms of green belt impacts to place alongside other site selection considerations including SA findings, viability appraisal, and flood sequential testing so as to inform overall decisions about site selection.



Page 23

4 Summarising the Stage 3 Green Belt Sites Re-appraisal

4.1 Overview In order to help bring the Stage 3 work to a coherent conclusion, it has been possible to assign indicative grades to both the assessment of the Green Belt sites’ boundary strength; and the Green Belt sites’ performance against the “Local Interpretation” of the five Green Belt purposes. The methodology for the grading is set out in Table 4 and Table 5 below.

A summary of the overall outcome for each of the 55 Green Belt sites can be found in Appendix 1. The detailed information on each of the 55 Green Belt sites is set out within the proformas found in Appendix 2.

4.2 Grading Table 4 and Table 5 set out the indicative thresholds for summarising the ‘Boundary Strength’ and ‘Performance against the Local Interpretation of the Green Belt’ of the proposed Green Belt sites.

Grading: Boundary Strength

Proposed Green Belt sites were assessed for the strength of the existing Green Belt boundary. This assessment uses the wording set out in ‘Step 2: Extent to which the Resultant Green Belt Boundary forms a clearly defined, readily recognisable boundary which is likely to be permanent’.

Table 4 Assessment of the Strength of the Proposed Green Belt Boundary

Grading Boundary Strength

Weak Weak boundary features. This description will be applied to Proposed Green Belt Sites where the Resultant Green Belt boundary will be predominantly defined by features lacking in durability, or on sites where there is a single boundary that is not defined using any visible infrastructure or natural feature on the ground (unless other features are very strong).

Mixed in Strength

Mixed in Strength boundary features, which contain a number of outer features that are considered to be strong, durable and likely to be permanent, and a number of outer boundary features which are weak, not recognisable and not likely to be permanent.

Strong Strong Features which define the outer ‘Resultant’ boundary of the Green Belt are strongly defined, recognisable and likely to be permanent.

Grading: Local Interpretation of Green Belt Purposes

Table 5 sets out indicative ‘grading’ or thresholds by which proposed Green Belt sites are considered to perform ‘strongly’, ‘moderately’ or weakly’ when assessed against the “Local Interpretation” of the five Green Belt purposes.

These ‘gradings’ are not purely arithmetic, but instead are considered to be indicative, based on ‘natural breaks in scoring’ and based on a reasoned



Page 24

professional judgement arising from the individual scorings of proposed Green Belt sites against the “Local Interpretation” of five Green Belt purposes.

Table 5 Assessment of the extent to which the Proposed Green Belt Site performs against the Local Interpretation of the Five Green Belt Purposes

Grading Indicative Summary of Performance against Green Belt Purposes

Strongly Performs against Local Interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes

Proposed Green Belt Sites which score: a 5 and two 4’s or higher across any single sub-criteria for any Purpose in the Stage 3 Green Belt Site Re-appraisal. Other combinations could include 5, 5, 5 or 5, 5, 4. These Sites are considered to perform strongly when assessed against the Local Interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes.

Moderately Performs against Local Interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes

Proposed Green Belt Site which scores a 4 and two 3’s or higher across any single sub-criteria for any Purpose in the Stage 3 Green Belt Site Re-appraisal. There may be an occurrence of one ‘5’, however this must not be in the presence of two or more 4’s. Other combinations could include: 5, 4, 3; or 4, 4, 3; or 4, 4, 4. These Sites are considered to perform moderately when assessed against the Local Interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes.

Weakly Performs against Local Interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes

Proposed Green Belt Site which scores 3, 3 and 3 or lower across any single sub-criteria for any Purpose in the Stage 3 assessment. Other combinations could include: 3, 2, 2; 2, 2, 2 or lower. These Sites are considered to perform weakly when assessed against the Local Interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes.



Page 25

5 Conclusion

5.1 Overview The final section of the Stage 3 Green Belt Site Re-appraisal summarises the outcomes of the work, advises how these outcomes could potentially be aligned to local plan-making, and sets out further actions for Doncaster MBC to consider.

5.2 Summary of Assessment Outcomes Having considered both the boundary strength, and the “Local Interpretation” of five Green Belt purposes, it is natural to link the two elements together. Indeed, Appendix 1 does this, and allows for an overall analysis of each of the 55 sites by marrying the two parts of assessment together.

The ultimate decision on whether to release sites from the Green Belt must take place during the local plan-making process. As such, it is not appropriate for this study to make specific conclusions about which sites (if any) should be released. Doncaster MBC has confirmed that further site selection work will happen during the production of the local plan, and it will be during this process that firm decisions can be taken.

However, to help inform the site selection process, and to help differentiate the 55 Green Belt sites, it has been possible to define a “Strength of Case” for each site based on a comparison of the two elements of the Stage 3 Green Belt Sites Re-appraisal. The “Strength of Case” matrix is set out in Table 6 below.

By considering the relationship between boundary strength, and the “Local Interpretation” of the five Green Belt purposes, different categories of case can be derived. These are:

• Strong Case;

• Moderately Strong Case;

• Moderate Case;

• Moderately Weak Case; and

• Weak Case.

Again, these categories are indicative, and represent matters of judgement. They are meant to serve as an instructive way of moving Doncaster MBC towards the more detailed site selection work. Should any subsequent work identify sites to be released from the Green Belt, Doncaster MBC will need to ensure that ‘exceptional circumstances’ have been demonstrated.



Page 26

Table 6 Indicative ‘Strength of Case’ Matrix

Boundary Strength

Strong Boundary Mixed in Strength Boundary

Weak Boundary

Performance against Green Belt Purposes Weakly Performs against Local Interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes

Strong Case for inclusion within further Site Selection work: Strong Boundary and Weakly Performing

Moderately Strong Case for inclusion within further Site Selection work: Mixed in Strength Boundary and Weakly Performing

Moderate Case for inclusion within further Site Selection work: Weak Boundary Strength Boundary but Weakly Performing

Moderately Performs against Local Interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes

Moderately Strong Case for inclusion within further Site Selection work: Strong Boundary and Moderately Performing

Moderate Case for inclusion within further Site Selection work: Mixed in Strength Boundary and Moderately Performing

Moderately Weak Case for inclusion within further Site Selection work: Weak Boundary but Moderately Performing

Strongly Performs against Local Interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes

Moderate Case for inclusion within further Site Selection work: Strong Boundary but Strongly Performing

Moderately Weak Case for inclusion within further Site Selection work: Mixed in Strength Boundary but Strongly Performing

Weak Case for inclusion within further Site Selection work: Weak Boundary and Strongly Performing

Based on the Strength of Case matrix, it has been possible to differentiate the 55 sites as follows:

• One proposed Green Belt site whereby there is a Strong Case for furthering through the Doncaster MBC site selection process.

• Eight proposed Green Belt sites where a Moderately Strong Case exists for furthering through the Doncaster MBC site selection process.

• 18 proposed Green Belt sites were a Moderate Case exists for furthering through the Doncaster MBC site selection process.

• 19 proposed Green Belt sites where there is a Moderately Weak Case for furthering through the Doncaster MBC site selection process.

• Nine proposed Green Belt sites were a Weak Case exists for furthering through the Doncaster MBC site selection process.

It is suggested that Doncaster MBC reflects on the relative Strength of Case for each of the 55 sites in taking forward the site selection process during the course of producing the local plan.



Page 27

5.3 Aligning Outputs from the Stage 3 Re-appraisal with Progression of Sites through the Local Plan

The Stage 3 Green Belt Site Re-appraisal itself does not constitute a decision to release land from the Green Belt. Alongside a framework of other information, including the assessment of objectively assessed need and finalised site selection methodology, the outcomes of this Stage 3 Green Belt Site Re-appraisal will contribute towards decisions about sites to be allocated within the emerging Local Plan. Any release of land from the Green Belt would need to be supported by the identification of ‘exceptional circumstances’ within Doncaster.

The Stage 3 Green Belt Site Re-Appraisal does not represent the end of a process; indeed, it is likely to result in a range of outcomes, which will require different targeted responses from Doncaster MBC.

5.4 Next Steps In utilising this Stage 3 Green Belt Site Re-appraisal, Doncaster MBC should consider the following recommendations and next steps:

• The outcomes of this Stage 3 Green Belt Site Re-appraisal should be used to help progress the Council’s site selection work. Whilst the local plan-making process is the correct vehicle to consider the potential release of sites from the Green Belt, the weight given to Green Belt designation, alongside the emerging intentions within the Housing White Paper, serve as a reminder that the potential release of Green Belt sites require careful consideration and must be supported by extremely robust justification, and a thorough appraisal of alternative solutions.

• On this basis, the Council will need to confirm what factors, if any, will constitute ‘exceptional circumstances’ that would justify the release of Green Belt sites. Realistically, exceptional circumstances for removing land from the Green Belt are likely to derive from a balance of factors. Determining exceptional circumstances will need to draw on the ‘Strength of Case’ conclusions from Section 4.2 and 4.3. The recent legal case for Calverton Parish Council v Nottingham City Council, Broxtowe Borough Council and Gedling Borough Council case, considered that a Local Planning Authority should balance:

• ‘acuteness/intensity of the housing need’;

• The ‘constraints on the supply/availability of land…suitable for development’;

• The ‘difficulties in achieving sustainability without impinging on the green belt’;

• The ‘nature and extent of the harm to this green belt’; and

• How far the impacts on green belt purposes could be reduced.



Page 28

• In determining whether there are exceptional circumstances that would justify the removal of sites from the Green Belt, the Council should also separately consider wider place-making issues. This may lead to the conclusion that certain sites may need to be amalgamated to achieve better outcomes. Where this is the case, amalgamated sites will need to be re-tested for new Resultant Boundaries and to re-test the extent to which any newly amalgamated sites would perform against the Local Interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes.

• As set out in Paragraph 85 of the NPPF, Doncaster MBC will also need to consider the extent, quantum and location of Safeguarded Land ‘where necessary’. The first stage in defining new safeguarded land will be to identify land which is performing weakly against the Purposes of the Green Belt and which has a strongly defined boundary. Alongside these sites, there is a need to determine the requirement for Safeguarded Lane, Quantum and Location.

• Future decision-making on whether to release sites from the Green Belt should be mindful of any Duty to Co-operate issues that may arise. Duty to Co-operate issues are likely to be two-fold. Firstly – in terms of immediate geographic and cross-border issues for neighbouring authorities: Barnsley, Rotherham, Wakefield and Selby. Secondly – in terms of matters of “need” and any consideration of housing and economic growth that would be released on Green Belt sites and whether this affects neighbouring authority’s growth strategies and objective assessment of needs.



Page 1

Appendix 1: Assessment Summary

Ref in Proforma Report

GIS Ref

Name Settlement Comments on Boundaries Appraised against Five Purposes View on Purposes Indicative Grading

Purpose 1

Purpose 2a

Purpose 2b

Purpose3a

Purpose 3b

Purpose 4a

Purpose 4b

Purpose 5

35 458 Land off Church Lane, Adwick

Adwick le Street 458

Mixed in Strength: The Proposed Green Belt boundary would be defined by the extent of shallow drainage ditch in the north east, a weakly defined field boundary with moderate scale shrubs in central northern area and a railway line in the far north. The Proposed Green Belt boundary is therefore considered to be very strong in the far north, and weak elsewhere. The Proposed Green Belt and therefore the Resultant Green Belt boundary are considered to be mixed in strength.

1 5 3 4 4 1 1 4 Strongly Performs against Local Interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes (Purpose 2 and 3): The Proposed Green Belt boundary has a moderately strong role when assessed against the local interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes. Whilst the Proposed Green Belt site is not considered to have a role in checking the unrestricted sprawl of a ‘large built up area’, the Proposed Green Belt site (particularly in the northern area) is considered to play a strong role in preventing neighbouring towns from merging. Although the Proposed Green Belt Site falls within the Conservation Area, as Adwick le Street is not considered to be a ‘historic town’ in the local interpretation of Purpose 4, the Proposed Site has only a weak role in preserving the setting and special character of a historic town. Nevertheless, when assessed for the extent to which the Proposed Green Belt Site has a role in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, the Site is considered to contain features which are not easily replaced and therefore possess a moderate-high sensitivity to encroachment. As Adwick le Street is identified as a Regeneration Priority Area, the Proposed Green Belt site is considered to have a moderately strong role in assisting in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.


36 459 Land off Doncaster Lane, Adwick


Weak: The Proposed Green Belt boundary would be defined by an angular area of built form along Doncaster Lane in the north, a weakly defined shallow field boundary in the east which is not supported by any other features, and a field boundary in the south. The Proposed Green Belt boundary features and the Resultant Boundary would be weakly defined, weakly recognisable in the long-term and unlikely to be permanent.

1 5 3 3 4 1 1 3 Moderately Performs against Local Interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes: The Proposed Green Belt boundary has a moderately strong role when assessed against the local interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes. Whilst the Proposed Green Belt site is not considered to have a role in checking the unrestricted sprawl of a ‘large built up area’, the Proposed Green Belt site (particularly in the northern area) is considered to play a strong role in preventing neighbouring towns from merging. The Proposed Green Belt Site is considered to have a Strong Rural Character, as a result of no built form within the Site; however overall, the Site is considered to contain features of moderate sensitivity to encroachment, Although the Proposed Green Belt Site is adjacent to the Conservation Area, as Adwick le Street is not considered to be a ‘historic town’ in the local interpretation of Purpose 4, the Proposed Site has only a weak role in preserving the setting and special character of a historic town. As Adwick le Street is identified as a Regeneration Priority Area, the Proposed Green Belt site is considered to have a moderate role in assisting in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.




Page 2


GIS Ref


Purpose 1

Purpose 2a

Purpose 2b

Purpose3a

Purpose 3b

Purpose 4a

Purpose 4b

Purpose 5

37 461 Redhouse Lane (a) North West, Adwick


Mixed in Strength: The Proposed Green Belt boundary would be defined by the A1(M) and the Great North Road A638 in the south west, the strongly defined operational railway line in the north, Redhouse Lane in the south and a weakly defined field boundary and cemetery in the east. The Proposed Green Belt features are therefore mixed in strength, strong in the north, south and west and weak in the east. In isolation, however, release of the Proposed Green Belt site would result in a weak Resultant Green Belt boundary which would acutely protrude from the A1(M) with no connection to an area of existing built form.

1 3 5 4 4 1 1 2 Strongly Performs against Local Interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes: The Proposed Green Belt boundary has a modest role when assessed against the local interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes. The Proposed Green Belt site is not considered to have a role in checking the unrestricted sprawl of a ‘large built up area’, and a moderate role in preventing neighbouring towns from merging. The role of the Proposed Green Belt site in preventing neighbouring towns from merging would increase to an essential gap if development were to take place to the north of the railway line. The Proposed Green Belt Site is considered to contain features which are of a moderate-high sensitivity to development, which displays a Strong Rural Character. As Adwick le Street is not considered to be a ‘historic town’ in the local interpretation of Purpose 4, the Proposed Green Belt Site has only a limited role in preserving the setting and special character of a historic town. As Adwick le Street is identified as a Regeneration Priority Area, the Proposed Green Belt site is considered to have a role, albeit moderately weak, in assisting in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.


38 462 Land off Adwick Lane, Carcroft


Mixed in Strength: The Proposed Green Belt boundary would be defined by the strongly defined operational railway line in the west, and a weakly defined field boundary in the south supported by a field drain in the south east. The Proposed Green Belt boundaries, and therefore the Resultant Green Belt boundary, are therefore considered to be mixed in strength: strongly defined in the west and weak in the south.

1 0 0 3 5 1 2 3 Moderately Performs against Local Interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes: The Proposed Green Belt site would have a moderate role when assessed against the local interpretation of the Green Belt purposes. The Proposed Green Belt site would have a weak role in checking the unrestricted sprawl of the large built up area, no role in preventing neighbouring towns from merging as this has already happened through the employment land allocation and moderate role in assisting in urban regeneration. The Proposed Green Belt site does not support the setting or special character of a historic town. However, the Proposed Green Belt Site is considered to have a moderate sensitivity to encroachment and 0.0% built form. If the employment allocation to the north east of the Proposed Site had been developed, the Proposed Site would be more characteristic of a Strong Rural Character.


40 512 Redhouse Lane (b) North East, Adwick


Weak: The Proposed Green Belt boundary would be weakly defined by a field boundary in the north and the extent of weakly defined field drain in the north east. Whilst Red House Lane predominantly forms the southern boundary of the General Area, this sharply indents in the central area around a number of field boundaries. Whilst Red House Lane to the south forms a strongly defined and durable feature, the strength of all other boundaries and the weakly defined, central indented area means that the Proposed Green Belt Boundaries are considered to be weak. In isolation, the Resultant Green Belt boundary would create an angular area of residential built form which acutely extends to the north of Adwick le Street.

1 3 0 3 4 1 1 3 Moderately Performs against Local Interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes: The Proposed Green Belt site is not considered to have a role in checking the unrestricted sprawl of a ‘large built up area’, and a moderate role in preventing neighbouring towns from merging. The role of the Proposed Green Belt site in preventing neighbouring towns from merging would increase to an essential gap if development were to take place to the north of the railway line. The Green Belt at this location is considered to have a moderate role in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment: land contains features which are of moderate sensitivity to encroachment, and displays a ‘strong rural character’. As Adwick le Street is not considered to be a ‘historic town’ in the local interpretation of Purpose 4, the Proposed Green Belt Site has only a limited role in preserving the setting and special character of a historic town. As Adwick le Street is identified as a Regeneration Priority Area, the Proposed Green Belt site is considered to have a moderate role in assisting in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.




Page 3


GIS Ref


Purpose 1

Purpose 2a

Purpose 2b

Purpose3a

Purpose 3b

Purpose 4a

Purpose 4b

Purpose 5

41 513 Redhouse Lane (c) South, Adwick


Strong: The Proposed Green Belt boundary would be defined by Red House Lane in the north and east, and the extent of the Great North Road in the east. The Resultant Green Belt boundary would therefore result in a strongly defined feature which would represent a natural rounding off to north of Adwick le Street to mirror the extent of built form to the west of the Great North Road.

1 3 0 3 4 1 1 3 Moderately Performs against Local Interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes: The Proposed Green Belt site is not considered to have a role in checking the unrestricted sprawl of a ‘large built up area’, and a moderate role in preventing neighbouring towns from merging. As Adwick le Street is not considered to be a ‘historic town’ in the local interpretation of Purpose 4, the Proposed Green Belt Site has only a limited role in preserving the setting and special character of a historic town. As Adwick le Street is identified as a Regeneration Priority Area, the Proposed Green Belt site is considered to have a moderate role in assisting in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. Although the Green Belt Site contains no built form, the land at this location is considered to only be of moderate sensitivity to encroachment. The Green Belt designation at this location has a moderate role in assisting in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.


11 143 Land North of Primary School, Church Lane, Barnburgh

Barnburgh and Harlington 143

Mixed in Strength: The Proposed Green Belt boundary would be created by a weakly defined field boundary in the east and south east, the rear of residential dwellings along Fox Lane in the north and copse of trees in the north west. Whilst the Proposed Green Belt Boundary features are Mixed in Strength, the Resultant Green Belt boundary would be formed by a stepped and angular area of residential built form which would be more coherent than existing provision.

1 1 0 4 5 1 1 1 Moderately Performs against Local Interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes: The Proposed Green Belt Site has a weak role in checking the unrestricted sprawl of a large built up area, a weak role in assisting in urban regeneration and a weak role in preserving the setting and special character of a historic town. The Proposed Green Belt site would support a moderate role in preventing neighbouring towns from merging and have a moderate-strong role in assisting in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.


42 777 'Plot 3', Harlington

Barnburgh and Harlington 777

Mixed in Strength: The Proposed Green Belt boundary is defined by the extent of residential development along Mill Lane, a field boundary supported by a pylon in the south and built form in the east. Whilst the southern boundary is defined by somewhat weak features, release of the Proposed Green Belt Site would result in a strong and linear, readily recognisable and likely to be permanent Green Belt boundary created by reflecting the extent of the built form at this location.

1 3 0 2 1 1 1 1 Weakly Performs against Local Interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes: The Proposed Green Belt Site has a weak role in checking the unrestricted sprawl of a large built up area, a weak role in assisting in urban regeneration and a weak role in preserving the setting and special character of a historic town. The Proposed Green Belt site would support a moderate role in preventing neighbouring towns from merging. The Proposed Green Belt Site has a weak role in assisting in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.




Page 4


GIS Ref


Purpose 1

Purpose 2a

Purpose 2b

Purpose3a

Purpose 3b

Purpose 4a

Purpose 4b

Purpose 5

9 141 Westwood Road, Bawtry

Bawtry 141 Strong : The proposed Green Belt boundary would be defined by a strongly defined wooded area, which is likely to be permanent in the west; the Doncaster Administrative Boundary in the south which is supported by a drain associated with the River Idle and Westwood Road in the north east. The proposed Green Belt boundary features are therefore considered to be strongly defined in the west and north east and moderately strongly defined in the south. Removal of the Proposed Green Belt Site would represent a strong Resultant Green Belt boundary which rounds off the built form of Bawtry.

1 0 0 1 4 2 1 1 Weakly Performs against Local Interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes: Given the scale and the distinctly separate nature of the Proposed Green Belt Site from the wider General Area, the Proposed Site performs somewhat differently to the wider General Area. The Proposed Green Belt site is considered to contain land which is of low sensitivity to encroachment, however which contains no built form. The Proposed Green Belt Site has a weak role in preserving the unrestricted sprawl of a large built up area, makes no discernable contribution to preventing neighbouring towns from merging and has a limited role in preserving the setting of the historic core of Bawtry. The Green Belt at this location is not considered to have a role in supporting urban regeneration.

Strong Case for inclusion within further Site Selection work: Strong Boundary and Weakly Performing

13 146 Tickhill Road, Bawtry

Bawtry 146 Mixed in strength (Strong to the north and south, and weak to the west): The proposed Green Belt boundary would be defined to the north by the strongly defined and likely to be durable Martin Lane, in the west by a weakly defined field boundary which contains occasional trees and larger shrubs particularly further to the south. The proposed Green Belt boundary to the south would be defined by Tickhill Road.

1 3 5 4 5 2 1 1 Strongly Performs against Local Interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes: The Proposed Green Belt site largely performs in a similar manner to the wider Green Belt General Area. The Proposed Site performs weakly when assessed against the extent to which the Green Belt checks the unrestricted sprawl of a large-built up area, has a moderately-weak role in preserving the setting and special character of Bawtry, and has a moderate role in preventing neighbouring towns from merging. In addition, the Green Belt at this location is not considered to have a role in assisting urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. The Green Belt at this location is considered to have a strong role in assisting in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, with no built form encroaching into the area and Site which contains features that are of moderate-high sensitivity to encroachment.


43 786 South of Cockhill Close, Bawtry

Bawtry 786 Strong (Strong boundary features, however Resultant Boundary would be weak): The Proposed Green Belt boundary would be defined by a strongly defined wooded corridor to the west, south and east of the site. These boundaries are considered to be strong, recognisable and likely to be permanent. Release of the Proposed Green Belt site at this location would however result in an angular area of built form that would protrude beyond the existing extent of Bawtry. Therefore, whilst the boundary features are considered to be strong, the Resultant Green Belt boundary is considered to be angular.

1 1 0 4 4 5 1 1 Strongly Performs against Local Interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes (Purpose 3 and 4): The Proposed Green Belt site performs in largely the same manner as the General Area; it is considered to be performing a weak role in checking the unrestricted sprawl of a large-built up area, a weak role in preventing neighbouring towns from merging and in the extent to which the Green Belt assists in supporting regeneration. The Proposed Green Belt Site is considered to have a moderately strong role in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment: the Site contains features which area of moderate sensitivity to encroachment, but no ‘encroachment’ has taken place. The Green Belt at this location plays a strong role in preserving the setting and special character of Bawtry, however views to features within the historic core are very limited.

Moderate Case for inclusion within further Site Selection work: Strong Boundary but Strongly Performing



Page 5


GIS Ref


Purpose 1

Purpose 2a

Purpose 2b

Purpose3a

Purpose 3b

Purpose 4a

Purpose 4b

Purpose 5

50 873 Site A, Land at Martin Common Farm, Bawtry

Bawtry 873 Weak: The proposed Green Belt boundary would be weakly defined by a field boundary supported by moderately dense field boundaries to the west, the A639 Great North Road in the east which represents a strongly defined Green Belt feature and a weakly defined boundary in the north which is based on no infrastructure or natural boundaries. Whilst release of the Proposed Green Belt site would result in a northern extension to Bawtry, the Proposed Green Belt boundary features, particularly to the north, are therefore considered to be weak.

1 1 5 4 5 2 1 1 Strongly Performs against Local Interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes (Purpose 3): The Proposed Green Belt site largely performs in a similar manner to the wider Green Belt General Area. The Proposed Site performs weakly when assessed against the extent to which the Green Belt checks the unrestricted sprawl of a large-built up area, has a moderately-weak role in preserving the setting and special character of Bawtry, and has a moderate role in preventing neighbouring towns from merging by resisting ribbon development. The Green Belt at this location is not considered to have a role in assisting urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land, however the Site contains land which is considered to have a strong role in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.


51 874 Site B (Safeguarded), Land at Martin Common Farm, Bawtry

Bawtry 874 Weak (strong to the east and north, and weaker to the west and south): The proposed Green Belt boundary would be weakly defined by a moderately dense field boundary to the west; the A639 Great North Road in the east which represents a strongly defined Green Belt feature; the Martin Grange Farm Lane in the north which has been identified as an adopted road by DMBC and therefore is considered to be a recognisable and likely to be permanent feature; and a weakly defined boundary in the south which is based on no infrastructure or natural boundaries. In isolation, the Proposed Green Belt site would represent a remote site and an angular area of built form. The Proposed Green Belt boundary features are considered to be weak, and would create a Resultant Green Belt boundary that is formed by weak boundary features and which results in an angular and isolated area of built form.

1 1 5 4 5 2 1 1 Strongly Performs against Local Interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes (Purpose 3): The Proposed Green Belt site largely performs in a similar manner to the wider Green Belt General Area. The Proposed Site performs weakly when assessed against the extent to which the Green Belt checks the unrestricted sprawl of a large-built up area, has a moderately-weak role in preserving the setting and special character of Bawtry, and has a moderate role in preventing neighbouring towns from merging through resisting ribbon development The Green Belt at this location is not considered to have a role in assisting urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land, however, the Proposed Site does have a strong role in assisting in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.


3 42 Land to rear of Skellow Hall

Carcroft and Skellow 042

Mixed in Strength: In isolation, the Proposed Green Belt Site boundary is defined on all sides by a dense and recognisable tree boundary, which is likely to be permanent. However, if the Proposed Green Belt site was removed from the Green Belt, the resultant boundary to the south of Carcroft would be acutely angular, indented and stepped. Release of the Proposed Green Belt site would therefore result in a boundary which is weak, irregular and inconsistent.

1 3 0 4 4 1 1 3 Moderately Performs against Local Interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes: The Proposed Green Belt site is not considered to have a role in preventing the sprawl of a large built up area, a weak role in preserving the setting and special character of a ‘Historic Town’ and only a moderate role in assisting in regeneration. The Site falls within and maintains a largely essential gap between Carcroft and Skellow and Adwick le Street. Owing to the level of mature trees within the area, the proximity to the conservation area and the high levels of containment, development at this location is considered to have a moderately strong role in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.




Page 6


GIS Ref


Purpose 1

Purpose 2a

Purpose 2b

Purpose3a

Purpose 3b

Purpose 4a

Purpose 4b

Purpose 5

12 145 Land at Skellow


Weak: The proposed outer Green Belt boundary comprises field boundaries in the east and south west which are supported by a number of medium sized boundary trees, and a field boundary to the south. Both of these Proposed Boundaries are weakly defined. Release of the Proposed Green Belt site would result in an angular area of residential built form along Hampole Balk Lane, which would be weaker than the existing Green Belt boundary.

1 3 5 2 4 1 1 4 Strongly Performs against Local Interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes (Purpose 2b, 3b and 5): The Proposed Green Belt boundary has a similar role to the wider General Area when assessed against the local interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes. The Proposed Green Belt site is not considered to have a role in checking the unrestricted sprawl of a ‘large built up area’, and a moderate role in preventing neighbouring towns from merging. The role of the Proposed Green Belt site in preventing neighbouring towns from merging would increase to an essential gap if development were to take place to the south of the railway line. The Proposed Site is considered to contain land which is of a low-moderate sensitivity to development, and which contains no built form. As Carcroft and Skellow is not considered to be a ‘historic town’ in the local interpretation of Purpose 4, the Proposed Green Belt Site has only a limited role in preserving the setting and special character of a historic town. However, as Carcroft and Skellow are identified as a Regeneration Priority Area, the Proposed Green Belt site is considered to have a moderately strong role in assisting in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.


16 165 Land North of the A1, Skellow


Strong: The Proposed Green Belt boundary would be defined by the A1(M) in the west and Green Lane in the North. The Proposed Green Belt boundary features are therefore considered to be strong and the Resultant Green Belt boundary would result in a natural rounding off of Skellow.

1 1 0 3 4 1 1 3 Moderately Performs against Local Interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes: The Proposed Green Belt site would perform in a largely similar manner to the wider General Area. The Proposed Site is not considered to be checking the unrestricted sprawl of a large built up area, nor preserving the setting and special character of a historic town, and the Site is considered to have only a moderate role in assisting in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. The Green Belt at this location is considered to maintain a less essential gap between Skellow and Burghwallis, and the Site is considered to have a moderate-strong role in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.


17 185 Land at Mill Lane and Crabgate, Skellow


Weak: The Proposed Green Belt boundary would be defined by an agricultural field boundary in the north and east, and an area of residential built form off Mill Lane in the west. The Proposed Green Belt boundaries are therefore considered to be predominantly weak. Whilst the resultant Green Belt boundary would round-off the angularity of the existing Green Belt boundary, the outcome would not be any stronger than what already exists.

1 1 0 4 5 1 1 4 Strongly Performs against Local Interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes: The Proposed Green Belt site would perform in a largely similar manner to the wider General Area. The Proposed Site is not considered to be checking the unrestricted sprawl of a large built up area, nor preserving the setting and special character of a historic town, and the Site is considered to have a moderately strong role in assisting in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. The Green Belt at this location is considered to maintain a less essential gap between Skellow and Burghwallis. However, the land within the Proposed Green Belt Site is considered to have a moderately strong role in assisting in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, owing to the site containing features which are of moderately-strong sensitivity to encroachment and no existing encroachment.




Page 7


GIS Ref


Purpose 1

Purpose 2a

Purpose 2b

Purpose3a

Purpose 3b

Purpose 4a

Purpose 4b

Purpose 5

18 186 Land off Crabgate Lane, Skellow


Mixed in strength:: The Proposed Green Belt boundary would be defined by an agricultural field boundary in the north, which is considered to be a weakly-defined and not likely to be permanent feature. Boundaries to the east and west would be strongly defined by the A1(M) and Crabgate Lane. The Proposed Green Belt boundary would therefore be mixed in strength, however the Resultant Green Belt boundary would create a natural rounding off to the built form of Carcroft and Skellow.

1 1 0 3 4 1 1 3 Moderately Performs against Local Interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes: The Proposed Green Belt site would perform in a largely similar manner to the wider General Area. The Proposed Site is not considered to be checking the unrestricted sprawl of a large built up area, nor preserving the setting and special character of a historic town, and the Site is considered to have only a moderate role in assisting in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. The Green Belt at this location is considered to maintain a less essential gap between Skellow and Burghwallis.


29 273 Askern Road, Carcroft


Weak: The Proposed Green Belt boundary would be defined by a field boundary, an indented area defined by a shallow field drain and a further field boundary. Proposed Green Belt boundaries are therefore considered to be weak. Whilst the resultant Green Belt boundary would round-off the angularity of the existing Green Belt boundary, the resultant boundary would be of equal strength to what already exists.

1 1 0 3 4 1 1 4 Moderately Performs against Local Interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes: The Proposed Green Belt site would perform in a largely similar manner to the wider General Area. The Proposed Site is not considered to be checking the unrestricted sprawl of a large built up area, nor preserving the setting and special character of a historic town, and the Site is considered to have a moderately strong role in assisting in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. The Green Belt at this location is considered to maintain a less essential gap between Carcroft and Owston. However, the area within the Proposed Site is considered to have a moderate role in assisting in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment: the area contains land which is of moderate sensitivity to encroachment, and whilst the area contains no built form, high levels of containment reduce the perception of the area being ‘unspoilt’.


2 40 Land at Sheffield Road/Old Road, Hilltop, Conisbrough

Conisbrough 040

Strong: The Proposed Green Belt Site is defined almost exactly by the parameters of Conisbrough 6 General Area, however the settlement of Hill Top is excluded from the Proposed Site. If the Proposed Green Belt site was removed from the Green Belt, the resultant Green Belt boundary would be defined in the south of the site by the A630/Sheffield Road and to the west by Old Road, which is also the extent of the Doncaster Metropolitan Borough boundary. The resultant Green Belt boundary would be strong as this road is a recognisable, durable and likely to be permanent boundary feature.

1 1 5 3 4 2 1 3 Moderately Performs against Local Interpretation of the Green Belt Purpose: Although the Proposed Green Belt site and the existing Green Belt boundary does have a strong role in preventing ribbon development, the Proposed Green Belt site is not connected to a large built up area, would have a limited impact on the historic core of Conisbrough and would have a moderate role in directing development towards Brownfield and Derelict land. Whilst release of the Proposed Green Belt site would still maintain the wide, strategic, but largely essential gap between Conisbrough and the Urban Area of Rotherham and less essential gap between the smaller outlying settlements of Hooton Pagnall and Hooton Roberts, release of this Green Belt land would result in coalescence with the ‘washed over’ Hamlet of Hill Top. Green Belt land at this location has a moderately strong sensitivity to encroachment.


10 142 Land South of Sheffield Road, Conisbrough

Conisbrough 142

Weak: Following release of the Proposed Green Belt site, the resultant Green Belt boundary would be defined by the following features: in the south by the private road of Spring Bank Road; in the south west by a field boundary with

1 1 0 4 3 4 2 3 Moderately Performs against Local Interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes: The Proposed Green Belt site has a mixed role when assessed against the Local Interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes. Whilst the Proposed Green Belt Site does not have a role in checking the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas and a weak role in preventing neighbouring towns from merging, the Green Belt at this location does have a moderate




Page 8


GIS Ref


Purpose 1

Purpose 2a

Purpose 2b

Purpose3a

Purpose 3b

Purpose 4a

Purpose 4b

Purpose 5

somewhat weakly defined and gappy hedgerow; in the north west by Park Lane, and in the east by extent of the Conisbrough Cemetery. The resultant Green Belt boundaries are predominantly weak, and particularly weak in the south west. The Resultant Green Belt boundary would therefore be created by a weakly indented area of built form which extends to the south of Sheffield Road.

role in assisting in urban regeneration. Most prominently, the Proposed Green Belt Site is only considered to be separated from the Historic Core of Conisbrough (that defined by Providence Place and Clifton View) by only a natural boundary (woodland to the rear of the Providence Place). The Site is considered to have a moderate role in assisting in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. The Green Belt at this site also contains features which are considered to be moderate-high sensitivity to development.

23 221 Garage off Sheffield Road / Clifton Hill, Conisbrough (Site B)

Conisbrough 221

Mixed in Strength: The Proposed Green Belt boundary would be created by a densely wooded corridor of trees to the south and south east. To the north east, the Green Belt boundary is weakly defined by no physical infrastructure or natural boundary, and instead is likely to be the extent of an area of landownership. The Proposed Green Belt boundary is therefore created by features which are mixed in strength: strong to the south and south east and weak to the north. The Resultant Green Belt boundary would be created by an angular area of built form which extends to the south of Conisbrough. Nonetheless, this could bring boundary coherence to the existing built form which is inset within the Green Belt to the south of Sheffield Road.

1 1 0 4 2 4 4 3 Moderately Performs against Local Interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes: The Proposed Green Belt site has a mixed role when assessed against the Local Interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes. Whilst the Proposed Green Belt Site does not have a role in checking the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas and a weak role in preventing neighbouring towns from merging, the Green Belt at this location does have a moderate role in assisting in urban regeneration. Most prominently, the Proposed Green Belt Site is only considered to be separated from the Historic Core of Conisbrough by Sheffield Road and existing built from, and therefore the Site is considered to have a relatively strong role in preserving the setting of the Historic Town of Conisbrough. The Proposed Green Belt Site has a mixed sensitivity to encroachment: high in the south and south west and low in the north east, whereby overall, the Proposed Green Belt Site is considered to have a moderately-strong role in assisting in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.


47 825 Fields off Drake Head Lane, Conisbrough

Conisbrough 825

Weak: The Proposed Green Belt boundary would be created by weakly defined field boundaries in the north, north west, east and south east. Proposed Green Belt boundaries are therefore considered to be relatively weak. Given the nature of the Proposed Green Belt site, the Resultant Green Belt boundary at this location would create an isolated area of Green Belt to the rear of Drake Head Lane in the north west, which would perforate the designation. The Resultant Green Belt boundary is therefore also considered to be weak.

1 3 3 3 5 2 2 3 Moderately Performs against Local Interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes: The Proposed Green Belt Site has a mixed role when assessed against the Local Interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes. Whilst the Proposed Green Belt Site does not have a role in checking the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas, the Green Belt at this location does have a moderate role in assisting in urban regeneration and a moderate role in preventing neighbouring towns from merging. Whilst the Proposed Green Belt Site is considered to be separated from the Historic Core by post-WWII development, views to the historic core are likely to be constrained and channelled. Owing to no built form within the area and the relative isolation from the extent of existing built form of Conisbrough, the Proposed Green Belt is considered to have a moderate – strong role in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.




Page 9


GIS Ref


Purpose 1

Purpose 2a

Purpose 2b

Purpose3a

Purpose 3b

Purpose 4a

Purpose 4b

Purpose 5

48 826 Field off Clifton Hill, Conisbrough

Conisbrough 826

Strong: The Proposed Green Belt boundary would be created by the strongly defined Clifton Hill in the south west and former dismantled railway line, which is now supported by low-lying vegetation, an embankment feature and residential built form to the south. The Proposed Green Belt boundaries are therefore considered to be mixed, but predominantly strong. Should the Proposed Green Belt site be released, the Resultant Green Belt boundary would be strongly by the Dismantled Railway supported by the existing extent of residential built form in the north. The Resultant Green Belt boundary would be linear, recognisable and likely to be permanent.

1 3 3 4 4 2 3 3 Moderately Performs against Local Interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes: The Proposed Green Belt site has a mixed role when assessed against the Local Interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes. Whilst the Proposed Green Belt Site does not have a role in checking the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas and a weak role in preventing neighbouring towns from merging, the Green Belt at this location does have a moderate role in assisting in urban regeneration. Whilst the Proposed Green Belt Site is considered to be separated from the Historic Core by post-WWII development, there are views to the Historic Core which are only limited by medium-scale detractors. The Green Belt at this location is considered to have a moderate-strong role in assisting in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.


27 251 Hill Top Road, Denaby Main

Denaby Main 251

Mixed in Strength: The Proposed Green Belt site would be defined to the west by Denaby Wood, to the south by the Doncaster Green Belt boundary which is supported by a corridor of mature trees, and the Hill Top Road and a weakly defined field boundary in the east. The Proposed Green Belt Site is therefore considered to be strongly defined, recognisable and likely to be permanent in the west and south, and weaker in the east.

1 1 0 3 4 3 1 4 Moderately Performs against Local Interpretation of the Green Belt Purpose: The Proposed Green Belt Site has a moderate role when assessed against the Local Interpretation of Green Belt Purposes. Whilst the Proposed Site only has a weak role in checking the unrestricted sprawl of a large built up area and makes no discernable contribution to preventing neighbouring towns from merging, the Green Belt at this location does have a moderately-strong role in assisting in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment and a moderately-weak role in preserving the setting of a Historic Town. Green Belt land at this location does have a relatively strong role in encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land in Denaby.


1 33 Land adj. 163 Sheffield Road, Warmsworth

Doncaster Main Urban Area 033

Mixed in Strength: The Proposed Green Belt site was removed from the Green Belt, the Resultant Green Belt boundary would be defined to the north by the strongly defined, recognisable and likely to be permanent A630/Sheffield Road; and to the west by weakly defined field boundary, denoted only by the change in agricultural crop and no other recognisable or likely to be permanent features. The resultant Green Belt boundaries would therefore be mixed in strength with the northern boundary performing as a recognisable, durable and likely to be permanent feature and the western boundary performing as a feature lacking durability and is not readily recognisable.

4 1 0 3 4 2 1 4 Moderately Performs against Local Interpretation of the Green Belt Purpose: Although the Proposed Green Belt site and the existing Green Belt boundary does have a strong role in preventing ribbon development, the Proposed Green Belt site is largely contiguous with the large built up area of Doncaster (which is a regeneration priority area) and has a relatively modest role in preventing neighbouring towns from merging, as there would still be a largely essential gap between Conisbrough and Warmsworth. The Proposed Green Belt site would have very limited impact on the historic core of Warmsworth, which forms part of the Historic Town of Doncaster. The Proposed Green Belt is considered to have a moderate – strong role in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.




Page 10


GIS Ref


Purpose 1

Purpose 2a

Purpose 2b

Purpose3a

Purpose 3b

Purpose 4a

Purpose 4b

Purpose 5

4 79 Land at Melton Road, Sprotbrough


Weak: The Proposed Green Belt Site boundaries are defined to the south and west by the weakly-defined Ings Lane which tapers to an informal footpath, and to the south east by a weakly defined field boundary and footpath. The Resultant Green Belt Boundary is therefore considered to be weak and predominantly created by features lacking in durability.

4 0 3 3 4 3 2 4 Moderately Performs against Local Interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes: The Proposed Green Belt site has a mixed role when assessed against the local interpretation of the Purposes. The Proposed Site is considered to be contiguous with the ‘Large Built-up Area of Doncaster’ and therefore could check the unrestricted sprawl, as well as supporting the urban regeneration of the Main Urban Area. Whilst the Green Belt land to the west of the Proposed Green Belt site could be considered to support the ‘essential land gap’ between neighbouring towns, the land gap at this location has been degraded somewhat by the presence of four residential dwellings along Melton Road. This separation is therefore created by the land to the west of the four residential dwellings and the Proposed Green Belt Site makes no discernable contribution to physical or perceptual separation. The Proposed Green Belt site has a moderate role in preserving the setting and special character of a historic town and it is considered to contain features which are of low-moderate sensitivity to encroachment.


6 115 Alverley Lane, Balby


Strong: The Proposed Green Belt boundary would be defined by a densely vegetated dismantled railway corridor to the south. The Proposed Green Belt boundary is therefore considered to be strongly defined, recognisable and likely to be permanent. The Resultant Green Belt boundary would result in a rounding of the existing built form.

4 0 0 2 3 2 1 4 Moderately Performs against Local Interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes: The Proposed Green Belt site is highly contained within the existing built form of Doncaster and is considered to have a moderately strong role in assisting in urban regeneration. Given the strength of the proposed boundary, there are no views towards settlements in the south and therefore the Green Belt within the Proposed Site makes no discernable role in preventing neighbouring towns from merging. Similar to the wider General Area, the Proposed Green Belt Site has a relatively weak role in preserving the setting of the historic core of the Main Urban Area of Doncaster. The Green Belt at this location has a low-moderate role in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.


7 122 Challenger Drive, Sprotbrough


Mixed in Strength: The Proposed Green Belt boundary at this location would be defined by a strongly defined wooded corridor in the north, and weakly defined field boundaries in the south and west which are not strongly recognisable nor likely to be permanent. The Proposed Green Belt boundaries are therefore mixed in strength: stronger in the north and weaker in the west. The Resultant Green Belt Boundary is therefore considered to be Mixed in Strength, and a boundary which would retain an angular and weakly defined built form boundary.

4 0 0 4 4 4 4 4 Moderately Performs against Local Interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes: The Proposed Green Belt site has a moderately-strong role when assessed against the local interpretation of the Purposes. The Proposed Site is considered to be contiguous with the ‘large built up area of Doncaster’ and therefore could check the unrestricted sprawl, as well as supporting the urban regeneration of the Main Urban Area. The Proposed Green Belt site makes no discernable contribution to preventing neighbouring towns from merging. Owing to its proximity to the Historic Town Core features (associated with Cusworth Hall), the Proposed Green Belt Site is considered to have a moderately strong role in preserving the setting of Historic Town features, and the proximity to the Registered Park and Garden does mean the Site has a role in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. Further heritage impact assessment work would need to be done to determine the impact of development at this location on the setting of Cusworth Hall.




Page 11


GIS Ref


Purpose 1

Purpose 2a

Purpose 2b

Purpose3a

Purpose 3b

Purpose 4a

Purpose 4b

Purpose 5

45 161 Mill Farm, Mill Gate, Bentley


Mixed in Strength: The Proposed Green Belt boundary at this location would be defined by Fowler Bridge Road supported by Fowler Bridge Drain and a corridor of trees in the east, which in combination, forms a relatively strongly defined and recognisable boundary. Bentley Town drain forms the southern boundary which is weakly defined and not recognisable in part. The western boundary would be defined by a strongly defined dense copse of woodland, which decreases rapidly in strength to a weakly defined field boundary in the north. The Proposed Green Belt boundary would be Mixed in Strength: strong in the east and south west, weak in the south and north west. The Resultant Green Belt boundary would result in a weakly-defined angular area of built form which extends to the south of Bentley.

4 0 0 3 2 4 3 4 Moderately Performs against Local Interpretation of the Green Belt Purpose: The Proposed Green Belt site would have a mixed role when assessed against local interpretation of the Green Belt purposes. The Proposed Green Belt site would have a moderately strong role in checking the unrestricted sprawl of the large built up area, no role in preventing neighbouring towns from merging as the Green Belt at this point generally only provides separation between neighbourhoods of Urban Doncaster and a moderately strong role in assisting in urban regeneration. The Proposed Green Belt site has a moderately strong role in preserving the setting of the historic core of Doncaster, as defined on the 1st edition 6 inch to the mile OS mapping of Doncaster (1851-1854), however views are impacted by low-lying moderate scale detractors. The Green Belt at this location has a moderate role in safeguarding features of the countryside from encroachment.


19 212 Lords Head Lane, Warmsworth


Mixed in Strength: The Proposed Green Belt boundaries would therefore be formed by a strongly defined dismantled railway line in the south, the extent of the Warmsworth Beck WwTW in the south east, Warmsworth Beck in the north east and a heavily wooded dismantled railway line in the north and a field boundary to the west of Lord’s Head Lane. The Proposed Green Belt boundaries are therefore mixed in strength: strong in the west defined by Edlington Lane, strong in the south and north defined by a dismantled railway line, with weaker boundaries defined by a field boundary and the Warmsworth Beck which is only weakly supported by low-lying shrubby vegetation. The Resultant Green Belt boundary would create an indented and angular area of built form, with an inconsistent eastern boundary. If released, the Proposed Site would result in two areas of Green Belt designated land between Edlington Lane and Lord’s Head Lane which would perforate the Green Belt.

3 3 0 3 4 2 1 3 Moderately Performs against Local Interpretation of the Green Belt Purpose: The Proposed Green Belt site has a mixed role when assessed against the Local Interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes. The Green Belt at this location has a moderate role in checking the unrestricted sprawl of the large built up area of Doncaster, a relatively strong role in assisting in urban regeneration and a mixed role in preventing neighbouring towns from merging. The Proposed Green Belt site would have a limited impact on the historic core of Warmsworth, which forms part of the Historic Town of Doncaster. The Site is considered to contain features which are of moderate sensitivity to encroachment and therefore, the Green Belt at this location is considered to have a moderate role in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.




Page 12


GIS Ref


Purpose 1

Purpose 2a

Purpose 2b

Purpose3a

Purpose 3b

Purpose 4a

Purpose 4b

Purpose 5

21 214 Common Lane, Warmsworth


Mixed in Strength: The Proposed Green Belt boundaries would be weakly defined in the west by Warmsworth Beck, which is a shallow field drain with only moderate scale vegetation to support this feature; the strongly defined A1(M) in the east; the strongly defined dismantled railway line and Broomhouse Lane in the south, and the extent of the Warmsworth WwTW in the west. The Proposed Green Belt boundaries are considered to be mixed in strength: strong in the east and south, and weaker in the west. In isolation, release of Green Belt land from this location would result in an indented and angular area of residential built form which would be largely isolated from any settlement.

3 5 3 3 4 2 1 3 Moderately Performs against Local Interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes: The Proposed Green Belt site has a mixed role when assessed against the Local Interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes. The Green Belt at this location has a moderate role in checking the unrestricted sprawl of the large built up area of Doncaster and a moderate role in assisting in urban regeneration. The Proposed Green Belt site would have a limited impact on the historic core of Warmsworth, which forms part of the Historic Town of Doncaster. Development of the full extent of the Proposed Green Belt Site would result in full coalescence between New Edlington and the Main Urban Area of Doncaster. The Proposed Green Belt site therefore falls within an essential gap, where development particularly beyond the residential dwellings at the convergence between Broomhouse Lane, Common Lane and Grange Land would result in coalescence between Balby and New Edlington. The Proposed Green Belt Site is considered to have a moderate role in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.


22 217 Back Lane, Cusworth


Mixed in Strength: The Proposed Green Belt boundary would comprise Long Plantation in the north which is a densely wooded corridor of trees, Spring Rein wood in the north west and Back Lane in the south. The Proposed Green Belt boundary features are therefore considered to be relatively strong, however, the Resultant Green Belt boundary would represent a stepped and angular area of residential built form.

3 3 0 5 5 3 4 3 Strongly Performs against Local Interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes (Purpose 3 and 4): The Proposed Green Belt site has a strong role when assessed against the local interpretation of the Purposes. The Proposed Site is considered to be connected with the ‘large built up area of Doncaster’ and therefore could check the unrestricted sprawl, as well as supporting the urban regeneration of the Main Urban Area. The Proposed Green Belt site makes no discernable contribution to preventing neighbouring towns from merging. However, the Proposed Green Belt site is considered to have a strong role in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment and a moderately-strong role in preserving the setting and special character of a Historic Core.


24 234 Broad Axe, Scawthorpe


Mixed in Strength: The Proposed Green Belt boundary would be defined by the Roman Ridge in the south west, and a boundary which is not based on any infrastructure or natural features on the ground in the north west. Given the Roman Ridge is visible within the built form of Bentley to the south east, this boundary is considered to be a permanent and recognisable feature. The Proposed Green Belt boundary is therefore considered to be mixed in strength: very strong in the south west and north east, and weak in the west. The Resultant Green Belt boundary would therefore result in a natural rounding off of the existing built form of Bawtry and Scawthorpe.

4 0 0 4 4 2 3 4 Moderately Performs against Local Interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes: Based on the strength of the existing Green Belt boundary, the Proposed Green Belt Site would therefore have a moderately strong role in checking the unrestricted sprawl of the Urban Area of Doncaster and a moderate strong role in assisting in urban regeneration. Given the extent of the built form of Scawthorpe in the north, the Proposed Green Belt site is not considered to make any discernable contribution to separation. The Proposed Green Belt contains no built form, but is considered to contain features which have a moderate-high sensitivity to encroachment. Despite the presence of the roman ridge (which would require further assessment work to determine the impact) the Site has a limited role in preserving the setting and special character of a historic town.




Page 13


GIS Ref


Purpose 1

Purpose 2a

Purpose 2b

Purpose3a

Purpose 3b

Purpose 4a

Purpose 4b

Purpose 5

25 237 Warmsworth Quarry, Sheffield Road, Warmsworth (2)


Strong: The Proposed Green Belt boundary would be defined by the full extent of Warmsworth Quarry which would represent a prominent physical feature. However, to the north of the site, the Proposed Green Belt boundary sharply indents around a copse of woodland. Whilst the woodland is still considered to be a strongly defined feature, the protruding nature of this woodland does reduce the overall strength of the boundary.

3 3 0 4 1 2 1 3 Moderately Performs against Local Interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes: Green Belt Site performs moderately on Purpose 1, Purpose 3 and Purpose 5: The Proposed Green Belt Site is considered to perform in largely the same way as the General Area. The Green Belt Site has a moderate role in checking the unrestricted sprawl of a large built up area and a moderate role in assisting in urban regeneration. Land at this location maintains a largely essential gap between Urban Doncaster and Conisbrough, and therefore, the Proposed Green Belt Site has a moderate role in preventing neighbouring towns from merging. The Green Belt at this location has a moderately weak role in preserving the setting of a historic town and a mixed role in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.


26 246 Scawthorpe Reservoir, Green Lane


Mixed in Strength: The Proposed Green Belt boundary would be defined by the extent of the Scawthorpe Reservoir, which is delineated by neighbouring agricultural fields by a fence. The Proposed Green Belt boundary features are therefore considered to be weak. However, release of the land within the Proposed Site would result in relatively stronger and more coherent Resultant Green Belt boundary.

4 0 0 1 1 2 3 4 Moderately Performs against Local Interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes: Based on the strength of the existing Green Belt boundary, the Proposed Green Belt Site would therefore have a moderately strong role in checking the unrestricted sprawl of the Urban Area of Doncaster and a moderately strong role in assisting in urban regeneration. Given the extent of the built form of Scawthorpe in the north, the Proposed Green Belt site is not considered to make any discernable contribution to separation. Given the Scawthorpe Reservoir exists on the site, there area has a moderately urban character and a very weak role in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. In addition, as Scawthorpe Farm has been completely redeveloped as Charter Drive and The Sycamore, this area is considered to have only a limited role in forming part of the Complex Historic Core of Doncaster.


33 436 Land at Scawsby Lane


Mixed in Strength: The Proposed Green Belt boundary would be strongly defined in the south and west by Barnsley Road and Scawsby Lane, a weakly defined field boundary in the north and a Roman Ridge in the north east. Given the Roman Ridge is visible within the built form of Bentley to the south east, this boundary is considered to be a permanent and recognisable feature. In isolation, the Resultant Green Belt boundary would therefore be mixed in strength: strongly defined in the south, west and the north east by Barnsley Road, Scawsby Lane and the Roman Road, and weak in the north. However, the Resultant Green Belt boundary could be considered as an extension of Bentley that mirrors the northern extent of the built form of Scawthorpe.

3 0 3 4 4 2 3 3 Moderately Performs against Local Interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes: Based on the strength of the existing Green Belt boundary, the Proposed Green Belt Site would therefore have a moderate role in checking the unrestricted sprawl of the Urban Area of Doncaster and a moderate role in assisting in urban regeneration. Given the extent of the built form of Scawthorpe in the north, the Proposed Green Belt site is not considered to make any discernable contribution to separation. Owing to minimal levels of built form and rare features along Barnsley Lane, the Green Belt land within the Proposed Site does have a moderately strong role in assisting in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment and a moderate role in preserving the setting and special character of a historic town.




Page 14


GIS Ref


Purpose 1

Purpose 2a

Purpose 2b

Purpose3a

Purpose 3b

Purpose 4a

Purpose 4b

Purpose 5

39 494 Green Lane, Scawthorpe


Mixed in Strength: The Proposed Green Belt boundary would be strongly defined by Green Lane in the north, the Roman Ridge in the west and a boundary which is not based on any infrastructure or natural features on the ground in the south east. Given the Roman Ridge is visible within the built form of Bentley to the south east, this boundary is considered to be a permanent and recognisable feature. The Proposed Green Belt boundary is therefore considered to be mixed in strength: strong in the south and west, and weak in the east. In isolation, the Resultant Green Belt boundary would result in an angular area of built form which would also create an area to the south that perforates the Green Belt. In isolation, the Resultant Green Belt boundary would therefore be mixed in strength.

4 0 0 4 4 2 3 4 Moderately Performs against Local Interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes: Based on the strength of the existing Green Belt boundary, the Proposed Green Belt Site would therefore have a moderately strong role in checking the unrestricted sprawl of the Urban Area of Doncaster and a moderately strong role in assisting in urban regeneration. Given the extent of the built form of Scawthorpe in the north, the Proposed Green Belt site is not considered to make any discernable contribution to separation. Owing to the minimal levels of built form, levels of containment and mixed sensitivity to encroachment, the Proposed Green Belt Site is considered to have a moderate-high role in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. Whilst Scawthorpe Farm existed on the 1st edition 6 inch to the mile OS mapping of Doncaster (1851-1854), this area has now been redeveloped for housing. The Proposed Green Belt Site is therefore considered to have a relatively weak role in preserving the setting and special character of a historic town core. Further heritage impact assessment work would need to be undertaken to determine the impact on the Roman Road of releasing the Proposed Green Belt Site.


8 139 Land North of Wath Road, Mexborough

Mexborough 139

Weak: The proposed Green Belt Boundary would be defined by Wath Road in the south west, a field boundary in the west, a field boundary supported by occasional mature trees in the north west and a weakly defined field boundary in the north east. Aside from the A6023 which accounts for a very small proportion of the outer boundary, the Proposed Green Belt boundary is considered to be weakly defined, weakly recognisable and unlikely to be permanent.

1 5 5 3 4 3 1 4 Strongly Performs against Local Interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes (Purpose 2): The Proposed Green Belt Site performs in largely the same manner as the Green Belt General Area. Green Belt at this location is therefore connected to the South Yorkshire Green Belt, but is not considered to have a role in checking the unrestricted sprawl of a Large Built Up Area. However, the General Area is considered to have a strong role in preventing the neighbouring towns of Wath Upon Dearne and Mexborough from the merging, and a moderately strong role in encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. The Proposed Green Belt Site is considered to have a moderate role in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment and weak role in preserving the setting and special character of historic towns.


14 154 Land to the North West of Pastures Road

Mexborough 154

Weak: The Proposed Green Belt boundary would be defined by a weakly defined boundary which extends beyond Ullswater Road and towards the employment allocation. This boundary is not based on any natural or physical infrastructure features on the ground. Whilst the Resultant Green Belt Site would represent a natural rounding off of built form, the Proposed Green Belt Site is considered to be weakly defined, not recognisable and not likely to be permanent.

1 1 0 3 5 3 1 4 Moderately Performs against Local Interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes: The Proposed Green Belt Site performs in largely the same manner as the Green Belt General Area. Green Belt at this location is therefore connected to the South Yorkshire Green Belt, but is not considered to have a role in checking the unrestricted sprawl of a Large Built Up Area. The Proposed Green Belt Site is considered to have a limited role in preventing neighbouring towns from merging and a moderately weak role in preserving the setting and special character of a historic town. The Green Belt within the Proposed Site has a mixed role in safeguarding the countryside form encroachment: the area closest to the built form has a weak role in safeguarding the countryside, whilst the area to the north east is considered to display a strong unspoilt character. The Proposed Green Belt Site is considered to have a moderately high role in encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.




Page 15


GIS Ref


Purpose 1

Purpose 2a

Purpose 2b

Purpose3a

Purpose 3b

Purpose 4a

Purpose 4b

Purpose 5

20 213 Mill Lane, Warmsworth

Sprotbrough 213

Mixed in Strength: The Proposed Green Belt Site boundary would be defined by Mill Lane to the south west, which is a strongly defined boundary feature, a copse of woodland in the north west which is a strong defined and likely to be permanent feature, a weakly defined field boundary in the north and the strongly-defined River Don boundary in the far north. The boundary in the far east is weakly defined by a field boundary and the extent of the Warmsworth Cemetery. The Proposed Green Belt boundary is therefore considered to be Mixed in Strength: strong in the south west, strong in the far north and weakly defined intermittent boundaries elsewhere.

3 5 5 4 4 2 1 3 Strongly Performs against Local Interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes (Purpose 2 and 3): The Proposed Green Belt Site is considered to perform in largely the same way as the General Area. The Green Belt Site has a moderate role in checking the unrestricted sprawl of a large built up area and a moderate role in assisting in urban regeneration. Land at this location maintains an essential gap between Urban Doncaster and Sprotbrough, and the extent to which the Green Belt support this Purpose decreases in strength further to the north. The Proposed Green Belt Site has a moderately-strong role in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment and the Green Belt at this location has only a moderately weak role in preserving the setting of a historic town and a mixed role in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.


28 252 Spring Lane, Sprotbrough

Sprotbrough 252

Weak: The Proposed Green Belt boundaries would be defined by weakly defined field boundaries in the north and west. The proposed Green Belt boundaries are weakly defined and unlikely to be durable.

1 3 0 3 5 1 1 1 Moderately Performs against Local Interpretation of the Green Belt Purpose: The Proposed Green Belt site has a weak role in checking the unrestricted sprawl of a large built up area and a weak role in assisting in urban regeneration. The Proposed Green Belt site has a moderate role in supporting a land gap between settlements and a weak role in preserving the setting and special character of a historic town. The Green Belt at this location is considered to have a moderately-strong role in assisting in safeguarding the countryside form encroachment.


44 788 Land at Sprotbrough

Sprotbrough 788

Weak: The Proposed Green Belt boundary would be defined by a weak field boundary in the west, the A1(M) in the north east, a weak field boundary in the south east and an indented area of built form. The proposed Green Belt boundaries are weakly defined, and the release of the Proposed Site would result in a weakly defined, angular area of residential built form along Melton Road

1 3 3 2 4 2 2 1 Moderately Performs against Local Interpretation of the Green Belt Purpose: The Proposed Green Belt site has a weak role in checking the unrestricted sprawl of a large built up area and a weak role in assisting in urban regeneration. The Proposed Green Belt site has a mixed role in supporting a land gap between settlements, a moderately weak role in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment and a moderately weak role in preserving the setting and special character of a historic town.




Page 16


GIS Ref


Purpose 1

Purpose 2a

Purpose 2b

Purpose3a

Purpose 3b

Purpose 4a

Purpose 4b

Purpose 5

49 872 Land at Melton Road, Sprotbrough

Sprotbrough 872

Mixed in Strength: The Proposed Green Belt boundary would therefore be defined to the north by Toecroft Lane which is a private access track to the north of the Proposed Site, the strongly defined Melton Road to the south of the site, and a weakly defined field boundary to the west of the Proposed Site. The Proposed Green Belt Boundary is considered to be Mixed in Strength: strongly defined in the south; weakly defined and weakly recognisable in the west and formed by a private track road in the north which is unlikely to be durable in the long term. The Resultant Green Belt boundary would be created by features that are mixed in strength, and which would result in an irregular protrusion of built form to the west of Sprotbrough

1 3 5 3 5 1 1 1 Strongly Performs against Local Interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes: The Proposed Green Belt Site has a weak role in checking the unrestricted sprawl of a large built up area, a weak role in assisting in urban regeneration and a weak role in preserving the setting and special character of a historic town. The Proposed Green Belt site would support a moderate role in preventing neighbouring towns from merging. The Proposed Green Belt Site is considered to contain features which are of moderate sensitivity to encroachment, and no built form, and therefore the Green Belt at this location has a role in assisting in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.


5 109 Land off Sunderland Street, Tickhill

Tickhill 109 Mixed in Strength: The Proposed Green Belt Site boundaries are formed by a field boundary with a sparse and gappy tree line and hedgerow in the west, the shallow drainage ditch of Paper Mill Dike in the south west and an informal footpath in the south. The boundary to the east would be strongly defined by the A1(M). Whilst the A1(M) represents a strongly defined and durable feature, Proposed Green Belt boundaries predominantly lack durability in the south and west, and are not readily recognisable. In addition, the Resultant Green Belt boundary in isolation would create an extended area of residential built form which would result in a weakly indented and irregular boundary.

1 3 5 2 4 4 5 1 Strongly Performs against Local Interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes (Purpose 4): The Proposed Green Belt site largely performs in a similar manner to the wider Green Belt General Area. Again the Proposed Site performs weakly when assessed against the extent to which the Green Belt checks the unrestricted sprawl of a large-built up area, and weakly when assessed for the extent to which the Green Belt assists in supporting regeneration. The Proposed Green Belt Site falls within a largely essential land gap between Haworth Bircotes and Tickhill where the overall scale and openness of the gap is important to maintaining separation, however where some development is possible. The Proposed Green Belt Site is considered to contain land which has a moderate-low sensitivity to encroachment, and the Site is considered to display a Strong Rural Character. Because of the linear nature of the Proposed Green Belt site, the Site offers spreading and expansive views towards the historic core of Tickhill from the south of the Site.




Page 17


GIS Ref


Purpose 1

Purpose 2a

Purpose 2b

Purpose3a

Purpose 3b

Purpose 4a

Purpose 4b

Purpose 5

30 281 Land off Worksop Road, Tickhill

Tickhill 281 Weak: The Proposed Green Belt site boundaries comprise the well-defined and likely to be permanent Worksop Road in the west, a tree-boundary in the south and to the east by an irregularly drawn boundary linked to no natural or infrastructure features. The Resultant Green Belt boundary would therefore result in a stepped and angular area of built form. The future Resultant Boundary is therefore considered to be somewhat weak. The proposed Green Belt boundary is therefore considered to be mixed in strength, strong in the west and south, and weak in the east. The Resultant Boundary would result in a stepped and angular area of built form to the south of Tickhill.

1 1 0 2 3 2 3 1 Weakly Performs against Local Interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes: The Proposed Site performs weakly when assessed against the extent to which the Green Belt checks the unrestricted sprawl of a large-built up area, and the extent to which the Green Belt assists in supporting regeneration. However, because neighbouring settlements to the south of the site do not have a housing requirement and are small in scale, the Proposed Green Belt site has a weak role in preventing neighbouring towns from merging. The Proposed Green Belt Site is considered to contain features which have a low-moderate sensitivity to encroachment, and this Site has a moderately-strong rural character. The Proposed Green Belt site is separated from the historic core of Tickhill by a natural boundary, the infrastructure boundary of Lindrick Road and post WWII development and therefore the Green Belt site has a relatively weak to moderate role in preserving the setting of the Historic Town of Tickhill.


31 356 Land off Lindrick Lane, Tickhill

Tickhill 356 Weak: The Proposed Green Belt site boundaries comprise the well-defined Lindrick Lane in the north west, which is supported by a corridor of trees; to the south, by an irregular boundary linked to no natural or infrastructure features and to the west by Water Lane which is a private access track that may not be permanent in the long-term. Whilst Lindrick Lane would represent a strongly defined boundary, proposed Site boundaries to the south and east of the site are weak with the southern boundary not considered to be recognisable nor likely to be permanent.

1 3 0 4 5 4 5 1 Strongly Performs against Local Interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes (Purpose 3 and 4): The Proposed Green Belt site largely performs in a similar manner to the wider Green Belt General Area. Again the Proposed Site performs weakly when assessed against the extent to which the Green Belt checks the unrestricted sprawl of a large-built up area, and the extent to which the Green Belt assists in supporting regeneration. The Proposed Green Belt Site falls within a largely essential land gap between Haworth Bircotes and Tickhill where the overall scale and openness of the gap is important to maintaining separation, however where some development is possible. The Proposed Green Belt Site is considered to contain features which are of moderately-high sensitivity to encroachment, which have not been encroached upon; the Green Belt Site therefore displays a Strong Unspoilt Rural Character. Because of the extent of the Proposed Green Belt site, the Site offers views to the historic core of Tickhill and therefore the proposed site is considered to have a strong role in preserving the setting and special character of the historic town of Tickhill.


32 357 Land off Wong Lane, Tickhill

Tickhill 357 Weak: The proposed Green Belt boundary would be defined by Greystone Lane, which is a private access track connecting to fields beyond the railway line in the north; and weakly defined field boundaries in the north west and west. The Proposed Green Belt boundaries are therefore weak. Removing the Proposed Green Belt site from the Green Belt would therefore result in an angular area of residential built form to the north of Tickhill, which is weaker than the existing Green Belt boundary.

1 1 0 3 5 2 1 1 Moderately Performs against Local Interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes: The Proposed Site performs weakly when assessed against the extent to which the Green Belt checks the unrestricted sprawl of a large-built up area, and the extent to which the Green Belt assists in supporting regeneration The Proposed Green Belt Boundary also has a relatively weak in supporting a land gap between settlements and providing the setting to Historic Core of Tickhill. Whilst the southern part of the General Area is considered to have a moderate role in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, the Site does not contain any built form and therefore displays a Strong Unspoilt Rural Character.




Page 18


GIS Ref


Purpose 1

Purpose 2a

Purpose 2b

Purpose3a

Purpose 3b

Purpose 4a

Purpose 4b

Purpose 5

34 452 Land West of Dadsley Road, Tickhill

Tickhill 452 Mixed in Strength : The Proposed Green Belt boundaries associated with the site would be defined by Dadsley Road in the east; a relatively-weak field boundary supported by a number of larger shrubs in the north and south; and Peastack Lane, which is an adopted road as defined by DMBC is in the west. The Proposed Green Belt Boundaries are therefore considered to be mixed in strength; strong in the east and west and weak in the north and south. Removing the Proposed Green Belt site from the Green Belt would therefore result in an angular area of residential built form to the north east of Tickhill, which would also result in an area of undeveloped land to the north of Dadsley Court. The Resultant Green Belt boundary would therefore be angular and indented area of built form, and represent a weak Green Belt boundary which is unlikely to be permanent in the long-term.

1 1 0 3 3 3 2 1 Weakly Performs against Local Interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes: The Proposed Site performs relatively weakly when assessed against the extent to which the Green Belt checks the unrestricted sprawl of a large built up area, and has a weak role in preventing neighbouring towns from merging or assisting in urban regeneration. The Proposed Green Belt Site is considered to contain land which is of low-moderate sensitivity to change, and this location has seen moderate levels of encroachment. The Site displays a Moderately Strong Rural character. Whilst the Green Belt within the proposed site boundary is considered to be separated from the built form of Tickhill by post WWII development, there are channelled and constrained views towards historic elements of the core of Tickhill.


46 824 Land behind Lumley Drive, Tickhill

Tickhill 824 Weak: The Proposed Green Belt site boundary is defined by a number of agricultural buildings in the north west; a weakly defined field boundary in the west which is only delineated by occasional low-lying scrubby hedges; the Paper Mill Dike in the south which is lined with trees to the south west and which is a less-defined shallow drainage ditch in the central eastern portion; and the boundary to the east is defined by a weakly defined field boundary. The Proposed Green Belt boundaries are therefore considered to be mixed in strength: stronger to the south, but predominantly weak to the west, south east and east.

1 3 0 3 4 4 5 1 Strongly Performs against Local Interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes (Purpose 4): The Proposed Site performs weakly when assessed against the extent to which the Green Belt checks the unrestricted sprawl of a large-built up area, and the extent to which the Green Belt assists in supporting regeneration. The Proposed Green Belt Site falls within a largely essential land gap between Haworth Bircotes and Tickhill where the overall scale and openness of the gap is important to maintaining separation, however where some development is possible. The Site contains features which are considered to display moderate-sensitivity to development and a strong rural character. Because of the extent of the Proposed Green Belt site, the Site offers views to the historic core of Tickhill and therefore the proposed site is considered to have a strong role in preserving the setting and special character of the historic town of Tickhill.




Page 19


GIS Ref


Purpose 1

Purpose 2a

Purpose 2b

Purpose3a

Purpose 3b

Purpose 4a

Purpose 4b

Purpose 5

52 875 Site A, Land to East of Doncaster Road, Tickhill

Tickhill 875 Weak: The Proposed Green Belt Boundary would therefore be defined by relatively dense copse of woods in the north supported by the Dadsley Well Stream, a private track associated with Eastfield Farm in the south and a weakly defined field boundary in the east. The Proposed Green Belt boundary is therefore considered to be predominantly weak; whilst the Proposed Green Belt boundary would be predominantly strong in the north and weak in the south and west.

1 1 0 2 4 2 2 1 Moderately Performs against Local Interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes: The Proposed Green Belt site largely performs in a similar manner to the wider Green Belt General Area. Again, the Proposed Site performs weakly when assessed against the extent to which the Green Belt checks the unrestricted sprawl of a large-built up area, the extent to which the Green Belt assists in supporting regeneration and the role which the Green Belt has in preventing neighbouring towns from merging. Whilst the Proposed Green Belt site contains no built form, it is not considered to be ‘unspoilt’; indeed, the Site is considered to have a low-moderate sensitivity to development. The Proposed Green Belt General Area has a relatively weak role in preserving the setting and special character of Tickhill.


53 876 Site B, Land to East of Doncaster Road, Tickhill

Tickhill 876 Weak: The Proposed Green Belt Site boundary comprises a private track road associated with Eastfield Farm in the north and an irregularly drawn boundary which would not be identified by physical features on the ground in the east. The Proposed Green Belt boundary is therefore considered to be weakly defined, not recognisable and therefore, not likely to be permanent.

1 1 0 2 3 2 1 1 Weakly Performs against Local Interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes: The Proposed Green Belt site largely performs in a similar manner to the wider Green Belt General Area. Again the Proposed Site performs weakly when assessed against the extent to which the Green Belt checks the unrestricted sprawl of a large-built up area, the extent to which the Green Belt assists in supporting regeneration and the role which the Green Belt has in preventing neighbouring towns from merging. The Proposed Green Belt General Area has a relatively weak role in preserving the setting and special character of Tickhill and a moderately weak role in assisting in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.


54 877 Site C, Land to East of Doncaster Road, Tickhill

Tickhill 877 Weak The Proposed Green Belt boundary would be defined by the strongly defined A1(M) in the east, a weakly defined boundary drawn using no physical features to the north and a weakly defined private track to the west. Although the Green Belt would result in an extension to the built form of Tickhill, the Proposed Green Belt boundary features would therefore be created by weakly defined boundary features.

1 1 0 2 4 2 1 1 Moderately Performs against Local Interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes: The Proposed Green Belt site largely performs in a similar manner to the wider Green Belt General Area. Again the Proposed Site performs weakly when assessed against the extent to which the Green Belt checks the unrestricted sprawl of a large-built up area, the extent to which the Green Belt assists in supporting regeneration and the role which the Green Belt has in preventing neighbouring towns from merging. However, the Proposed Green Belt General Area has a relatively weak role in preserving the setting and special character of Tickhill and a moderate role in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.


55 880 Land at Tickhill

Tickhill 880 Weak: The Proposed Green Belt Site boundary is weakly defined in the south west and north east by a field boundary with low-lying scrubby hedges. In the south and south east, the Proposed Green Belt site boundary is defined by a shallow ditch (the Paper Mill Dike) which is not always a physically recognisable feature. The Proposed Green Belt boundary features are therefore weak and lacking in durability, with the strongest feature being the Paper Mill Dike in the central western area. In addition, the Resultant Green Belt boundary in isolation would result in an angular area which extends to the south of the settlement; this would be a considerably

1 3 0 3 4 4 5 1 Strongly Performs against Local Interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes (Purpose 4): The Proposed Green Belt site largely performs in a similar manner to the wider Green Belt General Area. Again the Proposed Site performs weakly when assessed against the extent to which the Green Belt checks the unrestricted sprawl of a large-built up area, and weakly when assessed against the extent to which the Green Belt assists in supporting regeneration. The Proposed Green Belt Site maintains a largely essential land gap between Haworth Bircotes and Tickhill where the overall scale and openness of the gap is important to maintaining separation, however where some development is possible. The Proposed Green Belt Site is considered to contain land which has a moderate sensitivity to encroachment, and the Site is considered to display a Strong Rural Character. Because of the linear nature of the Proposed Green Belt site, the Site offers views to the historic core of Tickhill and therefore the proposed site is considered to have a strong role in preserving the setting and special character of the historic town of Tickhill.




Page 20


GIS Ref


Purpose 1

Purpose 2a

Purpose 2b

Purpose3a

Purpose 3b

Purpose 4a

Purpose 4b

Purpose 5

weak and angular Green Belt boundary which is unlikely to be permanent.

15 159 Land around Wadworth

Wadworth 159

Weak: The Proposed Green Belt boundary would be divided by the A60 in the north west. • Land to the west of Loversall is contained by the A60, the A1(M) and the M18. The Proposed Green Belt Boundary would therefore be very strongly defined by Green Belt features, however the Resultant Boundary would create an angular area of built form to the south west of Loversall which is predominantly isolated and angular and which does not have a functional relationship to a larger settlement. • Land to the east of the A1(M) has a weak overall boundary. The boundary to the north west would be defined by the strongly defined highway infrastructure of the A60 and the A1(M) in the west, and relatively strongly defined by the extent of the New Rossington Colliery supported by the River Torne drain in the east. However, in the north and south, the proposed Green Belt boundaries would be weakly defined: in the north the boundary is weakly defined by a field drain supported by low-lying vegetation which is not recognisable in the east, and in the south, the Green Belt boundary is defined by either a field boundary or in some cases, the boundary is defined by no natural or infrastructure boundary features. The boundaries to the east of the A1(M) are therefore considered to be predominantly weak, largely not recognisable in the north and south of the area and lacking in durability.

1 5 5 4 4 2 3 3 Strongly Performs against Local Interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes (Purpose 2 and 3): The Proposed Green Belt Site performs in largely the same manner as South 3, South 4 and South 5 combined. Whilst the Green Belt at this location has a relatively weak role in checking the unrestricted sprawl of a large built up area, release of the Proposed Site would result in coalescence of Rossington with the defined villages of Loversall and Wadworth. The Proposed Green Belt Site therefore assumes the whole of a land gap which would otherwise be identified as an ‘essential’ gap. Green Belt at this location contains features which are of a moderate-high sensitivity to encroachment and has a strong rural character: the Proposed Green Belt Site is therefore considered to display a moderate-high sensitivity to encroachment. Similar to the General Area, Green Belt at this location has a moderately weak role in preserving the setting and special character of a historic town and has only a moderate role in assisting in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.




Page 21

Annexed Sites May 2017 (not included in summery of Assessment Outcomes)


GIS Ref


Purpose 1

Purpose 2a

Purpose 2b

Purpose3a

Purpose 3b

Purpose 4a

Purpose 4b

Purpose 5

56 930 Land Between Lindrick Lane and Worksop Road, Tickhill

Tickhill 930 Strong: The Proposed Green Belt site boundaries comprise the well-defined and likely to be permanent Worksop Road in the west and the well-defined Lindrick Lane in the east. To the north west, the boundary indents around an area of open storage. The boundaries of this area are weaker than the very strong Worksop Road and Lindrick Lane. The proposed Green Belt boundary is therefore considered to be predominantly strong in the east, south and west, and somewhat weaker in the north west.

1 1 0 3 4 2 3 1 Moderately Performs against Local Interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes: The Proposed Site performs weakly when assessed against the extent to which the Green Belt checks the unrestricted sprawl of a large-built up area, and the extent to which the Green Belt assists in supporting regeneration. In addition, because neighbouring settlements to the south of the site do not have a housing requirement and are small in scale, the Proposed Green Belt site has a weak role in preventing neighbouring towns from merging. The Proposed Green Belt Site is considered to contain features which have a moderate sensitivity to encroachment, and this Site has a moderately-strong rural character. The Proposed Green Belt site is separated from the historic core of Tickhill by a natural boundary, the infrastructure boundary of Lindrick Road and post WWII development. Therefore the Green Belt site has a relatively weak to moderate role in preserving the setting of the Historic Town of Tickhill. A heritage impact assessment would be necessary to determine any site level impact on Historic Core.


57 929 Land North of Cadeby Road, Sprotbrough

Sprotbrough 929

Mixed in Strength: The proposed Green Belt boundary would be defined by Melton Road to the north, and Cadeby Road to the south; both of which are considered to be strongly defined features. However, to the west, the Proposed Green Belt boundary would be weakly defined by a field boundary that is supported by low, gappy hedgerows. On occasion, these boundaries are broken, and often, the boundary is not considered to be distinguishable. The Resultant Green Belt boundary would be created by features that are mixed in strength, strong in the north and south, with a weak boundary in the west.

1 3 5 3 4 1 1 1 Moderately Performs against Local Interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes: The Proposed Green Belt Site has a weak role in checking the unrestricted sprawl of a large built up area, a weak role in assisting in urban regeneration and a weak role in preserving the setting and special character of a historic town. The Proposed Green Belt site would support a moderate role in preventing neighbouring towns from merging. The Proposed Green Belt Site is considered to contain features which are of moderate sensitivity to encroachment and very limited levels of built form. Therefore the Green Belt at this location has a role in assisting in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.




Page 1

Appendix 2: Assessment Proformas

Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council Doncaster Green Belt Review Stage 3 Proposed Green Belt Sites for Assessment

| Issue | 11 May 2017 J:\240000\245498-00\0 ARUP\0-09 PLANNING\0-09-08 REPORTS\10. STAGE 3 GREEN BELT APPRAISL 2017\7. FINAL ISSUE FOLDER\STAGE 3 GREEN BELT SITES RE-APPRAISAL_SITE PROFORMAS_DONCASTER MBC_ISSUE_110517.DOCX

Content Page

1 Adwick le Street 458: Land off Church Lane, Adwick 1

2 Adwick le Street 459: Land off Doncaster Lane, Adwick 4

3 Adwick le Street 461: Redhouse Lane (a) North West, Adwick 7

4 Adwick le Street 462: Land off Adwick Lane, Carcroft 10

5 Adwick le Street 512: Redhouse Lane (b) North East, Adwick 13

6 Adwick le Street 513: Redhouse Lane (C) South, Adwick 16

7 Barnburgh and Harlington 143: Land north of Primary School, Church Lane, Barnburgh 19

8 Barnburgh and Harlington 777: ‘Plot 3’, Harlington 22

9 Bawtry 141: Westwood Road, Bawtry 25

10 Bawtry 146: Tickhill Road, Bawtry 28

11 Bawtry 786: South of Cockhill Close, Bawtry 31

12 Bawtry 873: Site A, Land at Martin Common Farm, Bawtry 34

13 Bawtry 874: Site B (Safeguarded), Land at Martin Common Farm, Bawtry 37

14 Carcroft and Skellow 042: Land to the rear of Skellow Hall 40

15 Carcroft and Skellow 145: Land at Skellow 43

16 Carcroft and Skellow 165: Land north of the A1, Skellow 46

17 Carcroft and Skellow 185: Land at Mill Lane and Crabgate, Skellow49

18 Carcroft and Skellow 186: Land off Crabgate Lane, Skellow 52

19 Carcroft and Skellow 273: Askern Road, Carcroft 55

20 Conisbrough 040: Land at Sheffield Road/Old Road, Hilltop, Conisbrough 58

21 Conisbrough 142: Land south of Sheffield Road, Conisbrough 61

22 Conisbrough 221: Garage off Sheffield Road/ Clifton Hill, Conisbrough (Site B) 64

23 Conisbrough 825: Fields off Drake Head Lane, Conisbrough 67

24 Conisbrough 826: Field off Clifton Hill, Conisbrough 70

25 Denaby Main 251: Hill Top Road, Denaby Main 73

26 Doncaster Main Urban Area 033: Land adjacent 163 Sheffield Road, Warmsworth 76

27 Doncaster Main Urban Area 079: Land at Melton Road, Sprotbrough 79

28 Doncaster Main Urban Area 115: Alverley Lane, Balby 82

29 Doncaster Main Urban Area 122: Challenger Drive, Sprotbrough 85

30 Doncaster Main Urban Area 161: Mill Farm, Mill Gate, Bentley 88

31 Doncaster Main Urban Area 212: Lords Head Lane, Warmsworth 91

32 Doncaster Main Urban Area 214: Common Lane, Warmsworth 94

33 Doncaster Main Urban Area 217: Back Lane, Cusworth 97

34 Doncaster Main Urban Area 234: Broad Axe, Scawthorpe 100

35 Doncaster Main Urban Area 237 Warmsworth Quarry, Sheffield Road, Warmsworth (2) 103

36 Doncaster Main Urban Area 246: Scawthorpe Reservoir, Green Lane 106

37 Doncaster Main Urban Area 436: Land at Scawsby Lane 109

38 Doncaster Main Urban Area 494: Green Lane, Scawthorpe 112

39 Mexborough 139: Land north of Wath Road, Mexborough 115

40 Mexborough 154: Land to the north west of Pastures Road 118

41 Sprotbrough 213: Mill Lane, Warmsworth 121

42 Sprotbrough 252: Spring Lane, Sprotbrough 124

43 Sprotbrough 788: Land at Sprotbrough 127

44 Sprotbrough 872: Land at Melton Road, Sprotbrough 130

45 Tickhill 109: Land off Sunderland Street, Tickhill 133

46 Tickhill 281: Land off Worksop Road, Tickhill 136

47 Tickhill 356: Land off Lindrick Lane, Tickhill 139



48 Tickhill 357: Land off Wong Lane, Tickhill 142

49 Tickhill 452: Land west of Dadsley Road, Tickhill 145

50 Tickhill 824: Land behind Lumley Drive, Tickhill 148

51 Tickhill 875: Site A, Land to east of Doncaster Road, Tickhill 151

52 Tickhill 876: Site B, Land to east of Doncaster Road, Tickhill 154

53 Tickhill 877: Site C, Land to east of Doncaster Road, Tickhill 157

54 Tickhill 880: Land at Tickhill 160

55 Wadworth 159: Land around Wadworth 163

56 ANNEXED SITE: Land Between Lindrick Lane and Worksop Road, Tickhill 168

57 ANNEXED SITE: Land North of Cadeby Road, Sprotbrough 171



Page 1

1 Adwick le Street 458: Land off Church Lane, Adwick

Proposed Green Belt Site Reference

458 Boundary of Proposed Green Belt Site

Site Name Land off Church Lane, Adwick

Site Size 3.2 Hectares

Location of Site and relationships with inset settlement

The site lies to the north east of Adwick le Street.

General Area containing Site (from Stage 1 Assessment)

Adwick Le Street 1

Summary of General Area Assessment

• The proposed Green Belt site falls within Adwick Le Street 1, which forms part of a large, linear General Area that surrounds the north of Bentley and which extends to the north, east and south of Adwick Le Street. Bentley is considered to be part of the Main Urban Area of Doncaster and therefore the General Area is connected to the ‘Large Built up Area’ of Doncaster (Purpose 1, Score 3).

• The General Area has a mixed role in preventing neighbouring towns from merging by providing land gaps between Scawthorpe in Bentley and Adwick le Street and Highfields; Adwick le Street and Carcroft and Skellow; between Adwick le Street and Carcroft; and between Bentley and Toll Bar. Overall within the General Area, there are two areas which support an essential gap and two areas where the Green Belt supports a largely essential gap (Purpose 2a, Score 4). The General Area has permitted ribbon development along the Great North Road, but has resisted development along the B1220 (Purpose 2b, Score 3).

• The General Area is characterised by large, irregular arable fields with low and gappy field boundaries. Aside from tree corridor in the south, the Green Belt within this General Area is generally considered to contain components which are easily replaced and not considered to be rare or distinctive. The Green Belt is considered to have a limited tolerance to change and therefore displays a moderate sensitivity to encroachment (Purpose 3a, Score 3). The General Area contains 2.8% built form which supports a semi-urban character (Purpose 3b, Score 2).

• Doncaster has a complex historic core, which is separated from the Green Belt to the south of the General Area by post WWII development (Purpose 4a, Score 2). There are also no views of the historic core of Doncaster from the Green Belt within Adwick le Street 1 (Purpose 4b, Score 1).

• The General Area is considered to be connected to the Regeneration Priority Area of Doncaster and Adwick Le Street, therefore the General Area is directing development towards brownfield land within development limits (Purpose 5, Score 3).

Does the Resultant Green Belt Boundary represent a ‘boundary which is ‘recognisable and likely to be permanent’

The existing Green Belt boundary is defined by an indented area of built form along Mill Lane, an irregular area of built form along Village Street, an indented area of built form along Farm Court and the extent of St Laurence C of E Church. The existing western boundary is therefore considered to be weakly defined. To the south, the existing Green Belt boundary is defined by Church Lane, which a strongly defined and durable Green Belt boundary. The existing Green Belt boundary is therefore considered to be weakly defined in the west and stronger in the south. The Proposed Green Belt boundary would be defined by the extent of shallow drainage ditch in the north east, a weakly defined field boundary with moderate scale shrubs in central northern area and a railway line in the far north. The Proposed Green Belt boundary is therefore considered to be very strong in the far north, and weak elsewhere. The Proposed Green Belt and therefore the Resultant Green Belt boundary are considered to be mixed in strength.



Page 2

Resultant Boundary Strength: Mixed in Strength

Appraisal of Proposed Green Belt Site against the Local Interpretation of the Five NPPF Green Belt Purposes

Purpose 1: To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas.

The Proposed Green Belt Site boundary exists to the east of Adwick le Street, which was identified as a ‘Large Urban Area’ within the Local Plan Issues and Options Draft (July 2015) and a ‘Main Town’ in the Doncaster Local Plan Consultation: Homes and Settlements (March 2016). Adwick le Street is therefore not considered to form part of the ‘Large Built up Area’ of Doncaster. The Green Belt at this location is therefore connected to the South Yorkshire Green Belt, but not in close proximity to any large built up area. Score: 1

Purpose 2: To prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another.

Purpose 2a: Role of the Proposed Green Belt Site in resisting development that would result in merging, coalescence or significant erosion, both physical or visually of a valued gap between neighbouring settlements within the District.

The Proposed Green Belt Site falls within a land gap between the ‘Main Town’ of Adwick le Street and the third tier ‘Service Town and Village’ of Carcroft and Skellow. Whilst the area to the south west performs this role to a weaker degree, the north eastern area of the Proposed Site has a strong role in preventing neighbouring towns from merging. Specifically the area to the north east of the shallow drainage ditch contains a relatively dense area of trees which provides the only degree of separation between these settlements. The curvature of the B1220 road and the end of the built form does also allow for perception of leaving one place and entering the next, however this is supported by the dense area of trees along Church Lane. Therefore, the Green Belt surrounding the Adwick train station and railway line supports an ‘essential gap’ between settlements, which would be completely eroded following the release of the Proposed Green Belt site from the Green Belt. The Proposed Green Belt Site therefore falls within an essential land gap. Score: 5

Purpose 2b: Role of the Proposed Green Belt Site in resisting ribbon development which would otherwise have resulted in the reduction of perceived separation between settlements.

To the north of Church Lane, the existing Green Belt boundary has strongly resisted ribbon development. However, built form does exist to the south of Church Lane and therefore, the existing Green Belt boundary is considered to have resisted ribbon development in part. Score: 3

Purpose 3: To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.

Purpose 3a: Sensitivity of the Proposed Green Belt Site and features important to the appreciation of the countryside to change.

General Area Assessment Summary: The General Area is generally characterised by large, irregular arable fields with low and ‘gappy’ field boundaries. Whilst the topography within the wider General Area slopes from the west to the east and towards the north, it is predominantly flat on the whole. This topography within the wider General Area supports long distance views to the east and some to the north. The Ecus Landscape Character Capacity Study (2006) identifies the Green Belt land within the General Area as falling within the C2 Cadeby to Adwick Limestone Plateau. Land within this area is considered to dip gently to the north and east, with large scale intensive arable farmland with some pasture around settlements. In some locations, there is an open feel with extensive views to the east and west, however there is also some modern influences (including the motorway and railway line) which locally change the character of the area. Proposed Green Belt Site Assessment: Land within the Proposed Green Belt Site contains arable land and a dense copse of trees adjacent to the railway line. Whilst views do exist to the north, high levels of containment within the existing built form do mean that development would not be in conflict with the landform, scale or patterns of the landscape. Land is generally in a fair condition, however development within this location would have an impact on the vulnerable copse of trees to the north east of the Site and an impact on the setting on of the Adwick le Street conservation area, including the Grade II* Listed St Laurence Church. The Proposed Green Belt Site is therefore considered to have a very limited tolerance to change and contain components that are not easily replaced or substituted. The Proposed Site is therefore considered to contain features of a moderate-high sensitivity to encroachment. Score: 4

Purpose 3b: Extent to which these features within the Proposed Green Belt Site have been impacted by ‘Encroachment’.

The Proposed Green Belt Site contains 0.05% built form and is therefore considered to display a ‘Strong Rural Character’. Score: 4

Purpose 4: To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns.

Purpose 4a: Extent to which the Proposed Green Belt Site has a role in supporting the character of the Historic Town or Place within the Borough.

Whilst the Proposed Green Belt site falls within the Conservation Area for Adwick le Street, this settlement is not considered to represent a ‘Complex Historic Town Core’ in the local interpretation of Purpose 4. The Proposed Green Belt site therefore does not support the setting or special character of a ‘historic town’. Despite this, further heritage impact assessment work would be necessary to understand the heritage implications of development at this location on the Conservation Area. Score: 1

Purpose 4b: Extent to which the Proposed Green Belt Site has a role in supporting the views into and out of the historic core.

Given Adwick le Street is not considered to be a ‘Historic Town’ in the local interpretation of the Purpose, the Proposed Green Belt site is not considered to support views into and out of the historic core. Despite this, further heritage impact assessment work would be necessary to understand the heritage implications of development at this location on the Conservation Area. Score: 1



Page 3

Purpose 5: Extent to which the Proposed Green Belt Site ‘assists in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land’.

Adwick le Street is identified as a Regeneration Priority within the Core Strategy. Given the highly contained nature of the existing Green Belt boundary, the Proposed Green Belt site is considered to be contiguous with the Regeneration Priority Area of Adwick le Street. Score: 4

Summary The General Area has a mixed role when assessed against the Local Interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes. The General Area is considered to have a moderate role in checking the unrestricted sprawl of a large built up area and a moderate role in assisting in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. The Green Belt at this location has a moderate sensitivity to encroachment and supports a semi-urban character. The wider Green Belt General Area is considered to have a moderate role in preventing neighbouring towns from merging and a weak role in preserving the setting and special character of a historic town, as Adwick le Street is not considered to be a ‘Historic Town’ in the South Yorkshire Historic Environment Characterisation (2008). The Proposed Green Belt boundary would be defined by the extent of a shallow drainage ditch in the north east, a weakly defined field boundary with moderate scale shrubs in central northern area and a railway line in the far north. The Proposed Green Belt boundary is therefore considered to be very strong in the far north, and weak elsewhere. The Proposed Green Belt Site and therefore the Resultant Green Belt boundary are considered to be mixed in strength. The Proposed Green Belt boundary has a moderately strong role when assessed against the local interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes. Whilst the Proposed Green Belt site is not considered to have a role in checking the unrestricted sprawl of a ‘large built up area’, the Proposed Green Belt site (particularly in the northern area) is considered to play a strong role in preventing neighbouring towns from merging. Although the Proposed Green Belt Site falls within the Conservation Area, as Adwick le Street is not considered to be a ‘historic town’ in the local interpretation of Purpose 4, the Proposed Site has only a weak role in preserving the setting and special character of a historic town. Nevertheless, when assessed for the extent to which the Proposed Green Belt Site has a role in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, the Site is considered to contain features which are not easily replaced and therefore possess a moderate-high sensitivity to encroachment. As Adwick le Street is identified as a Regeneration Priority Area, the Proposed Green Belt site is considered to have a moderately strong role in assisting in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.



Page 4

2 Adwick le Street 459: Land off Doncaster Lane, Adwick



Site Name Land off Doncaster Lane, Adwick



The site lies to the east of Adwick le Street.


Adwick Le Street 1




• The General Area is characterised by large, irregular arable fields with low and gappy field boundaries. Aside from tree corridor in the south, the Green Belt within this General Area is considered to contain components which are easily replaced and not considered to be rare or distinctive. The Green Belt is considered to have a limited tolerance to change and therefore displays a moderate sensitivity to encroachment (Purpose 3a, Score 3). The General Area contains 2.8% built form which supports a semi-urban character (Purpose 3b, Score 2).

• Doncaster has a complex historic core, which is separated from the Green Belt to the south of the General Area by post-WWII development (Purpose 4a, Score 2). There are also no views of the historic core of Doncaster from the Green Belt within Adwick le Street 1 (Purpose 4b, Score 1).



The existing Green Belt boundary is defined by Doncaster Lane in the north and west, which indents around a protruding area of residential built form along Park View. The existing Green Belt boundary is therefore considered to be predominantly strong and only weakened by the area of built form associated with Park View. The Proposed Green Belt boundary would be defined by an angular area of built form along Doncaster Lane in the north, a weakly defined shallow field boundary in the east which is not supported by any other features, and a field boundary in the south. The Proposed Green Belt boundary features and the Resultant Boundary would be weakly defined, weakly recognisable in the long-term and unlikely to be permanent. Resultant Boundary Strength: Weak



Page 5

Appraisal of Proposed Green Belt Site against the Local Interpretation of the five NPPF Green Belt Purposes


The Proposed Green Belt Site boundary exists to the west of Adwick le Street, which was identified as a ‘Large Urban Area’ within the Local Plan Issues and Options Draft (July 2015) and a ‘Main Town’ in the Doncaster Local Plan Consultation: Homes and Settlements (March 2016). Adwick le Street is therefore not considered to form part of the ‘Large Built up Area’ of Doncaster. The Green Belt at this location is therefore connected to the South Yorkshire Green Belt, but not in close proximity to any large built up area. Score: 1



The Proposed Green Belt Site falls within a land gap between the ‘Main Town’ of Adwick le Street and the third tier ‘Service Town and Village’ of Carcroft and Skellow. Whilst the area to the south and west performs this role to a weaker degree, the area to the north east of the Proposed Site has a strong role in preventing neighbouring towns from merging. Specifically, the Proposed Green Belt site extends as far north east as the operational railway line, beyond the existing residential development along Doncaster Lane. Therefore, if this area was released from the Green Belt, this would result in partial coalescence between these settlements. The Green Belt surrounding Adwick le Street train station therefore supports an ‘essential gap’ between settlements, which would be completely eroded following the release of the Proposed Green Belt site from the Green Belt. The Proposed Green Belt Site therefore falls within an essential land gap. Score: 5


Built form does exist to the south of Church Lane which has occurred since the designation of the Green Belt. Therefore, the existing Green Belt boundary is considered to have resisted ribbon development in part which would continue to reduce the perception of separation between settlements. Score: 3



General Area Assessment Summary: The General Area is generally characterised by large, irregular arable fields with low and ‘gappy’ field boundaries. Whilst the topography within the wider General Area slopes from the west to the east and towards the north, it is predominantly flat on the whole. This topography within the wider General Area supports long distance views to the east and some to the north. The Ecus Landscape Character Capacity Study (2006) identifies the Green Belt land within the General Area as falling within the C2 Cadeby to Adwick Limestone Plateau. Land within this area is considered to dip gently to the north and east, with large scale intensive arable farmland with some pasture around settlements. In some locations, there is an open feel with extensive views to the east and west, however there are also some modern influences (including the motorway and railway line) which locally change the character of the area. Proposed Green Belt Site Assessment: Land within the Proposed Green Belt site is of a similar character to the wider General Area. The Proposed Green Belt Site contains two large agricultural fields in close proximity to the operational railway line and therefore it contains features which are considered to be easily replaced. Whilst the Proposed Green belt Site is considered to be adjacent to the Adwick le Street Conservation Area and associated listed buildings, the large majority of the site is not considered to contain features which are rare or distinctive. Land at this location is considered to be in a fair condition and have a limited tolerance to change. There are long distance views to the east and south, and therefore development at this location would have an impact on views across the area. The Proposed Green Belt Site is considered to contain features which are of moderate-high sensitivity to encroachment. Score: 3


The Proposed Green Belt Site contains 0.00% built form and is therefore should be considered to display a ‘Strong Unspoilt Rural Character’. However as a result of the operational railway in the east and the presence of the angular area of built form to the south of Doncaster Lane, the Proposed Green Belt Site is considered to be more reflective of a ‘Strong Rural Character’. Score: 4



Whilst the Proposed Green Belt site is in close proximity to the Conservation Area for Adwick le Street, the settlement is not considered to represent a ‘Historic Town’ in the local interpretation of Purpose 4. The Proposed Green Belt site therefore does not support the setting or special character of a ‘historic town’. Despite this, further historic impact assessment work may be necessary to understand the heritage implications of development at this location on the Conservation Area. Score: 1


Given Adwick le Street is not considered to be a ‘Historic Town’ in the local interpretation of the Purpose, the Proposed Green Belt site is not considered to support views into and out of a historic core. Despite this, further historic impact assessment work may be necessary to understand the heritage implications of development at this location on the Conservation Area. Score: 1


Adwick le Street is identified as a Regeneration Priority within the Core Strategy. Given the strength of the existing Green Belt boundary, the Proposed Green Belt site is considered to be connected to and in close proximity with the Regeneration Priority Area of Adwick le Street. Score: 3



Page 6

Summary The General Area has a mixed role when assessed against the Local Interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes. The General Area is considered to have a moderate role in checking the unrestricted sprawl of a large built up area and a moderate role in assisting in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. The Green Belt at this location has a moderate sensitivity to encroachment and supports a semi-urban character. The wider Green Belt General Area is considered to have a moderate role in preventing neighbouring towns from merging and a weak role in preserving the setting and special character of a historic town, as Adwick le Street is not considered to be a ‘Historic Town’ in the South Yorkshire Historic Environment Characterisation (2008). The Proposed Green Belt boundary would be defined by an angular area of built form along Doncaster Lane in the north, a weakly defined shallow field boundary in the east which is not supported by any other features, and a field boundary in the south. The Proposed Green Belt boundary features and the Resultant Boundary would be weakly defined, weakly recognisable in the long-term and unlikely to be permanent. The Proposed Green Belt boundary has a moderately strong role when assessed against the local interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes. Whilst the Proposed Green Belt site is not considered to have a role in checking the unrestricted sprawl of a ‘large built up area’, the Proposed Green Belt site (particularly in the northern area) is considered to play a strong role in preventing neighbouring towns from merging. The Proposed Green Belt Site is considered to have a Strong Rural Character, as a result of no built form within the Site; however overall, the Site is considered to contain features of moderate sensitivity to encroachment. Although the Proposed Green Belt Site is adjacent to the Conservation Area, as Adwick le Street is not considered to be a ‘historic town’ in the local interpretation of Purpose 4, the Proposed Site has only a weak role in preserving the setting and special character of a historic town. As Adwick le Street is identified as a Regeneration Priority Area, the Proposed Green Belt site is considered to have a moderate role in assisting in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.



Page 7

3 Adwick le Street 461: Redhouse Lane (a) North West, Adwick



Site Name Redhouse Lane (a) South, Adwick

Site Size 34 Hectares


The site lies to the north of Adwick le Street.


Adwick Le Street 1








The existing Green Belt boundary is considered to be strongly defined by A1 (M) and the Great North Road A638 in the south west. The Proposed Green Belt boundary would be defined by the A1(M) and the Great North Road A638 in the south west, the strongly defined operational railway line in the north, Redhouse Lane in the south and a weakly defined field boundary and cemetery in the east. The Proposed Green Belt features are therefore mixed in strength, strong in the north, south and west and weak in the east. In isolation, however, release of the Proposed Green Belt site would result in a weak Resultant Green Belt boundary which would acutely protrude from the A1(M) with no connection to an area of existing built form. The Resultant Green Belt boundary would therefore be somewhat weaker than the features which form its boundary. Resultant Boundary Strength: Mixed in Strength



Page 8

Appraisal of Proposed Green Belt Site against the Local five NPPF Green Belt Purposes


The Proposed Green Belt Site boundary exists to the north of Adwick le Street, which was identified as a ‘Large Urban Area’ within the Issues and Options Draft (2015) and a ‘Main Town’ in the Doncaster Local Plan Consultation: Homes and Settlements (March 2016). Adwick le Street is therefore not considered to form part of the ‘Large Built up Area’ of Doncaster. The Green Belt at this location is therefore connected to the South Yorkshire Green Belt, but not in close proximity to any large built up area. Score: 1



The Proposed Green Belt Site falls within a land gap between the ‘Main Town’ of Adwick le Street and the third tier ‘Service Town and Village’ of Carcroft and Skellow. This land gap is comprised of the extent of the arable fields, the marshland associated with Old Ea Beck and The Skell and the change in topography created by the former Carcroft mine. Views are possible between settlements, and the A1(M) links both the settlements. Despite this there is a clear perception of separation between settlements. In isolation, the Proposed Green Belt Site therefore falls within and maintains a largely essential gap, where there is sufficient physical, visual and perceptual separation that some development would not result in merging. However, should the land to the north of the railway line also be developed, the Green Belt within the Proposed Site would represent an essential gap along the A1(M). Score: 3


The Great North Road and the A1(M) exists to the west of the site and links Adwick le Street with Carcroft in the north. Given the nature and northern extent of the Proposed Green Belt site, development would represent ribbon development along the A1(M) which would perceptibly reduce the perception of separation along this access track. This would be particularly pronounced if land to the north of the railway line was also developed. Score: 5



General Area Assessment Summary: The General Area is generally characterised by large, irregular arable fields with low and ‘gappy’ field boundaries. Whilst the topography within the area slopes from the west to the east and towards the north, it is predominantly flat on the whole. This topography supports long distance views to the east and some to the north. The Ecus Landscape Character Capacity Study (2006) identifies the Green Belt land within the General Area as falling within the C2 Cadeby to Adwick Limestone Plateau. Land within this area is considered to dip gently to the north and east, with large scale intensive arable farmland with some pasture around settlements. In some locations, there is an open feel with extensive views to the east and west, however there are also some modern influences (including the motorway and railway line) which locally change the character of the area. Proposed Green Belt Site Assessment: The Proposed Green Belt Site comprises a number of agricultural fields which exist to the north of Redhouse Lane and west of the A1(M), and the marshland areas associated with The Skell in the north east of the area. Aside from the north west of the area which contains the distinctive features associated with the Skell, the wider Green Belt Site is therefore considered to be relatively tolerant of change and contain no distinctive components. However, as a result of the declining topography, limited levels of containment and long views to the north, development at this location would have a negative impact on the physical landform and have an impact on views across the area. As a result of the area of marshland to the north which is considered to be a distinctive feature, the Proposed Green Belt Site is therefore considered to contain features which are moderately-high sensitivity to encroachment. Score: 4


The General Area contains approximately 0.75% built form associated with the two pylons within the area. The General Area is therefore considered to display a ‘Strong Rural Character’. Score: 4



Adwick le Street is not considered to represent a ‘Historic Town’ in the local interpretation of Purpose 4. The Proposed Green Belt site therefore does not support the setting or special character of a ‘historic town’. Score: 1


Given Adwick le Street is not considered to be a ‘Historic Town’ in the local interpretation of the Purpose, the Proposed Green Belt site is not considered to support views into and out of the historic core. Score: 1


Adwick le Street is identified as a Regeneration Priority within the Core Strategy. Given the strength of the existing Green Belt boundary, the Proposed Green Belt site is considered to be connected to but not in close proximity to the Regeneration Priority Area of Adwick le Street. Score: 2

Summary The General Area has a mixed role when assessed against the Local Interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes. The General Area is considered to have a moderate role in checking the unrestricted sprawl of a large built up area and a moderate role in assisting in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. The Green Belt at this location has a moderate sensitivity to encroachment and supports a semi-urban character. The wider Green Belt General Area is considered to have a moderate role in preventing neighbouring towns from merging and a weak role in preserving the setting and special character of a historic town, as Adwick le Street is not considered to be a ‘Historic Town’ in the South Yorkshire Historic Environment Characterisation (2008).



Page 9

Whilst the Green Belt boundaries would be mixed in strength, release of the Proposed Green Belt site in isolation would result in a weak Resultant Green Belt boundary which would acutely protrude from the A1(M) with no connection to an area of existing built form. The Resultant Green Belt boundary would therefore be somewhat weaker than the features which form its boundary. The Proposed Green Belt boundary has a modest role when assessed against the local interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes. The Proposed Green Belt site is not considered to have a role in checking the unrestricted sprawl of a ‘large built up area’, and a moderate role in preventing neighbouring towns from merging. The role of the Proposed Green Belt site in preventing neighbouring towns from merging would increase to an essential gap if development were to take place to the north of the railway line. The Proposed Green Belt Site is considered to contain features which are of a moderate-high sensitivity to development, which displays a Strong Rural Character. As Adwick le Street is not considered to be a ‘historic town’ in the local interpretation of Purpose 4, the Proposed Green Belt Site has only a limited role in preserving the setting and special character of a historic town. As Adwick le Street is identified as a Regeneration Priority Area, the Proposed Green Belt site is considered to have a role, albeit moderately weak, in assisting in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.



Page 10

4 Adwick le Street 462: Land off Adwick Lane, Carcroft



Site Name Land off Adwick Lane, Carcroft



The site lies to the east of Carcroft and west of Toll Bar


Bentley 3


• The proposed Green Belt site falls within Bentley 3, which is situated to the north of Rosholme in Bentley and between Carcroft and Toll Bar in the north. Given the strength of the existing Green Belt boundary and relatively low levels of containment, Bentley 3 is considered to be connected to Main Urban Area of Doncaster and therefore have a moderate role in checking the unrestricted sprawl of this ‘Large Urban Area’ (Purpose 1, Score 3).

• The General Area has a mixed role in preventing neighbouring towns from merging including between Rosholme within Bentley and Adwick le Street; Bentley and Carcroft and Skellow; Toll Bar and Bentley; and Toll Bar and Adwick Le Street. The General Area displays a mixed role in supporting the separation of neighbouring settlements. On balance, the General Area contains one land gap which is considered to be essential, two gaps which are largely essential, and one gap which is considered to not prevent merging (Purpose 2a, Score 3). The General Area is bordered by the A19 to the east and contains Adwick Lane and Bentley Moor Lane, and there are no instances of ribbon development beyond the existing Green Belt boundary along any of these routes (Purpose 2b, Score 5).

• The General Area is generally characterised by large, irregular arable fields with low and ‘gappy’ field boundaries. Green Belt within this General Area is considered to contain components which are generally easily replaced and which are not considered to be rare or distinctive. Development within this location would have an impact on views and have a negative impact on the physical landform. The General Area therefore displays a moderate sensitivity to encroachment (Purpose 3a, Score 3). The General Area contains very limited built form (0.41%) aside from a small area of open storage. The General Area therefore displays a strong rural character (Purpose 3b, Score 4).

• Whilst Doncaster is considered to have a ‘Complex Historic Core’ within the South Yorkshire Historic Environment Characterisation, this is separated from the Green Belt by a natural boundary and post WWII development (Purpose 4a, Score 3). There are also no historic views towards the historic core of Doncaster from the Green Belt in Bentley 3 (Purpose 4b, Score 1).

• The General Area is considered to be connected to the Regeneration Priority Areas of Doncaster and Carcroft and Skellow and therefore the General Area is considered to be directing development towards brownfield land within the development limits (Purpose 5, Score 3).


The existing Green Belt boundary at this location is defined by a field drain in the north west, the built extent of the Brooklands Industrial Estate in the north and Carcroft Industrial Estate and an existing allocation for employment which has not been developed. The existing Green Belt boundaries are therefore considered to be weak and unlikely to be durable. The Proposed Green Belt boundary would be defined by the strongly defined operational railway line in the west, and a weakly defined field boundary in the south supported by a field drain in the south east. The Proposed Green Belt boundaries, and therefore the Resultant Green Belt boundary, are therefore considered to be mixed in strength: strongly defined in the west and weak in the south. Resultant Boundary Strength: Mixed in Strength, strong in the west and weak in the south



Page 11



The Proposed Green Belt Site exists to the south of Carcroft and Skellow, which was identified as a ‘Service Town and Village’ within the Doncaster Local Plan Consultation: Homes and Settlements (March 2016), and Toll Bar which was identified as a ‘Defined Village’. Neither of these settlements are considered to form part of the ‘Large Built up Area’ of Doncaster. The Proposed Green Belt Site is therefore considered to be connected to the South Yorkshire Green Belt, but not in close proximity to any large built up area Score: 1



The Proposed Green Belt Site must be assessed for the extent to which it has a role in separating Toll Bar, a ‘Defined Village’ and Carcroft which is identified as a ‘Service Town and Village’. The boundaries of Carcroft and Toll Bar connect briefly where Bentley Moor Lane crosses the Old Ea Beck. However, although allocated for employment and considered to fall within the development limits of Toll Bar, the northern edge of Toll Bar has not been built out. When the allocated land at the north of Toll Bar has been built upon, the physical separation of these two settlements will be indistinguishable. Therefore the Green Belt at this location has no role in preventing the merging of settlements as the employment allocation has already created the principle for merging of these settlements to take place. Release of the Proposed Green Belt site also must be assessed for the extent to which it has a role in maintaining separation between Toll Bar and Carcroft, with Adwick le Street further in the west. However, this land gap is created by the land to the west of the operational railway line along Doncaster Lane because of the extent of the existing built form around the station. Therefore, the Proposed Green Belt site also has no discernable role in preventing the merging of neighbouring settlements. Score: 0


The Proposed Green Belt Site contains Adwick Lane and Bentley Moor Lane. The existing Green Belt boundary has therefore strongly resisted ribbon development. However, as a result of the employment allocation which joins these two settlements, ribbon development along this route would not contribute further to ribbon development. Score: 0



General Area Assessment Summary: The General Area is generally characterised by large, irregular arable fields with low and ‘gappy’ field boundaries. Whilst the topography within the area slopes from the west to the east and towards the north, it is very flat on the whole. This topography supports views between Bentley, Adwick le Street, Carcroft and Skellow and Toll Bar. The Ecus Landscape Character Capacity Study (2006) identifies the Green Belt land within the General Area as falling within the F1 Toll Bar Settled Clay Farmlands. Land within this General Area comprises mainly flat landform with a restored spoil heap further to the east. This area represents a network of larger settlements which have by in large merged with Doncaster Urban Area. There are a limited number of trees and therefore views are generally very open. This is a moderately distinctive character area. Proposed Green Belt Site Assessment: The Proposed Green Belt Site therefore comprises a number of agricultural fields surrounded by shallow field drains. The Green Belt at this location is therefore considered to contain features which are generally easily replaced and no features which are considered to be rare and distinctive. However, as a result of the long-distance views and flat landform, development at this location would have an impact on views across the area. Land at this location is therefore considered to have a limited tolerance to change. The Proposed Green Belt Site is considered to have a moderate sensitivity to encroachment. Score: 3


The Proposed Green Belt Site contains 0.0% built form and is therefore considered to have a ‘Strong Unspoilt Rural Character’. If the employment allocation to the north east of the Proposed Site had been developed, the Proposed Site would be more characteristic of a Strong Rural Character. Score: 5



Neither Adwick le Street or Carcroft and Skellow are considered to represent a ‘Historic Town’ in the local interpretation of Purpose 4. Whilst the Main Urban Area of Doncaster, which exists 2.5km to the south of the site, is considered to have a ‘Complex Historic Town Core’, the Proposed Green Belt site is not considered to be in close proximity to a ‘Historic Core’ and has no role in supporting the setting and special character of the historic town. The Proposed Green Belt site therefore does not support the setting or special character of a ‘historic town’. Score: 1


Adwick le Street nor Carcroft and Skellow are not considered to represent a ‘Historic Town’ in the local interpretation of Purpose 4. Whilst the Main Urban Area of Doncaster, which exists 2.5km to the south of the site, is considered to have a ‘Complex Historic Town Core’ there are only very limited views from the Proposed Green Belt site towards the Complex Historic Core of Doncaster. Score: 2


Adwick le Street, and Carcroft and Skellow, is identified as a Regeneration Priority within the Core Strategy. Given the strength of the existing Green Belt boundary, the Proposed Green Belt site is considered to be connected to and in close proximity to the Regeneration Priority Area of Carcroft and Skellow. Score: 3

Summary The General Area has a mixed role when assessed against the local interpretation of Green Belt Purposes within Doncaster. The wider General Area is considered to have a moderate role in checking the unrestricted sprawl of the large built up area of Doncaster, a moderate role in directing development towards brownfield within the development limits, a mixed role in preventing neighbouring towns from merging and a strong role in resisting



Page 12

ribbon development. The General Area is considered to display a moderate sensitivity to encroachment and have a strong rural character. The Green Belt at this location is considered to have a moderately weak role in preserving the setting and special character of a historic town. The Proposed Green Belt boundary would be defined in the operational railway line in the west, and a weakly defined field boundary in the south supported by a field drain in the south east. The Proposed Green Belt boundaries, and therefore the Resultant Green Belt boundary, are therefore considered to be mixed in strength: strongly defined in the west and weak in the south. The Proposed Green Belt site would have a moderate role when assessed against the local interpretation of the Green Belt purposes. The Proposed Green Belt site would have a weak role in checking the unrestricted sprawl of the large built up area, no role in preventing neighbouring towns from merging as this has already happened through the employment land allocation and moderate role in assisting in urban regeneration. The Proposed Green Belt site does not support the setting or special character of a historic town. However, the Proposed Green Belt Site is considered to have a moderate sensitivity to encroachment and 0.0% built form. If the employment allocation to the north east of the Proposed Site had been developed, the Proposed Site would be more characteristic of a Strong Rural Character.



Page 13

5 Adwick le Street 512: Redhouse Lane (b) North East, Adwick



Site Name Redhouse Lane (b) South, Adwick





Adwick Le Street 1








The existing Green Belt boundary is considered to be strongly defined by Kestrel Drive, Kingfisher Road and Woodcock Way. The existing Green Belt boundary defined by this linear area of residential built form is considered to be strongly defined, recognisable and likely to be durable. The Proposed Green Belt boundary would be weakly defined by a field boundary in the north and the extent of weakly defined field drain in the north east. Whilst Red House Lane predominantly forms the southern boundary of the General Area, this sharply indents in the central area by a number of field boundaries. Whilst Red House Lane to the south does form a strongly defined and durable feature, the strength of all other boundaries and the weakly defined, central indented area means that the Proposed Green Belt Boundaries are considered to be weak. In isolation, the Resultant Green Belt boundary would create an angular area of residential built form which acutely extends to the north of Adwick le Street. Resultant Boundary Strength: Weak



Page 14



The Proposed Green Belt Site boundary exists to the north of Adwick le Street, which was identified as a ‘Large Urban Area’ within the Issues and Options Draft (2015) and a ‘Main Town’ in the Doncaster Local Plan Consultation: Homes and Settlements (March 2016). Adwick le Street is therefore not considered to form part of the ‘Large Built up Area’ of Doncaster. The Green Belt at this location is therefore connected to the South Yorkshire Green Belt, but not in close proximity to any large built up area. Score: 1



The Proposed Green Belt Site falls within a land gap between the ‘Main Town’ of Adwick le Street and the third tier ‘Service Town and Village’ of Carcroft and Skellow. This land gap is created in part by the extent of the arable fields, the marshland associated with Old Ea Beck and The Skell and the change in topography created by the former Carcroft mine. Views are intermittently possible between settlements, and the A1(M) links both the settlements further to the west. Despite this there is a clear perception of separation between settlements. In isolation, the Proposed Green Belt Site therefore falls within and maintains a largely essential gap, where there is sufficient physical, visual and perceptual separation that some development would not result in merging. However, should the land to the north of the railway line also be developed, the Green Belt within the Proposed Site would represent an essential gap. Score: 3


Whilst Redhouse Lane exists to the west of the Proposed Green Belt site, there are no access tracks within the Proposed Green Belt Site which would directly link both settlements. Therefore the Proposed Green Belt Site contains no access routes which would have reduced the perception of separation between settlements. Score: 0



General Area Assessment Summary: The General Area is generally characterised by large, irregular arable fields with low and ‘gappy’ field boundaries. Whilst the topography within the area slopes from the west to the east and towards the north, it is predominantly flat on the whole. This topography supports long distance views to the east and some to the north. The Ecus Landscape Character Capacity Study (2006) identifies the Green Belt land within the General Area as falling within the C2 Cadeby to Adwick Limestone Plateau. Land within this area is considered to dip gently to the north and east, with large scale intensive arable farmland with some pasture around settlements. In some locations, there is an open feel with extensive views to the east and west, however there is also some modern influences (including the railway line) which locally change the character of the area. Proposed Green Belt Site Assessment: The Proposed Green Belt Site comprises a number of agricultural fields which exist to the north of Redhouse Lane, and areas adjacent to the marshland areas associated with The Skell in the north. Aside from the north west of the area which is adjacent to features associated with the Skell, the wider Green Belt Site is considered to be relatively tolerant of change and contain no distinctive components. However, as a result of the declining topography, limited levels of containment and long views to the north, development at this location would have a negative impact on the physical landform and have an impact on views across the area. The Proposed Green Belt Site is therefore considered to contain features which are of moderate sensitivity to encroachment. Score: 3

Purpose 3b: Extent to which these landscape features within the Proposed Green Belt Site have been impacted by ‘Encroachment’.

The General Area contains approximately 0.75% built form associated with the two pylons within the area. The General Area is therefore considered to display a ‘Strong Rural Character’. Score: 4



Adwick le Street is not considered to represent a ‘Historic Town’ in the local interpretation of Purpose 4. The Proposed Green Belt site therefore does not support the setting or special character of a ‘historic town’. Score: 1




Adwick le Street is identified as a Regeneration Priority within the Core Strategy. Given the strength of the existing Green Belt boundary, the Proposed Green Belt site is considered to be connected to and in close proximity to the Regeneration Priority Area of Adwick le Street. Score: 3

Summary The General Area has a mixed role when assessed against the Local Interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes. The General Area is considered to have a moderate role in checking the unrestricted sprawl of a large built up area and a moderate role in assisting in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. The Green Belt at this location has a moderate sensitivity to encroachment and supports a semi-urban



Page 15

character. The wider Green Belt General Area is considered to have a moderate role in preventing neighbouring towns from merging and a weak role in preserving the setting and special character of a historic town, as Adwick le Street is not considered to be a ‘Historic Town’ in the South Yorkshire Historic Environment Characterisation (2008). The Proposed Green Belt boundary would be weakly defined by a field boundary in the north and the extent of weakly defined field drain in the north east. Whilst Red House Lane predominantly forms the southern boundary of the General Area, this sharply indents in the central area by a number of field boundaries. Whilst Red House Lane to the south forms a strongly defined and durable feature, the strength of all other boundaries and the weakly defined, central indented area means that the Proposed Green Belt Boundaries are considered to be weak. In isolation, the Resultant Green Belt boundary would create an angular area of residential built form which acutely extends to the north of Adwick le Street. The Proposed Green Belt boundary has a modest role when assessed against the local interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes. The Proposed Green Belt site is not considered to have a role in checking the unrestricted sprawl of a ‘large built up area’, and a moderate role in preventing neighbouring towns from merging. The role of the Proposed Green Belt site in preventing neighbouring towns from merging would increase to an essential gap if development were to take place to the north of the railway line. The Green Belt at this location is considered to have a moderate role in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment: land contains features which are of moderate sensitivity to encroachment, and displays a ‘strong rural character’. As Adwick le Street is not considered to be a ‘historic town’ in the local interpretation of Purpose 4, the Proposed Green Belt Site has only a limited role in preserving the setting and special character of a historic town. As Adwick le Street is identified as a Regeneration Priority Area, the Proposed Green Belt site is considered to have a moderate role in assisting in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.



Page 16

6 Adwick le Street 513: Redhouse Lane (C) South, Adwick



Site Name Redhouse Lane (c) South, Adwick





Adwick Le Street 1






• The General Area is considered to be connected to the Regeneration Priority Area of Doncaster and Adwick le Street, therefore the General Area is directing development towards brownfield land within development limits (Purpose 5, Score 3).


The existing Green Belt boundary is considered to be relatively strongly defined by residential built form along Lutterworth Drive, Bosworth Road and Whinfell Close. The Proposed Green Belt boundary would be defined by Red House Lane in the north and east, and the extent of the Great North Road in the east. The Resultant Green Belt boundary would therefore result in a strongly defined feature which would represent a natural rounding off to north of Adwick le Street to mirror the extent of built form to the west of the Great North Road. Resultant Boundary Strength: Strong



Page 17



The Proposed Green Belt Site boundary adjoins the northern edge of Adwick le Street, which was identified as a ‘Large Urban Area’ within the Issues and Options Draft (2015) and a ‘Main Town’ in the Doncaster Local Plan Consultation; Homes and Settlements (March 2016). Adwick le Street is therefore not considered to form part of the ‘Large Built up Area’ of Doncaster. The Green Belt at this location is therefore connected to the South Yorkshire Green Belt, but not in close proximity to any large built up area. Score: 1



The Proposed Green Belt Site falls within a land gap between the ‘Main Town’ of Adwick le Street and the third tier ‘Service Town and Village’ of Carcroft and Skellow. This is created in part by the extent of the arable fields, the marshland associated with Old Ea Beck and The Skell and the change in topography created by the former Carcroft mine. Views are intermittently possible between settlements, and the A1(M) links both the settlements. Despite this there is a clear perception of separation between settlements. The Proposed Green Belt Site therefore falls within and maintains a largely essential gap, where there is sufficient physical, visual and perceptual separation that some development would not result in merging. Score: 3


The Great North Road and the A1(M) exists to the south west and west of the site and links Adwick le Street with Carcroft in the north. The existing Green Belt boundary had therefore resisted ribbon development. Given the extent of existing built form to the west of the Great North Road, the proposed Green Belt site would not result in any increase in ribbon development which would reduce the perception of separation between settlements. The Proposed Green Belt site therefore makes no perceptible contribution to separation. Score: 0



General Area Assessment Summary: The General Area is generally characterised by large, irregular arable fields with low and ‘gappy’ field boundaries. Whilst the topography within the area slopes from the west to the east and towards the north, it is predominantly flat on the whole. This topography supports long distance views to the east and some to the north. The Ecus Landscape Character Capacity Study (2006) identifies the Green Belt land within the General Area as falling within the C2 Cadeby to Adwick Limestone Plateau. Land within this area is considered to dip gently to the north and east, with large scale intensive arable farmland with some pasture around settlements. In some locations, there is an open feel with extensive views to the east and west, however there is also some modern influences (including the motorway and railway line) which locally change the character of the area. Proposed Green Belt Site Assessment: The Proposed Green Belt Site comprises one agricultural field which is defined by Redhouse Lane. The Green Belt Site is therefore considered to be relatively tolerant of change and contain no distinctive components. However, as a result of the declining topography, limited levels of containment and long views to the north, development at this location would have a negative impact on the physical landform and have an impact on views across the area. The Proposed Green Belt Site is therefore considered to contain features which are moderately sensitive to encroachment. Score: 3


There is no built form within the Proposed Green Belt Site, and therefore the Site could be considered to display a ‘Strong Unspoilt Rural Character’. However, as a result of the A1(M) and the Great North Road in the north and west, the Green Belt at this location is not considered to be unspoilt. The Green Belt at this location is therefore considered to be more characteristic of a ‘Strong Rural Character’. Score: 4



Adwick le Street is not considered to represent a ‘Historic Town’ in the local interpretation of Purpose 4; Adwick le Street is not identified as a ‘Complex Historic Town Core’ in the South Yorkshire Historic Environment Characterisation. The Proposed Green Belt site therefore does not support the setting or special character of a ‘historic town’. Score: 1




Adwick le Street is identified as a Regeneration Priority within the Core Strategy. Given the strength of the existing Green Belt boundary, the Proposed Green Belt site is considered to be connected to and in close proximity to the Regeneration Priority Area of Adwick le Street. Score: 3

Summary The General Area has a mixed role when assessed against the Local Interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes. The General Area is considered to have a moderate role in checking the unrestricted sprawl of a large built up area and a moderate role in assisting in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. The Green Belt at this location has a moderate sensitivity to encroachment and supports a semi-urban character. The wider Green Belt General Area is considered to have a moderate role in preventing neighbouring towns from merging and a weak role in preserving the setting and special character of a historic town, as Adwick le Street is not considered to be a ‘Historic Town’ in the South Yorkshire Historic Environment Characterisation (2008).



Page 18

The Resultant Green Belt boundary would therefore result in a strongly defined feature which would represent a natural rounding off to north of Adwick le Street to mirror the extent of built form to the west of the Great North Road. The Proposed Green Belt boundary has a largely modest role when assessed against the local interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes. The Proposed Green Belt site is not considered to have a role in checking the unrestricted sprawl of a ‘large built up area’, and a moderate role in preventing neighbouring towns from merging. As Adwick le Street is not considered to be a ‘historic town’ in the local interpretation of Purpose 4, the Proposed Green Belt Site has only a limited role in preserving the setting and special character of a historic town. As Adwick le Street is identified as a Regeneration Priority Area, the Proposed Green Belt site is considered to have a moderate role in assisting in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. Although the Green Belt Site contains no built form, the land at this location is considered to only be of moderate sensitivity to encroachment. The Green Belt designation at this location has a moderate role in assisting in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.



Page 19

7 Barnburgh and Harlington 143: Land north of Primary School, Church Lane, Barnburgh



Site Name Land North of Primary School, Church Lane, Barnburgh



The Proposed Green Belt site exists to the east of Harlington and Barnburgh.


West 3


• The proposed Green Belt site falls within West 3, a large General Area surrounding Sprotbrough in the east and Harlington and Barnburgh in the west. Sprotbrough and Harlington are a Smaller Urban Area and Larger Village respectively, which means the General Area is connected to the South Yorkshire Green Belt, but is not in close proximity with any large built up area (Purpose 1, Score 1).

• West 3 supports a number of land gaps including between Sprotbrough, Doncaster, Goldthorpe and Bolton upon Dearne; High Melton and Sprotbrough and Cadeby and Sprotbrough; Sprotbrough and Conisbrough and Mexborough; Sprotbrough and Harlington; Sprotbrough and Balby; and Sprotbrough and Warmsworth. Overall, the General Area is balanced as supporting a largely essential gap (Purpose 2a, Score 3). Built form along Melton Road has changed since the designation of the Green Belt and therefore the existing Green Belt boundary has resisted further development in part. There is built form extending from the western edge of Sprotbrough along Melton Road or Cadeby Road towards either settlement, this has a strong role in resisting ribbon development. Overall, the General Area has resisted development in part (Purpose 2b, Score 3).

• The General Area is therefore considered to have a limited tolerance to change and a moderate-high sensitivity to encroachment. (Purpose 3a, Score 4). The General Area contains 2.46% built form which would therefore indicate that the Green Belt has a semi-urban character (Purpose 3b, Score 3).

• High Melton, Sprotbrough, Marr, Barnburgh and Hickleton have Conservation Areas, however these are not considered to form ‘historic towns’ within the Local Interpretation of the Purpose. Conisbrough, Mexborough and Urban Doncaster have Complex Historic Town Cores and the Green Belt within the General Area has a varied role in preserving the setting of these historic cores (Purpose 4a, Score 2). Channelled views are possible to Conisbrough Castle from Green Belt land to the south of the General Area, these are not identified as key views on the Conisbrough Conservation Area mapping (Purpose 4b, Score 2).

• West 3 is associated with one Regeneration Priority Area, but the boundary is not connected to but in close proximity with Mexborough (Purpose 5, Score 2).


The existing Green Belt boundary is defined by Church Lane to the west of the Proposed Green Belt Site and the extent of Barnburgh Primary School in the south. Whilst Green Belt features are relatively strong in isolation, the existing Green Belt boundary is considered to be indented and angular, weak and unlikely to be durable. The Proposed Green Belt boundary would be created by a weakly defined field boundary in the east and south east, the rear of residential dwellings along Fox Lane in the north and copse of trees in the north west. Whilst the Proposed Green Belt Boundary features are Mixed in Strength, the Resultant Green Belt boundary would be formed by a stepped and angular area of residential built form which would be more coherent than existing provision. Resultant Boundary Strength: Mixed in Strength



Page 20



The Proposed Green Belt Site exists to the east of the settlement of Barnburgh and Harlington, which is identified as a ‘Service Town and Village’ within the Doncaster Local Plan Consultation: Homes and Settlements (March 2016). Neither of these settlements form part of a ‘Large Built Up Area’ and therefore, the Proposed Green Belt site is considered to be connected to the South Yorkshire Green Belt, but not in close proximity to any large built up area. Score: 1



The Proposed Green Belt site falls within a land gap between Harlington and High Melton. High Melton is a ‘Defined Village’ within the Doncaster Local Plan Consultation: Homes and Settlements (March 2016) and therefore it must be assessed for opportunities to merge with a second or third tier settlement. This land gap is 2.25km and contains a dense corridor of trees along Doncaster Road, known as Melton Warren. Whilst Doncaster Road does however provide direct access between these settlements, the topography is strongly undulating, which, in combination with the dense areas of woodland along Doncaster Road means that there are no views between settlements. The Proposed Green Belt Site therefore falls within and would continue to maintain a less essential land gap between settlements, where development proportionate to the scale of Barnburgh and Harlington is not likely to cause merging between settlements. The Proposed Green Belt Site therefore maintains a less essential land gap between settlements. Score: 1


There are no access tracks within the Proposed Green Belt Site which could perceptibly reduce the separation between neighbouring settlements. Score: 0



General Area Assessment Summary: The wider General Area contains land which is predominantly rural and open in character, with a strong countryside feel. The General Area is distinctly more undulating towards the River Dearne in the south. The General Area at this location is more enclosed, with small fields, taller field boundaries and dense tree corridors. There are long-distance views towards settlements further to the west. The area contains a number of Public Rights of Way, with access tracks connecting settlements across the River Dearne. The Ecus Landscape Character Capacity Study (2006) identifies the western edge of West 3 as A3 Barnburgh to Hooton Pagnall Coalfield Farmland. The A3 landscape type is underlain by coal measures with a number of small to medium fields bounded by mature hedgerows and trees. The landform is complex, undulating and in places cut by streams. The land rises to the east as a wooded steep escarpment to the limestone plateau. Whilst there are occasional major transport corridors, including railway and main roads, there are many public rights of way and farm tracks. There are some views to urban areas in the west beyond the landscape character area. Settlements include historic nucleated stone-built villages along with scattered farmsteads. Proposed Green Belt Site Assessment: The Proposed Green Belt Site comprises one agricultural field and a paddock in the north, which is bordered by mature trees to the north and an agricultural boundary to the east. Apart from the copse of woodland to the north, the Proposed Green Belt site predominantly contains features which are easily replaced. The area is considered to be in close proximity to the distinctive features of Barnburgh Conservation Area to the north; these feature are considered to be rare and distinctive. Whilst there are levels of containment created by the woodland to the north and the primary school to the south, there are extensive views to the east. Development at this location would have a negative impact on landform, views and the scale of the landscape. Land at this location is in a fair and maintained condition, and the Green Belt is considered to have a very limited tolerance to change. Overall the Proposed Green Belt Site is considered to contain features which are of moderate-high sensitivity to encroachment. Score: 4


The Proposed Green Belt Site contains 0.0% built form and should therefore be categorised as a ‘strong unspoilt rural character’. Score: 5



Whilst Harlington does have a Conservation Area, Harlington and Barnburgh are not considered to be a ‘Historic Town’ in the Local Interpretation of Purpose 4. Therefore, the Proposed Green Belt Site does not have a role in preserving the setting or special character of a Historic Town. However, given the Site lies directly adjacent to the Conservation Area of Barnburgh, further work would need to be done to understand the heritage implications of releasing the Proposed Green Belt Site on this designation. Score: 1


Whilst Harlington does have a Conservation Area, Harlington and Barnburgh are not considered to be a ‘historic town’ in the Local Interpretation of Purpose 4. Therefore, the Proposed Green Belt Site does not have a role in preserving the setting or special character of a Historic Town. However, given the Site lies directly adjacent to the Conservation Area of Barnburgh, further work would need to be done to understand the heritage implications of releasing the Proposed Green Belt Site on this designation. Score: 1



Page 21


Harlington and Barnburgh are not identified as Conservation Areas and therefore, the Green Belt General Area does not have a specific role in assisting in Urban Regeneration. Score: 1

Summary The General Area has only a weak role in checking the unrestricted sprawl of a large built up area, and a moderate role in preventing neighbouring towns from merging. Green Belt at this location is considered to have a moderately strong role in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment and a moderately weak role in preserving the setting and special character of a historic town. The General Area is considered to have a moderate role in assisting in urban regeneration. The Proposed Green Belt boundary would be created by a weakly defined field boundary in the east and south east, the rear of residential dwellings along Fox Lane in the north and copse of trees in the north west. Whilst the Proposed Green Belt Boundary features are Mixed in Strength, the Resultant Green Belt boundary would be formed by a stepped and angular area of residential built form which would be more coherent than existing provision. The Proposed Green Belt Site has a weak role in checking the unrestricted sprawl of a large built up area, a weak role in assisting in urban regeneration and a weak role in preserving the setting and special character of a historic town. The Proposed Green Belt site would support a moderate role in preventing neighbouring towns from merging and have a moderately-strong role in assisting in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.



Page 22

8 Barnburgh and Harlington 777: ‘Plot 3’, Harlington



Site Name ‘Plot 3’ Harlington



The Proposed Green Belt site exists to the south east of Barnburgh and Harlington.


West 3


• The proposed Green Belt site falls within West 3, a large General Area surrounding Sprotbrough in the east and Harlington in the west. Sprotbrough and Harlington are a Smaller Urban Area and Larger Village respectively, which means the General Area is connected to the South Yorkshire Green Belt, but not in close proximity to any large built up area (Purpose 1, Score 1).

• West 3 supports a number of land gaps including between Sprotbrough, Doncaster, Goldthorpe and Bolton upon Dearne; High Melton and Sprotbrough and Cadeby and Sprotbrough; Sprotbrough and Conisbrough and Mexborough; Sprotbrough and Harlington; Sprotbrough and Balby; and Sprotbrough and Warmsworth. Overall, the General Area is balanced as supporting a largely essential gap (Purpose 2a, Score 3). Built form along Melton Road has changed since the designation of the Green Belt and therefore the existing Green Belt boundary has resisted further development in part. Overall, the General Area has resisted development in part (Purpose 2b, Score 3).

• The General Area contains land which is predominantly rural and open in character, with a strong countryside feel. To the west, the General Area displays high levels of containment, with stronger field boundaries and dense tree corridors. Whilst there are long-distance views to the east, development surrounding the existing settlements would not be in conflict with the landform or views. Whilst there are occasional copse of trees, and the river Dearne, there are fewer features which are considered to be components that are not easily replaced. The General Area is therefore considered to have a limited tolerance to change and a moderate-high sensitivity to encroachment, particularly around the existing built form. Overall, the General Area contains Green Belt land that is moderate-high sensitivity to encroachment (Purpose 3a, Score 4). The General Area contains 2.46% built form which would therefore indicate that the Green Belt has a semi-urban character (Purpose 3b, Score 3).

• High Melton, Sprotbrough, Marr, Barnburgh and Hickleton have Conservation Areas, however these are not considered to represent ‘historic towns’ within the Local Interpretation of the Purpose. Conisbrough, Mexborough and Urban Doncaster have Complex Historic Town Cores and the Green Belt within the General Area has a varied role in preserving the setting of these historic cores. (Purpose 4a, Score 2). Channelled views are possible to Conisbrough Castle from Green Belt land to the south of the General Area, these are not identified as key views on the Conisbrough Conservation Area mapping (Purpose 4b, Score 2).

• West 3 is associated with one Regeneration Priority Area, but the boundary is not connected to but in close proximity with Mexborough (Purpose 5, Score 2).


The existing Green Belt boundary is defined by Mill Lane and a linear area of residential dwellings in the west, and Doncaster Road in the north. In the east, the existing Green Belt boundary extends to the south around an agricultural shed. The existing Green Belt boundary is therefore considered to be angular, indented, not recognisable and not likely to be permanent. The Proposed Green Belt boundary is defined by the extent of residential development along Mill Lane, a field boundary supported by a pylon in the south and built form in the east. Whilst the southern boundary is defined by somewhat weak features, release of the Proposed Green Belt Site would result in a strong and linear, readily recognisable and likely to be permanent Green Belt boundary created by the extent of the built form at this location. Resultant Boundary Strength: Mixed in Strength



Page 23



The Proposed Green Belt Site exists to the east of the settlement of Barnburgh and Harlington, which is identified as a ‘Service Town and Village’ within the Doncaster Local Plan Consultation: Homes and Settlements (March 2016). Neither of these settlements form part of a ‘Large Built Up Area’ and therefore, the Proposed Green Belt site is considered to be connected to the South Yorkshire Green Belt, but not in close proximity to any large built up area. Score: 1



The Proposed Green Belt Site supports a land gap between Barnburgh and Harlington and Mexborough, which is identified as a ‘Service Town and Village’ within the Doncaster Local Plan Consultation: Homes and Settlements (March 2016). At its closest distance, the Proposed Green Belt Site is approximately 1.15km from Mexborough. This land gap appears large, has arable fields and is characterised by a valley-feature which holds the River Dearne. Whilst there are direct views between settlements which are unhindered by any tall vegetation, there is no direct access and therefore the Land Gap represents a Largely Essential Gap. The Proposed Green Belt Site therefore exists within and maintains a Largely Essential land gap. Score: 3


Whilst Doncaster Road exists to the north, as there is built form to the east of the Proposed Green Belt Site, the Green Belt at this location would have no role in resisting ribbon development which could perceptibly reduce the separation between neighbouring settlements. Score: 0



General Area Assessment Summary: The wider General Area contains land which is predominantly rural and open in character, with a strong countryside feel. The General Area is distinctly more undulating towards the River Dearne in the south. The General Area at this location is more enclosed, with small fields, taller field boundaries and dense tree corridors. There are long-distance views towards settlements further to the west. The area contains a number of Public Rights of Way, with access tracks connecting settlements across the River Dearne. The Ecus Landscape Character Capacity Study (2006) identifies the western edge of West 3 as A3 Barnburgh to Hooton Pagnall Coalfield Farmland. The A3 landscape type is underlain by coal measures with a number of small to medium fields bounded by mature hedgerows and trees. The landform is complex, undulating and in places cut by streams. The land rises to the east as a wooded steep escarpment to the limestone plateau. Whilst there are occasional major transport corridors, including railway and main roads, there are many public rights of way and farm tracks. There are some views to urban areas in the west beyond the landscape character area. Settlements include historic nucleated stone-built villages along with scattered farmsteads. Proposed Green Belt Site Assessment: The Proposed Green Belt Site comprises a number of small agricultural fields which are only distinguished by a number of low-lying hedges and field boundaries. There is one large pylon to the south of the Site and a number of large industrial sheds in the east. The Green Belt at this location therefore contains features which are considered to be easily replaced and substituted, and indeed, in the east, the site is considered to contain features which are detract from the overall character of the countryside. Given the levels of containment, development of the Proposed Green Belt is likely to have a local impact on the physical landform and a limited effect on views or key features of the Green Belt. Land at this location is considered to contain features which have a low-moderate sensitivity to encroachment. Score: 2


The Proposed Green Belt Site contains 6.4% built form and therefore the site is considered to have a moderately-urban character. Score: 1



Whilst Harlington does have a Conservation Area, Barnburgh and Harlington are not considered to be a ‘historic town’ in the Local Interpretation of Purpose 4. Therefore, the Proposed Green Belt Site does not have a role in preserving the setting or special character of a Historic Town. Score: 1


Whilst Harlington does have a Conservation Area, Barnburgh and Harlington are not considered to be a ‘historic town’ in the Local Interpretation of Purpose 4. Therefore, the Proposed Green Belt Site does not have a role in preserving the setting or special character of a Historic Town. Score: 1


Harlington and Barnburgh are not identified as Conservation Areas and therefore, the Green Belt General Area does not have a specific role in assisting in Urban Regeneration. Score: 1



Page 24

Summary The General Area has only a weak role in checking the unrestricted sprawl of a large built up area, and a moderate role in preventing neighbouring towns from merging. Green Belt at this location is considered to have a moderately strong role in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment and a moderately weak role in preserving the setting and special character of a historic town. The General Area is considered to have a moderate role in assisting in urban regeneration. The Proposed Green Belt boundary is defined by the extent of residential development along Mill Lane, a field boundary supported by a pylon in the south and built form in the east. Whilst the southern boundary is defined by somewhat weak features, release of the Proposed Green Belt Site would result in a strong and linear, readily recognisable and likely to be permanent Green Belt boundary created by the extent of the built form at this location. The Proposed Green Belt Site has a weak role in checking the unrestricted sprawl of a large built up area, a weak role in assisting in urban regeneration and a weak role in preserving the setting and special character of a historic town. The Proposed Green Belt site would support a moderate role in preventing neighbouring towns from merging. The Proposed Green Belt Site has a weak role in assisting in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.



Page 25

9 Bawtry 141: Westwood Road, Bawtry



Site Name Westwood Road, Bawtry



The proposed Green Belt site is adjoins the south western boundary with Bawtry


Bawtry 2


• The proposed Green Belt site falls within Bawtry 2, to the south-western edge of Bawtry. This settlement is a Small Urban Area within the Issues and Options Draft (2015) and a ‘Service Town and Village’ within the Doncaster Local Plan Consultation: Homes and Settlements (March 2016) and is therefore connected to the South Yorkshire Green Belt, but does not have a role in checking unrestricted sprawl of a Large Built Up Area (Purpose 1, Score 1).

• Bawtry 2, as a whole, does have a role in maintaining a one kilometre land gap with Harworth Bircotes (a third tier settlement in Bassetlaw). However, the modern residential built form off Westwood Road, which adjoins the extent of the Local Authority boundary, does mean that there is no additional role for the Green Belt in preventing neighbouring towns from merging into one another. The Green Belt within Bawtry 2 therefore makes no discernable contribution to separation (Purpose 2a, Score 0). There are no instances of ribbon development along access tracks and therefore the existing Green Belt boundary has resisted ribbon development (Purpose 2b, Score 5).

• The General Area is dominated by the Bawtry Hall Gardens and Fish Pond Wood, views are contained by the dense woodlands. There is one small area of the Green Belt to the south-west of the General Area, which comprises an area of scrubland. Development within this area would have limited effect on views and a local impact on physical landform. The sensitivity of the Green Belt to encroachment is predominantly high, with a small portion to the south-west considered to be low (Purpose 3a, Score 4). The General Area contains 2.8% built form and is a semi-urban character. Whilst the Green Belt is characterised by parkland associated with the Bawtry Hall, it displays a limited rural character thus the semi-urban character conclusion (Purpose 3b, Score 2).

• Bawtry has a complex historic core and the majority of the General Area is adjacent to the historic core of Bawtry (Purpose 4a, Score 5). The edge of the Bawtry Historic Core is defined by the Conservation Area which includes Bawtry Hall. There are no views to Green Belt from the Historic Core, but there are direct and channelled views towards the Historic Core from the Green Belt (Purpose 4b, Score 3).

• Bawtry is not identified as a Regeneration Priority Area within Doncaster. Therefore, the Green Belt at this location does not have a specific role in supporting urban regeneration (Purpose 5, Score 1).


The existing Green Belt boundary at this location is defined by Westwood Road. The existing Green Belt boundary is therefore considered to be strongly defined and likely to be durable. The proposed Green Belt boundary would be defined by a strongly defined wooded area, which is likely to be permanent in the west; the Doncaster Administrative Boundary in the south which is supported by a drain associated with the River Idle, and Westwood Road in the north east. The proposed Green Belt boundary features are therefore considered to be strongly defined in the west and north east and moderately strongly defined in the south. Removal of the Proposed Green Belt Site would represent a strong Resultant Green Belt boundary which rounds off the built form of Bawtry. Resultant Boundary Strength: Strong



Page 26



As Bawtry is identified as a Small Urban Area within the Doncaster Local Plan Issues and Options version (July 2015) and a ‘Service Town and Village’ within the Doncaster Local Plan Consultation: Homes and Settlements (March 2016), the Proposed Green Belt Site is not considered to be checking the unrestricted sprawl of a large built up area. The Green Belt at this location is therefore connected to the South Yorkshire Green Belt, but it is not considered to have a role in checking the unrestricted sprawl of a Large Built up Area. Score: 1



The proposed Green Belt Site falls within a land gap between Bawtry and Harworth Bircotes; a settlement which at its closest point is approximately 800m from the Proposed Green Belt Site. This separation is supported by the West Wood which exists to the west of the Proposed Green Belt site, no direct access between settlements from the site and limited views between settlements. In addition, the modern residential built form off Westwood Road adjoins the extent of the Local Authority boundary and means that there is no additional role for the Green Belt in preventing neighbouring towns from merging into one another. The Proposed Green Belt Site therefore makes no discernable contribution to separation. Score: 0


There are no access tracks within the Proposed Green Belt site, and therefore, there are no opportunities for ribbon development. Score: 0



General Area Assessment Summary: The wider General Area is dominated by the Bawtry Hall Gardens and Fish Pond Wood, with relatively limited public access through the site. The landscape character of the Green Belt is therefore dominated by the parklands associated with the Grade II* listed Bawtry Hall. Whilst the General Area is relatively flat, views are contained by the dense woodlands. The Ecus Landscape Character Capacity Study (2006) does not identify the Green Belt land within the General Area as falling within a Character Area. Proposed Green Belt Site Assessment: The Proposed Green Belt Site falls within a small area of Green Belt to the south west of the General Area, beyond the modern residential development, which comprises an area of scrubland that appears to be used as an informal footpath. Aside from a number of small trees along the Westwood Road, the Site does not include any distinctive components. Development within this area would have a limited effect on views and a local impact on physical landform, and therefore the Green Belt within this site is considered to be relatively tolerant of change. The Proposed Green Belt Site contains land which is of low sensitivity to encroachment. Score: 1


There is no built form within the General Area which should mean that the General Area displays a ‘Strong Unspoilt Rural Character’. However, as a result of the scrubland which exists on the site, the Green Belt at this point is not considered to be ‘unspoilt’. The Green Belt within the General Area is therefore considered to be more representative of a ‘Strong Rural Character’. Score: 4



The South Yorkshire Historic Environment Characterisation (2008) identifies that Bawtry as a ‘Complex Historic Town Core’ that shows clear evidence for comprehensive planning of burgage plots in 12th centuries, which were located specifically around the town’s High Street and Central Market Place. Whilst Bawtry’s historic core remains relatively intact, the Green Belt within the Proposed Green Belt site is separated from the historic core (as defined on the 1st edition 6 inch to the mile OS mapping of Doncaster (1851-1854)) by modern built form. The Conservation Area (2007, update 2013) appraisal confirms that the General Area is formed by Key Green Space, Reed Bed and Woodlands. The Conservation Area contains the Grade II* Bawtry Hall. The Conservation Area appraisal (2007) identifies that the Conservation Area could be extended to include the parks and gardens associated with Bawtry Hall. In any case, it is also noted that greenery makes a positive contribution to the setting of the Conservation Area. However, given the level of modern built form, it is considered that the Proposed Green Belt site is therefore separated from the historic core by post WWII development. Harworth Bircotes is not considered to represent a ‘historic town’ within the Local Interpretation of Purpose 4 and therefore the Green Belt at this location does not preserve the setting or special character of this settlement Score: 2


The historic core is focused around the town’s High Street and Central Market Place, however the Proposed Green Belt site is separated from the Green Belt at this location as a result of the modern built form along West Wood Road. Views to the historic core from the Proposed Green Belt site are therefore constrained by modern built form and dense areas of woodland. There are no views to the historic core. Score: 1


The Proposed Green Belt site is not considered to have a specific role in supporting urban regeneration of the Regeneration Priority Area. Score: 1



Page 27

Summary The existing Green Belt General Area is considered to perform weakly when assessed against the extent to which it checks the unrestricted sprawl of a large-built up area and in the extent to which the Green Belt assists in supporting regeneration. The General Area is considered to contain Green Belt which is of moderate-high sensitivity to encroachment and a strong role in preserving the setting and special character of Bawtry. The General Area makes no discernable role in contributing to separation. The proposed Green Belt boundary features are therefore considered to be strongly defined in the west and north east and moderately strongly defined in the south. Removal of the Proposed Green Belt Site would represent a strong Resultant Green Belt boundary which rounds off the built form of Bawtry. Given the scale and the distinctly separate nature of the Proposed Green Belt Site from the wider General Area, the Proposed Site performs somewhat differently to the wider General Area. The Proposed Green Belt site is considered to contain land which is of low sensitivity to encroachment, however which contains no built form. The Proposed Green Belt Site has a weak role in preserving the unrestricted sprawl of a large built up area, makes no discernable contribution to preventing neighbouring towns from merging and has a limited role in preserving the setting of the historic core of Bawtry. The Green Belt at this location is not considered to have a role in supporting urban regeneration.



Page 28

10 Bawtry 146: Tickhill Road, Bawtry



Site Name Tickhill Road, Bawtry



The proposed Green Belt site is adjoined to the western edge of Bawtry.


South 6


• The proposed Green Belt site falls within South 6, a large General Area to the north-western edge of Bawtry and to the south of New Rossington. Bawtry is a Smaller Urban Area and New Rossington is a Large Urban Area. Therefore the Green Belt at this location is connected to the South Yorkshire Green Belt, but is not considered to have a role in checking the unrestricted sprawl of a Large Built-up Area (Purpose 1, Score 1).

• South 6 supports several land gaps including between Bawtry and New Rossington; New Rossington and Tickhill and New Rossington and Harworth Bircotes. On balance, the General Area supports a less essential land gap (Purpose 2, Score 1). The A631 and B6463 are two access tracks which connect New Rossington, Bawtry and Tickhill. The Green Belt has a mixed role in resisting ribbon development but in the west and north of Bawtry there are no instances of ribbon development. Overall, the existing Green Belt boundary has predominantly resisted development (Purpose 2b, Score 3).

• The sensitivity of the General Area to development is mixed and the land adjoining Bawtry is considered to be very open with very large field patterns. In the south east of the General Area, there are no distinctive features but development would be in conflict with the open and relatively flat landform. The General Area is considered to have a moderate to high sensitivity to encroachment (Purpose 3a, Score 4). The Green Belt in South 6 contains 1.96% built form and the area displays a mixed character: whilst the central, western and south-western portions of the Green Belt display a strong rural character, the areas of enclosure along Stripe Road and nearest the spoil heap do result in a moderate rural character (Purpose 3b, Score 4).

• Both Tickhill and Bawtry are considered to have complex historic cores, but for Green Belt land within this General Area both are separated from the designation by post WWII development (Purpose 4a, Score 2). Views towards the historic core of Bawtry are relatively limited by a copse of woodland or infrastructure. However, there are moderate views to the historic core of Tickhill with expansive south-western views towards the historic skyline. Overall, there are views to the historic core of Tickhill, but limited towards Bawtry (Purpose 4b, Score 3).

• The General Area is contiguous with the Regeneration Priority Area of Rossington and is therefore considered to be directing development towards brownfield and derelict land within development limits (Purpose 5, Score 4).


The existing Green Belt boundary at this location is defined by a stepped and angular area of residential built form. This is particularly is stepped to the north of Yew Tree Drive. The proposed Green Belt boundary would be defined to the north by the strongly defined and likely to be durable Martin Lane, in the west by a weakly defined field boundary which contains occasional trees and larger shrubs particularly further to the south. The proposed Green Belt boundary to the south would be defined by Tickhill Road. Whilst release of the site would form an extension to the west of Bawtry, the Resultant Green Belt boundary would be mixed in strength: strong to the north and south, and weak to the west. Resultant Boundary Strength: Mixed in Strength, strong to the north and south and weak to the west



Page 29






The Proposed Site forms part of a land gap between Bawtry and Tickhill. These settlements are identified as tertiary settlements, or ‘Smaller Urban Areas’ within the Doncaster Draft Local Plan Issues and Options (2015) or ‘Service Town and Village’ within the Doncaster Local Plan Consultation: Homes and Settlements (March 2016). Given the land gap between these settlements is almost 4.5km, there is a strong sense of separation which is enforced by a slightly undulating landscape and dense area of woodland. Views between the settlement and the Proposed Site are therefore restricted. The Green Belt at this location therefore falls within and maintains a less essential land gap between Bawtry and Tickhill, where the gap is of a sufficient scale with a sufficient perception of separation, relative to the size of the settlements that development is unlikely to result in merging. The Proposed Site also forms part of a land gap between Bawtry and Harworth Bircotes. Whilst the land gap between these settlements is relatively narrow, there is a strong perception of separation created by an undulating landscape which limits direct views between the Proposed Site and the settlement of Harworth Bircotes. The Green Belt at this location therefore falls within and maintains largely essential land gap between Bawtry and Harworth Bircotes, where the overall openness and scale of the gap is important to preserving neighbouring towns from merging, but where limited development may be possible. Score: 3 (overall)


The A631 to the south of the proposed site connects Bawtry, Tickhill and Harworth Bircotes. There have been no instances of ribbon development and therefore the existing Green Belt boundary is considered to have strongly resisted ribbon development which could have perceptibly reduced separation between Bawtry and Harworth Bircotes in particular. Score: 5



General Area Assessment Summary: Within the Stage 1 Assessment, the character of the South 6 General Area was considered to be mixed. In the south east surrounding Bawtry, the General Area was considered to contain very large open fields from which there were notable long-distance views. The Ecus Landscape Character Capacity Study (2006) identified that the South 6 General Area surrounding Bawtry falls predominantly within H1. The H1 Bawtry to Finningley Sandland Heaths and Farmland which is considered to be of moderate quality and fairly distinctive with arable areas in good condition and few intrusive elements. There is a geometric form to many landscape elements, including a railway line, straight edged fields and roads. Proposed Green Belt Site Assessment: In the south east of the General Area, and indeed within the Proposed Green Belt Site, land is considered to be very open, with very large irregular fields patterns. The slightly undulating nature of the area does means that views beyond the woodland to the north east and east or and towards other settlements are somewhat limited. Although there are no distinctive features within the area, development would be in conflict with the open and relatively flat landform. Land is considered to be in a fair condition with a limited tolerance to change and therefore land within the Proposed Green Belt Site is considered to have a moderate-high sensitivity encroachment. Score: 4


There is 0% built form within the Proposed Green Belt site and therefore the Site is considered to display a strong unspoilt rural character. Score: 5



The South Yorkshire Historic Environment Characterisation (2008) identifies that Bawtry as a ‘Complex Historic Town Core’ shows clear evidence for comprehensive planning of burgage plots in 12th centuries, which were located specifically around the town’s High Street and Central Market Place. Whilst Bawtry’s historic core remains relatively intact, the Green Belt within the Proposed Green Belt site is separated from the historic core (as defined on the 1st edition 6 inch to the mile OS mapping of Doncaster (1851-1854)) by late 20th Century suburban housing. The Green Belt is therefore separated from the historic core by post WWII development. Score: 2


Although the historic core is located along Tickhill Road within the centre of the Bawtry settlement, views towards the historic core of Bawtry are relatively limited by modern built form and by a copse of woodland just beyond the western development extent of Bawtry. Score: 1


The Proposed Green Belt site is not considered to have a specific role in supporting urban regeneration of a Regeneration Priority Area. Score: 1



Page 30

Summary The existing Green Belt General Area is considered to perform weakly when assessed against the extent to which it checks the unrestricted sprawl of a large-built up area and has a mixed role in the extent to which the Green Belt assists in supporting regeneration. The General Area is considered to contain Green Belt which is of moderate-high sensitivity to encroachment and a moderate role in preserving the setting and special character of the historic core of Bawtry. The General Area also has a moderate role in preventing neighbouring towns from merging. The Proposed Green Belt site boundaries are mixed in strength: strong to the north and south, and weaker to the west. The Proposed Green Belt site largely performs in a similar manner to the wider Green Belt General Area. The Proposed Site performs weakly when assessed against the extent to which the Green Belt checks the unrestricted sprawl of a large-built up area, has a moderately-weak role in preserving the setting and special character of Bawtry, and has a moderate role in preventing neighbouring towns from merging. In addition, the Green Belt at this location is not considered to have a role in assisting urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. The Green Belt at this location is considered to have a strong role in assisting in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, with no built form encroaching into the area and Site which contains features that are of moderate-high sensitivity to encroachment.



Page 31

11 Bawtry 786: South of Cockhill Close, Bawtry



Site Name South of Cockhill Close, Bawtry



The proposed Green Belt site is adjoins the south eastern boundary with Bawtry


Bawtry 3


• The proposed Green Belt site falls within Bawtry 3 General Area. The General Area exists to the south eastern edge of the settlement of Bawtry and is connected to the South Yorkshire Green Belt, but is not considered in close proximity to any large built up area (Purpose 1, Score 1).

• Scrooby and Scaftworth are identified as ‘all other settlements’ within the Bassetlaw Core Strategy (2011) and exist approximately 1.7km to the south east of Bawtry; there are no views of either settlement as a result of dense areas of vegetation surrounding the General Area which create a sense of enclosure. The General Area therefore supports a less essential gap where development is unlikely to reduce the physical, visual and perceptual separation between settlements (Purpose 2a, Score 1). The Great North Road and Cock Hill Lane run adjacent to the General Area, where there are no instances of ribbon development along Cock Hill Lane. There are sports facilities located to the south of the local authority administrative boundary and therefore the existing Green Belt boundary has resisted development in part (Purpose 2b, Score 3).

• Given the built form to the north and sports facility to the south, development in this location would have a local impact on the physical landform and scale of the landscape. Due to the enclosed nature of the area, development would have a limited effect on views, thus this General Area contains Green Belt that has low-moderate sensitivity to encroachment (Purpose 3a, Score 2). Bawtry 3 contains 0% built form which is identified as having a Strong Unspoilt Rural Character. However, the Green Belt at this location is influenced by residential built form to the north, and built form to the south, and thus is considered to display a strong rural character (Purpose 3b, Score 4).

• Bawtry has a complex historic core and the General Area is adjacent to the historic core of Bawtry. Bawtry 3 specifically is considered to represent a Key Green Space which supports the Conservation Area (Purpose 4a, Score 5). Despite being identified as a Key Green Space, due to the enclosed nature of the General Area, there are no strong views into the historic core or across to Bawtry Hall (Purpose 4b, Score 1).

• Bawtry is not identified as a Regeneration Priority Area within Doncaster. Therefore, the Green Belt at this location does not have a specific role in supporting urban regeneration (Purpose 5, Score 1).


The existing Green Belt boundary at this location is defined by built form along Cock Hill Lane, which is a strongly defined feature. The Proposed Green Belt boundary would be defined by a strongly defined wooded corridor to the west, south and east of the site. These boundaries are considered to be strong, recognisable and likely to be permanent. Release of the Proposed Green Belt site at this location would however result in an angular area of built form that would protrude beyond the existing extent of Bawtry. Therefore, whilst the boundary features are considered to be strong, the Resultant Green Belt boundary is considered to be angular. Resultant Boundary Strength: Strong



Page 32



As Bawtry is identified as a Small Urban Area within the Doncaster Local Plan Issues and Options version (July 2015) and a ‘Service Town and Village’ within the Doncaster Local Plan: Homes and Settlements (March 2016), the Proposed Green Belt Site is not considered to be checking the unrestricted sprawl of a large built up area. The Green Belt at this location is therefore connected to the South Yorkshire Green Belt, but it is not considered to have a role in checking the unrestricted sprawl of a Large Built up Area. Score: 1



The nearest settlement to Bawtry is Bircotes, a third tier settlement in Bassetlaw, however, the Proposed Green Belt Site does not support this land gap due to the orientation of the site. Scrooby and Scaftworth are identified as ‘all other settlements’ within the Bassetlaw Core Strategy (2011) and exist approximately 1.7km to the south east of Bawtry. This land gap is not only relatively wide compared to the size of the settlements, but as a result of higher levels of enclosure within the Site, there are no views to either settlement. The Proposed Green Belt Site therefore supports a less essential gap between settlements. Although the Site is located at the south-eastern edge of the Doncaster Local Authority Green Belt, it does support a less essential gap between defined ‘all other settlements’ within Bassetlaw where development is unlikely to reduce the physical, visual and perceptual separation between settlements. Score: 1


Whilst the A638 exists beyond the Proposed Green Belt Site in the west, there are no access tracks within the Proposed Green Belt site, and therefore, there are no opportunities for ribbon development. Score: 0



General Area Assessment Summary: With regard to the wider General Area, the character of the landscape is considered to be wooded, enclosed and semi-urban. The topography is flat and drainage is provided by a stream at the south edge of the General Area. Cock Lane provides the only access through the area and there are no other public rights of way passing through the area. The Ecus Landscape Character Capacity Study (2006) identifies the General Area as H2 Blaxton to Stainforth Sandland Heaths and Farmland. The landscape character of H2 is described as having medium to large scale intensive arable farmland with rectangular fields and fragmented and missing hedge boundaries and frequently lined with bracken. There are scattered farms with diversifying and recreational land uses, a network of larger drains and smaller wet ditches and occasional mixed deciduous and coniferous woodlands. Proposed Green Belt Site Assessment: The Proposed Green Belt site is bordered by a dense copse of woodland which is considered to be a component that is not easily replaced or substituted. The Site also exists in close proximity to the River Idle Washlands SSSI – further investigatory work would be necessary to determine the implications of any site release at this location. Land at this at this location is considered to be in a generally fair-good condition. However, given the built form to the north of the site and sports facility to the south, development within this Proposed Site would have a local impact on physical landform and scale of the landscape. Due to the enclosed nature of the area, development would have a limited effect on views. The Proposed Site is considered to contain features which are of a moderate-high sensitivity to encroachment. Score: 4


The Proposed Green Belt Site is considered to contain 0.0% built form, which would be representative of an ‘unspoilt rural character’. However given the levels of containment and built form to the north and south of the site, the Proposed Green Belt site is considered to be more representative of a Strong Rural Character. Score: 4



The South Yorkshire Historic Environment Characterisation (2008) identifies that Bawtry shows clear evidence for comprehensive planning of burgage plots in 12th centuries, which were located specifically around the town’s High Street and Central Market Place. The Conservation Area Appraisal identifies that the land within the Proposed Green Belt site is separated by 1800-1850 built form through only a natural Green Space boundary. This area is identified as a positive gateway for Bawtry and the Proposed Green Belt site is itself is identified a Key Green Space which supports the Conservation Area. Alongside the land to west, the Proposed Green Belt Site is therefore adjacent to the historic core of Bawtry and represents a Key Green Space which supports the Conservation Area. Further heritage impact assessment work would be necessary to understand the implications of the Proposed Site on the Conservation Area. Score: 5


Despite the Proposed Green Belt Site forming part of a Key Green Space associated with the Bawtry Conservation Area, there are no views into or out of the historic core as a result of dense areas of woodland surrounding the Proposed Site. Score: 1


Bawtry is not identified as a Regeneration Priority Area within Doncaster. Therefore, the Green Belt at this location does not have a specific role in supporting urban regeneration. Score: 1

Summary The existing Green Belt General Area is considered to perform weakly when assessed against the extent to which it checks the unrestricted sprawl of a large-built up area and in the extent to which the Green Belt assists in supporting regeneration. The General Area is considered to contain Green Belt which is of low-moderate sensitivity to encroachment and is considered to display a strong rural character. The General Area forms part of Key



Page 33

Green Space associated with the Conservation Area and therefore the area plays a strong role in preserving the setting and special character of Bawtry, however views to features within the historic core are very limited. The General Area has a weak role in preventing neighbouring towns from merging. The proposed Green Belt boundary features are considered to be strong, however, the Resultant Green Belt boundary is considered to be angular and protrude to the south of Bawtry. The Proposed Green Belt site performs in largely the same manner as the General Area; it is considered to be performing a weak role in checking the unrestricted sprawl of a large-built up area, a weak role in preventing neighbouring towns from merging and in the extent to which the Green Belt assists in supporting regeneration. The Proposed Green Belt Site is considered to have a moderately strong role in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment: the Site contains features which area of moderate sensitivity to encroachment, but no ‘encroachment’ has taken place. The Green Belt at this location plays a strong role in preserving the setting and special character of Bawtry, however views to features within the historic core are very limited.



Page 34

12 Bawtry 873: Site A, Land at Martin Common Farm, Bawtry



Site Name Site A, Land at Martin Common Farm Bawtry



The proposed Green Belt site is adjoins the north western boundary of Bawtry.


South 6








The existing Green Belt boundary at this location is defined by a very stepped and angular area of residential built form associated with Grange Avenue and angular boundary associated with John Hudson Trailers. The existing Green Belt boundary is therefore considered to be weakly defined by very angular, indented and inconsistent built form. The proposed Green Belt boundary would be weakly defined by a field boundary supported by moderately dense field boundaries to the west, the A639 Great North Road in the east which represents a strongly defined Green Belt feature and a weakly defined boundary in the north which is based on no infrastructure or natural boundaries. Whilst release of the Proposed Green Belt site would result in a northern extension to Bawtry, the Proposed Green Belt boundary features, particularly to the north, are therefore considered to be weak. Resultant Boundary Strength: Weak, strong to the east and weak to the north and west



Page 35






The Proposed Site forms part of a land gap between Bawtry and New Rossington. Bawtry was identified as a ‘Smaller Urban Area’ within the Doncaster Draft Local Plan Issues and Options (2015) or ‘Service Town and Village’ within the Doncaster Local Plan Consultation: Homes and Settlements (March 2016), whilst New Rossington was identified as a ‘Large Urban Area’ within the Issues and Options and a ‘Main Urban Area’ within the Doncaster Local Plan Consultation: Homes and Settlements (March 2016). The land gap between Bawtry and New Rossington is approximately 3.8km and contains the densely forested Bawtry Forest. Based on the scale of the land gap, the slightly-undulating topography and the visually-impermeable nature of Bawtry Forest, the Proposed Green Belt site falls within and maintains supports a less essential gap which is of a sufficient scale that development would not result in merging between settlements Score: 1


The A638 Great North Road exists to the east of the Proposed Site and connects Bawtry to Rossington. There have been no instances of Ribbon Development along this route and therefore the Green Belt at this location has had a strong role in resisting ribbon development towards Rossington in the north. Score: 5



General Area Assessment Summary: Within the Stage 1 Assessment, the character of the South 6 General Area was considered to be mixed. In the south east surrounding Bawtry, the General Area was considered to contain very large open fields from which there were notable long-distance views. The Ecus Landscape Character Capacity Study (2006) identified that the South 6 General Area surrounding Bawtry falls predominantly within H1 Character Area. The H1 Bawtry to Finningley Sandland Heaths and Farmland which is considered to be of moderate quality and fairly distinctive with arable areas in good condition and few intrusive elements. There is a geometric form to many landscape elements, including a railway line, straight edged fields and roads. Proposed Green Belt Site Assessment: In the south east of the General Area, and indeed within the Proposed Green Belt Site, land is considered to be very open, with a very large irregular field patterns. The slightly undulating nature of the area does mean that views beyond the blocks of woodland or towards other settlements in the west and north are limited. Although there are no distinctive features within the Site, development would be in conflict with the open and relatively flat landform. Although the site is influenced by the urban edge, land is considered to be in a fair condition with a limited tolerance to change and therefore land within the Proposed Green Belt Site is considered to have a moderate to high sensitivity to encroachment. Score: 4





The South Yorkshire Historic Environment Characterisation (2008) identifies that Bawtry as a ‘Complex Historic Town Core’ and shows clear evidence for comprehensive planning of burgage plots in 12th centuries, which were located specifically around the town’s High Street and Central Market Place. Whilst Bawtry’s historic core remains relatively intact, the Green Belt within the Proposed Green Belt site is separated from the historic core (as defined on the 1st edition 6 inch to the mile OS mapping of Doncaster (1851-1854)) by late 20th Century suburban housing. The Green Belt is therefore separated from the historic core by post WWII development. Score: 2


Although the historic core is located along the Great North Road further to the south, views towards the historic core of Bawtry from the Proposed Site are limited by modern built form and the curvature of the Great North Road which limits views to the historic core. Score: 1


As Rossington is located far to the north of the site, the Proposed Green Belt site is not considered to have a specific role in supporting urban regeneration of the Regeneration Priority Area. Score: 1

Summary The existing Green Belt General Area is considered to perform weakly when assessed against the extent to which it checks the unrestricted sprawl of a large-built up area and has a mixed role in the extent to which the Green Belt assists in supporting regeneration. The General Area is considered to contain Green Belt which is of moderate-high sensitivity to encroachment and a moderate role in preserving the setting and special character of the historic core of Bawtry. The General Area also has a moderate role in preventing neighbouring towns from merging. The Proposed Green Belt site boundaries are considered to be weakly defined in the north and west.



Page 36

The Proposed Green Belt site largely performs in a similar manner to the wider Green Belt General Area. The Proposed Site performs weakly when assessed against the extent to which the Green Belt checks the unrestricted sprawl of a large-built up area, has a moderately-weak role in preserving the setting and special character of Bawtry, and has a moderate role in preventing neighbouring towns from merging by resisting ribbon development. The Green Belt at this location is not considered to have a role in assisting urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land, however the Site contains land which is considered to have a strong role in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.



Page 37

13 Bawtry 874: Site B (Safeguarded), Land at Martin Common Farm, Bawtry



Site Name Site B, Land at Martin Common Farm Bawtry



The proposed Green Belt site is adjoins the north western boundary of Bawtry.


South 6








The existing Green Belt boundary at this location is defined by the Great North Road in the east, which is considered to be a strongly defined Green Belt boundary. Given the isolated nature of the site, there are no other Green Belt boundaries at this location. The proposed Green Belt boundary would be weakly defined by a moderately dense field boundary to the west; the A639 Great North Road in the east which represents a strongly defined Green Belt feature; the Martin Grange Farm Lane in the north which has been identified as an adopted road by DMBC and therefore is considered to be a recognisable and likely to be permanent feature; and a weakly defined boundary in the south which is based on



Page 38

no infrastructure or natural boundaries. In isolation, the Proposed Green Belt site would represent a remote site and an angular area of built form. The Proposed Green Belt boundary features are considered to be weak, and would create a Resultant Green Belt boundary that is formed by weak boundary features and which results in an angular and isolated area of built form. Resultant Boundary Strength: Weak (strong to the east and north, and weaker to the west and south)



As Bawtry is identified as a Small Urban Area within the Doncaster Local Plan Issues and Options version (July 2015) and a ‘Service Town and Village’ within Doncaster Local Plan Consultation: Homes and Settlements (March 2016), the Proposed Green Belt Site is not considered to be checking the unrestricted sprawl of a large built up area. The Green Belt at this location is therefore connected to the South Yorkshire Green Belt, but it is not considered to have a role in checking the unrestricted sprawl of a Large Built up Area. Score: 1



The Proposed Site forms part of a land gap between Bawtry and New Rossington. Bawtry was identified as a ‘Smaller Urban Area’ within the Doncaster Draft Local Plan Issues and Options (2015) or ‘Service Town and Village’ within the Doncaster Local Plan Consultation: Homes and Settlements (March 2016), whilst New Rossington was identified as a ‘Large Urban Area’ within the Issues and Options and a ‘Main Urban Area’ within the Doncaster Local Plan Consultation: Homes and Settlements (March 2016). The land gap between Bawtry and New Rossington is approximately 3.8km and contains the densely forested Bawtry Forest. Based on the scale of the land gap, the slightly-undulating topography and the visually-impermeable nature of Bawtry Forest, the Proposed Green Belt Site is considered to fall within and maintain a less essential gap which is of a sufficient scale that development at this location would not result in merging between settlements Score: 1


The A638 Great North Road exists to the east of the Proposed Site and connects Bawtry to Rossington. There have been no instances of Ribbon Development along this route and therefore the Green Belt at this location has had a strong role in resisting ribbon development towards Rossington in the north. Score: 5



General Area Assessment Summary: Within the Stage 1 Assessment, the character of the South 6 General Area was considered to be mixed. In the south east surrounding Bawtry, the General Area was considered to contain very large open fields from which there were notable long-distance views. The Ecus Landscape Character Capacity Study (2006) identified that South 6 surrounding Bawtry falls predominantly within H1 Character Area. The H1 Bawtry to Finningley Sandland Heaths and Farmland is considered to be of moderate quality and fairly distinctive with arable areas in good condition and few intrusive elements. There is geometric form to many landscape elements, including a railway line, straight edged fields and roads. Proposed Green Belt Site Assessment: In the south east of the General Area, and indeed within the Proposed Green Belt Site, land is considered to be very open, with very large field patterns. The slightly undulating nature of the area does mean that views beyond the blocks of woodland or towards other settlements in the north and west are limited. Although there are no distinctive features within the Site, development would be in conflict with the open and relatively flat landform. Land is considered to be in a fair condition with a limited tolerance to change and therefore land within the Proposed Green Belt Site is considered to have a moderate to high sensitivity to encroachment. Score: 4





The South Yorkshire Historic Environment Characterisation (2008) identifies that Bawtry has a ‘Complex Historic Town Core’ and shows clear evidence for comprehensive planning of burgage plots in 12th centuries, which were located specifically around the town’s High Street and Central Market Place. Whilst Bawtry’s historic core remains relatively intact, the Green Belt within the Proposed Green Belt site is separated from the historic core (as defined on the 1st edition 6 inch to the mile OS mapping of Doncaster (1851-1854)) by late 20th Century suburban housing. The Green Belt is therefore separated from the historic core by post WWII development. Score: 2


Although the historic core is located along the Great North Road further to the south, views towards the historic core of Bawtry from the Proposed Site are limited by modern built form and the curvature of the Great North Road which limits any views to the historic core. Views may be possible from along Martin Grange Farm towards key features, however these would be constrained by moderate scale detractors such as post WWI development. Score: 1


As Rossington is located far to the north of the site, the Proposed Green Belt site is not considered to have a specific role in supporting urban regeneration of the Regeneration Priority Area. Score: 1



Page 39

Summary The existing Green Belt General Area is considered to perform weakly when assessed against the extent to which it checks the unrestricted sprawl of a large-built up area and has a mixed role in the extent to which the Green Belt assists in supporting regeneration. The General Area is considered to contain Green Belt which is of moderate-high sensitivity to encroachment and a moderate role in preserving the setting and special character of the historic core of Bawtry. The General Area also has a moderate role in preventing neighbouring towns from merging. The Proposed Green Belt site boundaries are considered to be weakly defined in the south and west. The Proposed Green Belt site largely performs in a similar manner to the wider Green Belt General Area. The Proposed Site performs weakly when assessed against the extent to which the Green Belt checks the unrestricted sprawl of a large-built up area, has a moderately-weak role in preserving the setting and special character of Bawtry, and has a moderate role in preventing neighbouring towns from merging through resisting ribbon development The Green Belt at this location is not considered to have a role in assisting urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land, however, the Proposed Site does have a strong role in assisting in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.



Page 40

14 Carcroft and Skellow 042: Land to the rear of Skellow Hall



Site Name Land to the rear of Skellow Hall

Site Size 3 Hectares


The Proposed Green Belt site exists to the south of Carcroft and Skellow which is identified as ‘Service Town and Village’ within the Doncaster Local Plan Consultation: Homes and Settlement (March 2016)


Carcroft 1


• The General Area exists to the south of Carcroft, which is identified as a Small Urban Area in the Doncaster Core Strategy or a Service Town and Village within the Doncaster Local Plan Consultation: Homes and Settlement (March 2016). The Green Belt at this location is connected to the South Yorkshire Green Belt, but is not in close proximity to any large built up area (Purpose 1, Score 1).

• Carcroft 1 supports a largely essential gap between the Small Urban Area of Carcroft and Skellow and the Large Urban Area of Adwick le Street. Although the land gap is relatively narrow there is sufficient visual and perceptual separation that some development would not result in the merging, coalescence or significant erosion of a valued gap (Purpose 2a, Score 3). There are no instances of ribbon development, but there are no opportunities for ribbon development within the General Area (Purpose 2b, Score 0).

• The General Area contains no distinctive components or features which are considered to be irreplaceable or rare. Land in this location is in poor to fair condition; there was evidence of fly-tipping and open storage along Ings Lane. Development within the Green Belt could have a negative impact on the physical landforms and views, and the area is considered to have a low-moderate sensitivity to encroachment (Purpose 3a, Score 2). The General Area contains 0.23% built form which would indicate a strong rural character. However, there is influence from the operational railway line and employment site to the east which means the area reflects is fundamentally more characteristic of a moderately strong rural character (Purpose 3b, Score 3).

• Neither Adwick le Street nor Carcroft are considered to be historic cores, therefore this General Area is not considered to support the setting of a historic town or supports views towards the historic core (Purposes 4a and 4b, Score 1).

• The General Area is considered to be contiguous with the Regeneration Area of Carcroft and Skellow (Purpose 5, Score 4).


The General Area exists to the south of Carcroft and north of Adwick le Street. The existing Green Belt boundary is defined by the stepped extent of residential built form along the B1220 to the north. The existing Green Belt boundary is therefore considered to be angular and indented. Apart from a weakly defined indented area to the north west of the site which is not based on any physical features, the Proposed Green Belt Site boundary is defined on all sides by a dense and recognisable tree boundary, which is likely to be permanent. However, if the Proposed Green Belt site was removed from the Green Belt, the resultant boundary to the south of Carcroft would be acutely angular, indented and stepped. Release of the Proposed Green Belt site would therefore result in a boundary which is weak, irregular and inconsistent. Resultant Boundary Strength: Mixed in Strength Resultant Boundary to the south of Carcroft would be increasingly stepped and irregular



Page 41



The Proposed Green Belt Site is connected to the ‘Main Town’ of Adwick le Street and the ‘Service Towns and Villages’ of Carcroft and Skellow. The Green Belt at this location is connected to the South Yorkshire Green Belt, but is not in close proximity to any large built up area. Score: 1



Alongside Adwick le Street 1, 2 and 3, the land within Carcroft 1 and indeed the Proposed Green Belt Site, protects a land gap between the Small Urban Area of Carcroft and Skellow (now identified as a ‘Service Town and Village’) and the Large Urban Area of Adwick Le Street (now identified as a ‘Main Town’ as identified within the Doncaster Local Plan Consultation: Homes and Settlement (March 2016). The land gap between these settlements is approximately 1.7km and made up by arable fields, with the marshland associated with Skellow Ings and Old Ea Beck within the central area. There are a number of mature trees associated with the Skellow Ings area. In addition to these features, the topography of the former mine does mean that views between Carcroft and Skellow and the ‘Large Urban Area’ of Adwick le Street to the south east are somewhat limited. There is no direct access through this Proposed Site between the two settlements. Based on the scale of the Proposed Site and lack of access between settlements, release of this land from the Green Belt would not perceptually or visually reduce the perception of separation between these two settlements. This separation would also be maintained by the agricultural fields to the south of the Proposed Green Belt site. Therefore the Proposed Green Belt site would ensure that the largely essential gap between these settlements is retained. Score: 3


As there is no access through the Proposed Green Belt site between Carcroft and Skellow, and Adwick le Street, there are no opportunities for the Proposed Green Belt site to contribute towards ribbon development. Score: 0



General Area Assessment Summary: The wider General Area contains four large agricultural fields, and a remediated spoil heap in the east. The topography within the area is mixed: slightly undulating in the west, with artificially influenced landform associated with the spoil heap in the east. Vegetation is also mixed: whilst there are limited hedgerows, there are a number of more mature trees along Ings Lane and scrubland associated with former Carcroft Mine in the east. To the northern edge of Ings Lane there is a storage site within the Green Belt. The Ecus Landscape Character Capacity Study (2006) identifies the General Area as the Hampole Limestone River Valley (D2). This area is characterised by irregular pattern of small to large scale gently sloping arable fields, meandering and tree-lined streams and major transport corridors (including the A1 and railway line). The area to the east of the Character Area, land which falls within the General Area, is considered to be undeveloped and have a role in separating two large settlements, however it is slightly more diverse with a restored spoil heap. Proposed Green Belt Site Assessment: The Proposed Green Belt Site contains a number of large trees and components which are not considered to be easily replaced. High levels of containment do mean that development would not be in conflict with the landform, scale or pattern of the area or impact on wider views across the area. However development at this location could be considered to have an impact upon vulnerable landscape features such as the mature trees and the Conservation Area in the north. The Proposed Green Belt Site is therefore considered to contain features of a moderate-high sensitivity to encroachment. Score: 4


The Proposed Green Belt Site contains 0.0% built form and is therefore considered to be representative of a ‘Strong unspoilt rural area’. However, as a result of the levels of containment and the ‘urbanising features’ associated with the operational railway line just to the south, the Site is not considered to be characteristic of an ‘unspoilt’ area. Score: 4



Neither Adwick le Street nor Carcroft are considered to be historic cores within the Stage 1 Green Belt methodology. Therefore, the Proposed Green Belt site is not considered to support the setting or special character of a historic town. However, the Skellow Buttercross Conservation Area exists directly to the north of the Proposed Site. Whilst this does not constitute a ‘Historic Town’ in the Local Interpretation of the Purpose, development at this location may have an impact on the Conservation Area. Further work will need to be undertaken to understand the implications of development on this designation. Score: 1


There are no views towards a Historic Town Core. However, as above, the Skellow Buttercross Conservation Area exists directly to the north of the Proposed Site. Whilst this does not constitute a ‘Historic Town’ in the Local Interpretation of the Purpose, development at this location may have an impact on the Conservation Area. Further work will need to be undertaken to understand the implications of development on this designation. Score: 1


The Proposed Green Belt site is considered to be connected to and in close proximity with a Regeneration Priority Area, and therefore it is considered to be directing development towards brownfield and derelict land within the development limits. Score: 3



Page 42

Summary The Strategic Green Belt General Area of Carcroft 1 is considered to score moderately or weaker against the majority of Purposes of the Green Belt. Whilst the land at this location supports a largely essential land gap between settlements and is contiguous with a Regeneration Priority Area, the Green Belt at this location is not considered to be checking the unrestricted sprawl of a large built up area, nor considered to have strong role in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. Whilst the Proposed Green Belt boundaries are strong in isolation, release of this Green Belt site would reduce the overall strength of the Resultant Green Belt boundary. The Resultant Green Belt boundary would be acutely angular, indented and stepped, and therefore would not represent a readily recognisable boundary. The Proposed Green Belt site is not considered to have a role in preventing the sprawl of a large built up area, a weak role in preserving the setting and special character of a ‘Historic Town’ and only a moderate role in assisting in regeneration. The Site falls within and maintains a largely essential gap between Carcroft and Skellow and Adwick le Street. Owing to the level of mature trees within the area, the proximity to the conservation area and the high levels of containment, development at this location is considered to have a moderately strong role in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.



Page 43

15 Carcroft and Skellow 145: Land at Skellow



Site Name Land at Skellow



The site lies to the south of Carcroft and Skellow.


Carcroft 3


• The proposed Green Belt site falls within Carcroft 3 General Area, which exists to the south of Carcroft. Carcroft is a ‘Small Urban Area’ in the Local Plan Issues and Options (2015), or a ‘Service Town and Village’ within the Doncaster Local Plan Consultation: Homes and Settlements (March 2016) and therefore the Green Belt is considered to be connected to the South Yorkshire Green Belt, but is not in close proximity to any large built up area (Purpose 1, Score 1).

• Carcroft 3 protects a land gap between the Small Urban Area of Carcroft and Skellow and the Large Urban Area of Adwick Le Street. Overall, the General Area supports a largely essential gap where some development would not result in the merging, coalescence or significant erosion of a valued gap (Purpose 2a, Score 3). The Green Belt has resisted further ribbon development along the A1(M) at this location, which could reduce the perception of separation between Carcroft and Adwick Le Street. However, it is likely that ribbon development would have otherwise been prevented by the operational railway line (Purpose 2b, Score 5).

• The General Area contains three large, irregular arable fields. In general, the Green Belt at this location contains few distinctive components and no components which are not considered to be easily replaced. The General Area therefore contains Green Belt which is of low-moderate sensitivity to encroachment (Purpose 3a, Score 2). The General Area contains almost no built form (0.78%) which indicates a strong rural character; however, the influence of an operational railway line and employment site means that the General Area is reflective of a moderately strong rural character (Purpose 3b, Score 3).

• Neither Adwick Le Street nor Carcroft are considered to represent ‘historic towns’ within the Local Interpretation of Purpose 4. Despite the General Area containing Cromwell's Batteries, the General Area is not considered to support the setting or special character of a historic town (Purpose 4a, Score 1). There are no views towards a ‘Historic Town’ (Purpose 4b, Score 1).

• The General Area is considered to be contiguous with the Regeneration Area of Carcroft and Skellow (Purpose 5, Score 4).


The existing Green Belt boundary is defined by Hampole Balk Lane in the north and an indented area of angular built form along Howden Avenue. The existing Green Belt boundary is considered to be predominantly strong. The proposed outer Green Belt boundary comprises field boundaries in the east and south west which are supported by a number of medium sized boundary trees, and a field boundary to the south. Both of these Proposed Boundaries are weakly defined. Release of the Proposed Green Belt site would result in an angular area of residential built form along Hampole Balk Lane, which would be weaker than the existing Green Belt boundary. Resultant Boundary Strength: Weak



Page 44



The Proposed Green Belt Site boundary exists to the east of Carcroft and Skellow, which was identified as a ‘Small Urban Area’ within the Doncaster Local Plan Issues and Options version July 2015 and the third tier ‘Service Town and Village’ within the Doncaster Local Plan Consultation: Homes and Settlements (March 2016) Carcroft and Skellow is therefore not considered to form part of the ‘Large Built up Area’ of Doncaster. The Green Belt at this location is therefore connected to the South Yorkshire Green Belt, but not in close proximity to any large built up area. Score: 1



The Proposed Green Belt Site falls within a land gap between the ‘Main Town’ of Adwick le Street and the third tier ‘Service Town and Village’ of Carcroft and Skellow. The land gap between these settlements is approximately 1.7km and is generally made up by strategic infrastructure and arable fields with the marshland associated with Skellow Ings and Old Ea Beck within the central area. There are a number of mature trees associated with the Skellow Ings area. The topography dips away towards the Old Ea Beck, before increasing in height towards Adwick le Street. Whilst there is no public or vehicular access through these areas, the A1(M) does provide access between these settlements. In addition, views are possible towards the Redhouse Interchange Industrial Estate. Despite this, there is a clear perception of separation between these settlements, with multiple strategic infrastructure features reducing opportunities for future coalescence In isolation, the Proposed Green Belt Site therefore falls within and maintains a largely essential gap, where there is sufficient physical, visual and perceptual separation that some development would not result in merging. However, should the land to the south of the railway line also be developed, the Green Belt within the Proposed Site would represent an essential gap along the A1(M). Score: 3


The Great North Road and the A1(M) exists to the east of the site and link Carcroft in the north with Adwick le Street. Whilst there is some built form to the south of the existing Green Belt boundary, this pre-dates the Green Belt designation. Given the nature of the Proposed Green Belt site, development could contribute to ribbon development along the A1(M) which would perceptibly reduce the perception of separation along this access track. This would be particularly pronounced if land to the south of the railway line was also developed. Score: 5



General Area Assessment Summary: The wider General Area contains three large, irregular arable fields. The topography of the General Area slopes away from the built form, towards Old Ea Beck and The Skell. Vegetation is largely limited to arable fields, with a number of mature trees associated with the Beck. Views are possible towards the Brodsworth Industrial estate and towards the passing traffic on the A1 (M). The Ecus Landscape Character Capacity Study (2006) is identified as the Hampole Limestone River Valley (D2). This area is characterised by an irregular pattern of small to large scale gently sloping arable fields, meandering and tree-lined streams and major transport corridors (including the A1 and railway line). The area to the east of the Character Area, land which falls within the wider General Area, is considered to be undeveloped and have a role in separating two large settlements. Proposed Green Belt Site Assessment: The Proposed Green Belt Site contains agricultural fields with few distinctive components and components which are not considered to be easily replaced. Whilst there is almost no built form within the area, existing built form along Howden Avenue and the urbanising influences of the railway line and A1(M) would mean that development within the Site would not have an impact on key views across the area or be in conflict with the physical landform. The Proposed Green Belt Site is considered to contain land which is of a low-moderate sensitivity to encroachment. Score: 2


The Proposed Green Belt Site contains 0.0% built form, which means the Site should be categorised as a ‘strong unspoilt rural character’. However the urbanising influences in the area, including the A1(M) and the operational railway line, does mean that the area does not display an ‘unspoilt’ character. The area is considered to be more strongly associated with a ‘Strong Rural Character’. Score: 4



Neither Carcroft nor Skellow are considered to represent a ‘historic town’; as these are not considered to have a ‘complex historic core’ within the South Yorkshire Historic Environment Character Study or the Core Strategy. Therefore the Proposed Green Belt site is not considered to have a role in preserving the setting and special character of a historic town. Score: 1


Neither Carcroft nor Skellow are considered to represent a ‘historic town’; as these are not considered to have a ‘complex historic core’ within the South Yorkshire Historic Environment Character Study or the Core Strategy. Therefore the Proposed Green Belt site is not considered to have a role in preserving the setting and special character of a historic town. Score: 1


Given the indented and partially contained nature of the existing Green Belt boundary, the Proposed Green Belt Site is considered to be contiguous with the Regeneration Priority Area of Carcroft/Skellow. Score: 4



Page 45

Summary The General Area has a mixed role when assessed against the Local Interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes. The General Area is considered to have a weak role in checking the unrestricted sprawl of a large built up area and a moderately strong role in assisting in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. The Green Belt at this location has a low-moderate sensitivity to encroachment and supports a moderately-strong rural character. The wider Green Belt General Area is considered to have a moderate role in preventing neighbouring towns from merging and a weak role in preserving the setting and special character of a historic town, as Adwick le Street is not considered to be a ‘Historic Town’ in the South Yorkshire Historic Environment Characterisation (2008). The proposed outer Green Belt boundary comprises field boundaries in the east and south west which are supported by a number of medium sized boundary trees, and a field boundary to the south. Both of these Proposed Boundaries are weakly defined. Release of the Proposed Green Belt site would result in an angular area of residential built form along Hampole Balk Lane, which would be weaker than the existing Green Belt boundary. The Proposed Green Belt boundary has a similar role to the wider General Area when assessed against the local interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes. The Proposed Green Belt site is not considered to have a role in checking the unrestricted sprawl of a ‘large built up area’, and a moderate role in preventing neighbouring towns from merging. The role of the Proposed Green Belt site in preventing neighbouring towns from merging would increase to an essential gap if development were to take place to the south of the railway line. The Proposed Site is considered to contain land which is of a low-moderate sensitivity to development, and which contains no built form. As Carcroft and Skellow is not considered to be a ‘historic town’ in the local interpretation of Purpose 4, the Proposed Green Belt Site has only a limited role in preserving the setting and special character of a historic town. However, as Carcroft and Skellow are identified as a Regeneration Priority Area, the Proposed Green Belt site is considered to have a moderately strong role in assisting in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.



Page 46

16 Carcroft and Skellow 165: Land north of the A1, Skellow



Site Name Land North of the A1, Skellow



The site lies to the north of Skellow and Carcroft.


North 4


• The proposed Green Belt site falls within the large North 4 General Area. This General Area exists to the north of Carcroft and Skellow and therefore, the Green Belt is connected to the South Yorkshire Green Belt, but is not in close proximity to any large built-up area (Purpose 1, Score 1).

• North 4 supports a number of land gaps between Carcroft and Burghwallis; Carcroft and Owston; Askern, Norton and Campsall; and Askern and Sutton. On the whole, Green Belt within North 4 supports largely essential gaps between settlements, which means some development could take place away from access tracks with limited risk of merging (Purpose 2a, Score 3). There are also a number of instances of built form which extends along an access track but there are no instances of ribbon development extending beyond the Skellow or Carcroft boundary towards another inset Green Belt settlement. On balance, the existing Green Belt boundary has resisted ribbon development in part (Purpose 2b, Score 3).

• The character of the landscape is open, arable countryside and has a limited tolerance to change. Therefore the Green Belt at this location is considered to have moderate-high sensitivity to development (Purpose 3a, Score 4). North 4 contains the inset settlements of Norton, Campsall, Sutton, Owston and Burghwallis, and the General Area contains 2.05% built form. Although the character of the area is rural, the percentage of built form has a semi-urban character in part (Purpose 3b, Score 2).

• Askern, Carcroft, and Skellow do not have a historic town or a complex historic core. Campsall has a strong historic character but is not a historic town (Purpose 4a, Score 1). There are also no views towards the core of a ‘Historic Town’ (Purpose 4b, Score 1).

• North 4 is connected to Askern, Carcroft and Skellow which are Regeneration Priority Areas and the existing Green Belt boundary is considered to be contiguous with these Regeneration Priority Areas (Purpose 5, Score 4).


The existing Green Belt boundary is defined by linear residential built form along Crabgate Drive and Sherwood Drive, and Crabgate Lane in the south east. Whilst the existing Green Belt boundary is therefore not a linear boundary, the existing boundary is formed by strongly defined features. The Proposed Green Belt boundary would be defined by the A1(M) in the west and Green Lane in the North. The Proposed Green Belt boundary features are therefore considered to be strong and the Resultant Green Belt boundary would result in a natural rounding off of Skellow. Resultant Boundary Strength: Strong



Page 47



The Proposed Green Belt Site boundary exists to the north of Carcroft and Skellow, which was identified as a ‘Small Urban Area’ within the Doncaster Local Plan Issues and Options and the third tier ‘Service Town and Village’ within the Doncaster Local Plan Consultation: Homes and Settlements (March 2016) Carcroft and Skellow is therefore not considered to form part of the ‘Large Built up Area’ of Doncaster. The Green Belt at this location is therefore connected to the South Yorkshire Green Belt, but not in close proximity to any large built up area. Score: 1



The Proposed Green Belt Site exists within a land gap between Skellow and Burghwallis. At its closest point, the distance between the Proposed Green Belt Site and Burghwallis is approximately 655m and direct access between these settlements is achieved along Grange Lane. Overall, views are reduced from the Proposed Green Belt Site due to dense woodland associated with Burghwallis Grange and the gently rising topography. Despite this direct access, there is a good perception of separation between the settlements created by distance and levels of vegetation to the extent where development is unlikely to cause merging between settlements. The Proposed Green Belt site therefore exists within and maintains a less essential gap between settlements. Score: 1


There are no instances of ribbon development extending beyond the Skellow or Carcroft boundary towards another inset Green Belt settlement. However, as there is an area of built form to the east of Grange Lane which extends far to the north, it is considered that release of the Proposed Green Belt Site would not contribute additionally to opportunities for ribbon development. Score: 0



General Area Assessment Summary: The wider General Area is considered to display an open, arable countryside character in the north-west with a relatively mixed and enclosed character in the south and south east surrounding the built form of Carcroft and Skellow. Given the Green Belt in this location is open, arable countryside, the area has a limited tolerance to change, and a very limited tolerance to change further in the north west, however, enclosed areas around the existing settlements but away from the existing settlements where development would have a localised impact on views or landform The Ecus Landscape Character Capacity Study (2006) identifies the majority of the land within North 4 as category C3 Carcroft to Norton Limestone Plateau. This category is described as a gently rolling landform dipping gently to the north, south and east with arable farming in an irregular patchwork of fields and some pasture around settlements. There are many fragmented or lost field boundary hedges but where they remain they often contain mature trees. There are farmsteads scattered throughout the area with a network of minor lanes and tracks with some public rights of way. The A1(M) is generally well screened. Proposed Green Belt Site Assessment: The Proposed Green Belt Site contains agricultural land and contains components which are considered to be easily replaced or substituted. Despite proximity to the A1(M), land at this location is in a fair condition, and generally, the Green Belt would have a limited tolerance to change. Given the limited levels of enclosure, development within the Green Belt could have a negative impact on the physical landform and an impact on views across the area. The Proposed Green Belt Site is considered to contain features which are of moderate sensitivity to encroachment. Score: 3


The Proposed Green Belt Site contains 0.0% built form, which would mean that the Site displays a ‘Strong Unspoilt Rural Character’. However, as a result of the A1(M) in the west which is an ‘urbanising feature’, the Green Belt at this location is considered to be more reflective of a ‘Strong Rural Character’. Score: 4



Neither Carcroft nor Skellow are considered to represent a ‘historic town’; as it is not considered to have a ‘complex historic core’ within the South Yorkshire Historic Environment Character Study or the Core Strategy. Therefore the Proposed Green Belt site is not considered to have a role in preserving the setting and special character of a historic town. Score: 1




Given the relative strength of the existing Green Belt Boundary, the Proposed Green Belt Site is considered to be connected to the Regeneration Priority Area of Carcroft/Skellow. Score: 3



Page 48

Summary The General Area of North 4 has a mixed role when assessed against the Local Interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes. Whilst the General Area is not considered to be checking the unrestricted sprawl of a large built up area, nor preserving the setting and special character of a historic town, the Green Belt does have a moderately strong role in assisting in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. The Green Belt at this location is considered to generally support largely essential land gaps between settlements and is considered to be of moderate-high sensitivity to development. The Proposed Green Belt boundary would be defined by the A1(M) in the west and Green Lane in the North. The Proposed Green Belt boundary features are therefore considered to be strong and the Resultant Green Belt boundary would result in a natural rounding off of Skellow. The Proposed Green Belt site would perform in a largely similar manner to the wider General Area. The Proposed Site is not considered to be checking the unrestricted sprawl of a large built up area, nor preserving the setting and special character of a historic town, and the Site is considered to have only a moderate role in assisting in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. The Green Belt at this location is considered to maintain a less essential gap between Skellow and Burghwallis, and the Site is considered to have a moderate-strong role in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.



Page 49

17 Carcroft and Skellow 185: Land at Mill Lane and Crabgate, Skellow



Site Name Land off Crabgate Lane, Skellow





North 4





• Askern, Carcroft, and Skellow do not have a historic town or a complex historic core. Campsall has a strong historic character but is not a ‘historic town’ in the local interpretation of the Purpose (Purpose 4a, Score 1). There are also no views towards the core of a ‘Historic Town’ (Purpose 4b, Score 1).



The existing Green Belt boundary is defined by an angular area of residential built form, which acutely indents around the Wainscot Place and Acacia Road. The existing Green Belt boundary is therefore considered to be angular and unlikely to be permanent boundary. The Proposed Green Belt boundary would be defined by an agricultural field boundary in the north and east, and an area of residential built form off Mill Lane in the west. The Proposed Green Belt boundaries are therefore considered to be predominantly weak. Whilst the resultant Green Belt boundary would round-off the angularity of the existing Green Belt boundary, the outcome would not be any stronger than what already exists. Resultant Boundary Strength: Weak



Page 50



The Proposed Green Belt Site boundary exists to the north of Carcroft and Skellow, which was identified as a ‘Small Urban Area’ within the Doncaster Local Plan Issues and Options version July 2015 and the third tier ‘Service Town and Village’ within the Doncaster Local Plan Consultation: Homes and Settlements (March 2016). Carcroft and Skellow is therefore not considered to form part of the ‘Large Built up Area’ of Doncaster. The Green Belt at this location is therefore connected to the South Yorkshire Green Belt, but not in close proximity to any large built up area. Score: 1



The Proposed Green Belt Site exists within a land gap between Skellow and Burghwallis. At its closest point, the distance between the Proposed Green Belt Site and Burghwallis is approximately 850m however there is no direct access from the site to Burghwallis. Whilst there are views between settlements, there is a good perception of separation between the settlements created by distance. The Proposed Green Belt site therefore maintains a less essential gap between settlements. Score: 1


There are no access tracks within the Proposed Site and therefore, there are no opportunities for ribbon development to occur. Score: 0



General Area Assessment Summary: The wider General Area is considered to display an open, arable countryside character in the north-west with a relatively mixed and enclosed character in the south and south east surrounding the built form of Carcroft and Skellow. Given the Green Belt in this location is open, arable countryside, the area has a limited tolerance to change, and a very limited tolerance to change further in the north west, however, enclosed areas around the existing settlements but away from the existing settlements where development would have a localised impact on views or landform The Ecus Landscape Character Capacity Study (2006) identifies the majority of the land within North 4 as category C3 Carcroft to Norton Limestone Plateau. This category is described as a gently rolling landform dipping gently to the north, south and east with arable farming in an irregular patchwork of fields and some pasture around settlements. There are many fragmented or lost field boundary hedges but where they remain they often contain mature trees. There are farmsteads scattered throughout the area with a network of minor lanes and tracks with some public rights of way. The A1(M) is generally well screened. Proposed Green Belt Site Assessment: The Proposed Green Belt Site contains agricultural land and generally contains components which are considered to be easily replaced or substituted. Land at this location is in a fair condition, and generally, the Green Belt would have a limited tolerance to change. The Proposed Green Belt Site displays very limited levels of enclosure and strong views to Burghwallis which is raised, and therefore, development within this Site could be in conflict with the landform, scale and patterns of the landscape and be visually intrusive. The Proposed Green Belt Site is therefore considered to contain land which is of moderate-strong sensitivity to encroachment. Score: 4


The Proposed Green Belt Site contains 0.0% built form, which would mean that the Site displays a ‘Strong Unspoilt Rural Character’. Score: 5










Page 51

Summary The General Area of North 4 has a mixed role when assessed against the Local Interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes. Whilst the General Area is not considered to be checking the unrestricted sprawl of a large built up area, nor preserving the setting and special character of a historic town, the Green Belt does have a moderately strong role in assisting in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. The Green Belt at this location is considered to generally support largely essential land gaps between settlements and is considered to be of moderate-high sensitivity to development. The Proposed Green Belt boundary would be defined by an agricultural field boundary in the north and east, and an area of residential built form off Mill Lane in the west. The Proposed Green Belt boundaries are therefore considered to be predominantly weak. Whilst the resultant Green Belt boundary would round-off the angularity of the existing Green Belt boundary, the outcome would not be any stronger than what already exists. The Proposed Green Belt site would perform in a largely similar manner to the wider General Area. The Proposed Site is not considered to be checking the unrestricted sprawl of a large built up area, nor preserving the setting and special character of a historic town, and the Site is considered to have a moderately strong role in assisting in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. The Green Belt at this location is considered to maintain a less essential gap between Skellow and Burghwallis. However, the land within the Proposed Green Belt Site is considered to have a moderately strong role in assisting in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, owing to the site containing features which are of moderately-strong sensitivity to encroachment and no existing encroachment.



Page 52

18 Carcroft and Skellow 186: Land off Crabgate Lane, Skellow



Site Name Land off Crabgate Lane, Skellow





North 4








The existing Green Belt boundary is defined by linear residential built form along Crabgate Drive and Sherwood Drive, and Crabgate Lane in the south east. Whilst the existing Green Belt boundary is therefore not a linear boundary, the existing boundary is formed by strongly defined features. The Proposed Green Belt boundary would be defined by an agricultural field boundary in the north, which is considered to be a weakly-defined and not likely to be permanent feature. Boundaries to the east and west would be strongly defined by the A1(M) and Crabgate Lane. The Proposed Green Belt boundary would therefore be mixed in strength, however the Resultant Green Belt boundary would create a natural rounding off to the built form of Carcroft and Skellow. Resultant Boundary Strength: Mixed in Strength



Page 53



The Proposed Green Belt Site boundary exists to the north of Carcroft and Skellow, which was identified as a ‘Small Urban Area’ within the Doncaster Local Plan Issues and Options and the third tier ‘Service Town and Village’ within the Doncaster Local Plan Consultation: Homes and Settlements (March 2016). Carcroft and Skellow is therefore not considered to form part of the ‘Large Built up Area’ of Doncaster. The Green Belt at this location is therefore connected to the South Yorkshire Green Belt, but not in close proximity to any large built up area. Score: 1



The Proposed Green Belt Site exists within a land gap between Skellow and Burghwallis. At its closest point, the distance between the Proposed Green Belt Site and Burghwallis is approximately 775m and direct access between these settlements is achieved along Grange Lane. Overall, views are reduced from the Proposed Green Belt Site due to dense woodland associated with Burghwallis Grange and the gently rising topography. Despite this direct access, there is a good perception of separation between the settlements created by distance and levels of vegetation to the extent where development is unlikely to cause merging between settlements. The Proposed Green Belt site therefore maintains a less essential gap between settlements. Score: 1


There are no instances of ribbon development extending beyond the Skellow or Carcroft boundary towards another inset Green Belt settlement. However, as there is an area of built form to the east of Grange Lane which extends far to the north, it is considered that release of the Proposed Green Belt Site would not contribute additionally to opportunities for ribbon development. Score: 0



General Area Assessment Summary: The wider General Area is considered to display an open, arable countryside character in the north-west with a relatively mixed and enclosed character in the south and south east surrounding the built form of Carcroft and Skellow. Given the Green Belt in this location is open, arable countryside, the area has a limited tolerance to change, and a very limited tolerance to change further in the north west, however, enclosed areas around the existing settlements but away from the existing settlements where development would have a localised impact on views or landform The Ecus Landscape Character Capacity Study (2006) identifies the majority of the land within North 4 as category C3 Carcroft to Norton Limestone Plateau. This category is described as a gently rolling landform dipping gently to the north, south and east with arable farming in an irregular patchwork of fields and some pasture around settlements. There are many fragmented or lost field boundary hedges but where they remain they often contain mature trees. There are farmsteads scattered throughout the area with a network of minor lanes and tracks with some public rights of way. The A1(M) is generally well screened. Proposed Green Belt Site Assessment: The Proposed Green Belt Site contains agricultural land and few components which would be considered to be easily replaced or substituted. Despite proximity to the A1(M), land at this location is in a fair condition, and generally, the Green Belt would have a limited tolerance to change. Given the limited levels of enclosure, development within the Green Belt could have a negative impact on the physical landform and an impact on views across the area. The Proposed Green Belt Site is considered to contain features which are of moderate sensitivity to encroachment. Score: 3


The Proposed Green Belt Site contains 0.0% built form, which would mean that the Site displays a ‘Strong Unspoilt Rural Character’. However, as a result of the A1(M) in the west which is an urbanising feature, the Green Belt at this location is considered to be more reflective of a ‘Strong Rural Character’. Score: 4







The Proposed Green Belt Site is considered to be connected to the Regeneration Priority Area of Carcroft/Skellow. Score: 3



Page 54

Summary The General Area of North 4 has a mixed role when assessed against the Local Interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes. Whilst the General Area is not considered to be checking the unrestricted sprawl of a large built up area, nor preserving the setting and special character of a historic town, the Green Belt does have a moderately strong role in assisting in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. The Green Belt at this location is considered to generally support largely essential land gaps between settlements and is considered to be of moderate-high sensitivity to development. The Proposed Green Belt boundary would be defined by an agricultural field boundary in the north, which is considered to be a weakly-defined and not likely to be permanent feature. Boundaries to the east and west would be strongly defined by the A1(M) and Crabgate Lane. The Proposed Green Belt boundary would therefore be mixed in strength, however the Resultant Green Belt boundary would create a natural rounding off to the built form of Carcroft and Skellow. The Proposed Green Belt site would perform in a largely similar manner to the wider General Area. The Proposed Site is not considered to be checking the unrestricted sprawl of a large built up area, nor preserving the setting and special character of a historic town, and the Site is considered to have only a moderate role in assisting in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. The Green Belt at this location is considered to maintain a less essential gap between Skellow and Burghwallis.



Page 55

19 Carcroft and Skellow 273: Askern Road, Carcroft



Site Name Askern Road, Carcroft



The site lies to the east of Carcroft and Skellow.


North 4








The existing Green Belt boundary is defined by a field boundary, a shallow field drain and the extent of allotment gardens. The existing Green Belt boundary is therefore considered to be weakly defined, not recognisable and unlikely to be permanent. The Proposed Green Belt boundary would be defined by field boundary, an indented area defined by a shallow field drain and a further field boundary. Proposed Green Belt boundaries are therefore considered to be weak. Whilst the resultant Green Belt boundary would round-off the angularity of the existing Green Belt boundary, the resultant boundary would be of equal strength to what already exists. Resultant Boundary Strength: Weak



Page 56



The Proposed Green Belt Site boundary exists to the east of Carcroft and Skellow, which was identified as a ‘Small Urban Area’ within the Doncaster Local Plan Issues and Options version July 2015 and the third tier ‘Service Town and Village’ within the Doncaster Local Plan Consultation: Homes and Settlements (March 2016). Carcroft and Skellow is therefore not considered to form part of the ‘Large Built up Area’ of Doncaster. The Green Belt at this location is therefore connected to the South Yorkshire Green Belt, but not in close proximity to any large built up area. Score: 1



The Proposed Green Belt Site provides some support to a land gap between Carcroft and Skellow and Owston, which is identified as a ‘Defined Village’ within the Doncaster Local Plan Consultation: Homes and Settlements (March 2016). The General Area was considered to preserve a largely essential gap between Carcroft and Skellow, as a result of the connection along Owston Lane. However, given the proposed Green Belt site exists to the south east of the built form of Carcroft and Skellow, and does not extend beyond the existing residential built form further north, the Proposed Green Belt Site is considered to maintain a less essential land gap at this location where development could be possible without the risk of merging between settlements. Score: 1


Whilst there are no access tracks within the Proposed Site, the B1220 Skellow Road exists to the south of the Site. Given built form extends further to the east along the southern side of Skellow Road, development at this location would not additionally contribute to ribbon development which could reduce the perceived separation between settlements. Score: 0



General Area Assessment Summary: The wider General Area is considered to display an open, arable countryside character in the north-west with a relatively mixed and enclosed character in the south and south east surrounding the built form of Carcroft and Skellow. Given the Green Belt in this location is open, arable countryside, the area has a limited tolerance to change, and a very limited tolerance to change further in the north west, however, enclosed areas around the existing settlements but away from the existing settlements where development would have a localised impact on views or landform The Ecus Landscape Character Capacity Study (2006) identifies the Proposed Green Belt Site as falling within (F2) Owston to Sykehouse Settled Clay Farmlands. Category F2 is described as a low lying landform with small scale arable and pasture fields including hay meadows. The land here has dense boundary hedges with frequent mature hedgerow trees. There is a network of green lanes and public rights of way running through the area, with compact historic settlements and many scattered farmsteads. Proposed Green Belt Site Assessment: The Proposed Green Belt Site contains agricultural land and few components which would be considered to be easily replaced or substituted. Land at this location is in a fair condition, and generally, the Green Belt would have a limited tolerance to change. The Proposed Green Belt Site displays relatively high levels of enclosure within the built form and therefore development is likely to have a local impact on the physical landform, the scale of the landscape or view across the area. The Proposed Green Belt Site is therefore considered to contain land which is of moderate sensitivity to encroachment. Score: 3


The Proposed Green Belt Site contains 0.0% built form, which would mean that the Site displays a ‘Strong Unspoilt Rural Character’. However, given the high levels of enclosure, the Proposed Green Belt Site is not considered to represent an ‘unspoilt’ area of Green Belt. Therefore, the Proposed Site is considered to be more representative of a ‘Strong Rural Character’. Score: 4










Page 57

Summary The General Area of North 4 has a mixed role when assessed against the Local Interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes. Whilst the General Area is not considered to be checking the unrestricted sprawl of a large built up area, nor preserving the setting and special character of a historic town, the Green Belt does have a moderately strong role in assisting in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. The Green Belt at this location is considered to generally support largely essential land gaps between settlements and is considered to be of moderate-high sensitivity to development. The Proposed Green Belt boundary would be defined by field boundary, an indented area defined by a shallow field drain and a further field boundary. Proposed Green Belt boundaries are therefore considered to be weak. Whilst the resultant Green Belt boundary would round-off the angularity of the existing Green Belt boundary, the resultant boundary would be of equal strength to what already exists. The Proposed Green Belt site would perform in a largely similar manner to the wider General Area. The Proposed Site is not considered to be checking the unrestricted sprawl of a large built up area, or preserving the setting and special character of a historic town, and the Site is considered to have a moderately strong role in assisting in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. The Green Belt at this location is considered to maintain a less essential gap between Carcroft and Owston. However, the area within the Proposed Site is considered to have a moderate role in assisting in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment: the area contains land which is of moderate sensitivity to encroachment, and whilst the area contains no built form, high levels of containment reduce the perception of the area being ‘unspoilt’.



Page 58

20 Conisbrough 040: Land at Sheffield Road/Old Road, Hilltop, Conisbrough



Site Name Land at Sheffield Road/Old Road, Hilltop, Conisbrough



The site is adjacent to the Main Town of Conisbrough and Denaby, in the far west of Doncaster.


Conisbrough 6


• Whilst the General Area is approximately 3.6km from the built extent of Urban Rotherham, Conisbrough 6 is not considered to have a role in checking the unrestricted sprawl of a Large Built Up Area as it is not in close proximity to a large built up area. Therefore the existing Green Belt designation is connected to the South Yorkshire Green Belt but is not in close proximity to any large built-up area (Purpose 1, Score 1).

• Conisbrough 6 has a role in supporting a less essential gap between Conisbrough and 'Green Belt Settlements' of Hooton Roberts and Hooton Pagnall. It supports a wide, but largely essential strategic gap between Conisbrough and Thrybergh which forms part of Rotherham Urban Area (Purpose 2a, Score 3). The existing Green Belt boundary within Conisbrough has strongly resisted ribbon development (Purpose 2b, Score 5).

• Given the Green Belt land at this location has a semi-rural, urban fringe character, the area is considered to be relatively tolerant of change. Development in this location would have a local impact on the physical landform and would have an impact on the extensive open views to the north and south. The General Area is considered to be moderately sensitive to encroachment (Purpose 3a, Score 3). The General Area contains 2.93% built form which is identified as semi-urban character and contains the part of the settlement, Hill Top; therefore this General Area is considered to be representative of a moderately strong rural character (Purpose 3b, Score 3).

• Conisbrough is considered to be a historic town, but Conisbrough 6 is considered to be separated from the historic core of Doncaster by a dense tree belt and post WWII development (Purpose 4a, Score 2). In addition, due to pre and post-war development that separates the General Area from the historic core, there are no key views of the historic core (Purpose 4b, Score 1).

• Conisbrough 6 is connected to and in close proximity to the Conisbrough Regeneration Priority Area, and therefore, is considered to be directing development towards brownfield and derelict land within development limits (Purpose 5, Score 3).


The existing Green Belt boundary is defined by residential properties along Maple Grove and Micklebring Grove. The Proposed Green Belt Site is defined almost exactly by the parameters of Conisbrough 6 General Area, however the settlement of Hill Top is excluded from the Proposed Site. If the Proposed Green Belt site was removed from the Green Belt, the resultant Green Belt boundary would be defined in the south of the site by the A630/Sheffield Road and to the west by Old Road, which is also the extent of the Doncaster Metropolitan Borough boundary. The resultant Green Belt boundary would be strong as this road is a recognisable, durable and likely to be permanent boundary feature. Resultant Boundary Strength: Strong



Page 59



The proposed Green Belt site is connected to the south west of Conisbrough, which is identified as a ‘Main Town’ within the Doncaster Local Plan Consultation: Homes and Settlements (March 2016) and not part of the ‘large built up area’ of the Main Urban Area of Doncaster. Conisbrough 6 is also approximately 3.6km from the edge of Urban Rotherham, however this is not considered to be in close proximity. Therefore the Proposed Green Belt Site is connected to the South Yorkshire Green Belt, but not in close proximity to any large built-up area. Score: 1



Hill Top, which exists approximately 750m to the west of the General Area is a settlement within the Doncaster Green Belt. However, as this settlement is ‘washed over’ by the Green Belt within Doncaster, the Proposed Green Belt Site is not considered to have a role in preventing these ‘neighbouring towns from merging’. Whilst releasing the Proposed Green Belt Site would result in coalescence between Doncaster and Hill Top, the Green Belt here was never considered to have a role in preventing these neighbouring towns from merging. Releasing the Proposed Green Belt site would have only a limited impact on the separation between Conisbrough and Hooton Roberts and Hooton Pagnall. This land gap would remain a less essential gap as a result of the land rising to a higher topography between these settlements. In addition, releasing the Proposed Green Belt site would ensure that the wide, but largely essential gap between Conisbrough and Urban Rotherham is retained as there would still be limited views between settlements and the scale of proposed development is relatively modest. Overall, the Proposed Green Belt site therefore has a mixed contribution towards preventing neighbouring towns from merging into one another. Score: 1 (Mixed, 0, 1 and 3)


The existing Green Belt boundary had strong resisted ribbon development. The Proposed Green Belt Site boundaries could continue to resist ribbon development, however, ribbon development at this location would only reduce the perception of separation between Conisbrough and Hill Top. Score: 5



General Area Assessment Summary: The General Area contains one large agricultural field. The topography of the General Area declines from the east to west. Vegetation is dominated by a single arable agricultural field; there are two trees within the area and gappy hedgerows around the perimeter. There is no public access through the General Area. Whilst views to the east are limited, there are expansive views to the horizon in all other directions. The Ecus Landscape Character Capacity Study (2006) identifies Conisbrough 6 as category A1 Conisbrough to Denaby Coalfield Farmlands. The landscape character of A1 is identified as having a complex, undulating topography which is cut by many small streams. The landform within the General Area rises up to an escarpment to the limestone plateau immediately to the east. The General Area is characterised by arable farmland with some pasture including horse grazing in an irregular patchwork of medium scale fields with thick mixed hedgerows with mature trees on field boundaries. Proposed Green Belt Site Assessment: Given that the Green Belt land at this location has a semi-rural, urban fringe character, the area is considered to be relatively tolerant of change. There are a small collection of buildings, some of which are historic, surrounding the ‘washed over’ village of Hill Top. Whilst the older Hilltop Hotel is considered to be a locally-distinctive component with limited replacability or substitutability, the General Area contains few natural distinctive components. Agricultural land at this location is in a fair condition. Development in this location would have an impact on the physical landform of the site and would have an impact on the extensive, open views to the north and south. On balance, the General Area contains Green Belt that is moderately sensitive to encroachment. Score: 3


The Proposed Green Belt Site contains no built form. However, as a result of the Hill Top Village to the west of the Proposed Site, the Site is not considered to have an ‘unspoilt’ character and is instead considered to be more characteristic of a ‘Strong Rural Character’. Score: 4



Based on analysis of the 1st edition 6 inch to the mile OS mapping of Doncaster (1851-1854) and the assessment of views within the Conisbrough Conservation Area Appraisal, it is considered that the Proposed Green Belt site would continue to be separated from the historic core of Doncaster by a dense tree belt and post WWII residential development. Score: 2


Based on the Conisbrough Conservation Area Appraisal Views and the level of pre and post-war development that separates the General Area from the Historic Core, there are no key views of the historic core. Score: 1

Purpose 5: Extent to which the Proposed Green Belt Site ‘assists in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land’

The Proposed Green Belt Site, and the Conisbrough 6 General Area, is connected to and in close proximity with Conisbrough Regeneration Priority Area and therefore by its designation, is considered to be directing development towards brownfield and derelict land within the development limits. Score: 3



Page 60

Summary The Strategic Green Belt General Area of Conisbrough 6 and the Proposed Green Belt Site are almost identical. Although receiving a higher score for resisting ribbon development, the Strategic Green Belt General Area received Moderate or Lower score for the remainder of the Purposes. Whilst Conisbrough 6 would have a role in supporting a less essential gap between Conisbrough and 'Green Belt Settlements' of Hooton Roberts and Hooton Pagnall it supports a wide, but largely essential strategic gap between Conisbrough and Thrybergh which forms part of Rotherham Urban Area. The General Area received lower scores for its contribution to the preserving the setting of the historic town of Conisbrough, the General Area was considered to have a moderate role in assisting in urban regeneration. The proposed Resultant Green Belt boundary is considered to be predominantly strong, defined by the Old Road in the north and Sheffield Road in the south. Although the Proposed Green Belt site and the existing Green Belt boundary does have a strong role in preventing ribbon development, the Proposed Green Belt site is not connected to a large built up area, would have a limited impact on the historic core of Conisbrough and would have a moderate role in directing development towards brownfield and derelict land. Whilst release of the Proposed Green Belt site would still maintain the wide, strategic, but largely essential gap between Conisbrough and the Urban Area of Rotherham and less essential gap between the smaller outlying settlements of Hooton Pagnall and Hooton Roberts, release of this Green Belt land would result in coalescence with the ‘washed over’ Hamlet of Hill Top. Green Belt land at this location has a moderately strong sensitivity to encroachment.



Page 61

21 Conisbrough 142: Land south of Sheffield Road, Conisbrough



Site Name Land South of Sheffield Road, Conisbrough



The site is located to the south of the Main Town Conisbrough and Denaby, in the far west of Doncaster.


Conisbrough 5


• As Warmsworth (which exists to the far west of Conisbrough 5) forms part of the Main Urban area of Doncaster, the Green Belt in the north east is considered to be contiguous with the 'large urban area of Doncaster'. Therefore, the existing Green Belt designation has a role in preventing sprawl which would only otherwise be prevented by features lacking in durability (Purpose 1, Score 4).

• Conisbrough 5 supports a series of land gaps within and neighbouring the General Area. These include land gaps between Conisbrough and Maltby; Conisbrough and New Edlington/ the south of Warmsworth; New Edlington and Maltby; New Edlington and Balby; and New Edlington and Wadworth. Based on the number of land gaps and their role, the General Area was considered to have a mixed role in preventing neighbouring towns from merging (Purpose 2a, Score 4). The existing Green Belt boundary within Conisbrough has had an overall mixed role in preventing ribbon development, but along the A630 there are no incidences of built form, which supports strongly resisted ribbon development (Purpose 2b, Score 3).

• The Proposed Green Belt Site forms part of the Green Belt to the south of Conisbrough which slopes towards the rural land to the south; development would thus have an impact on views, landform and pattern of the landscape. The wider General Area is considered to be moderately sensitive to encroachment. Due to the topography, extensive views and countryside character, development in this General Area would have a negative impact on the physical landform. There are areas of built form surrounding the existing settlements where development would not be in conflict. As such, the wider area contains Green Belt land that is moderately-high sensitive to development (Purpose 3a, Score 4). The General Area contains 1.12% built form which is identified as being a moderately strong rural character (Purpose 3b, Score 3).

• Given the scale of Conisbrough 5, and the fact that Conisbrough is considered to be a historic town, the General Area attains a mixed score for the extent to which it has a role in supporting the character of the Historic Town or Place within the Borough (Purpose 4a, Score 3). In addition, as a result of the undulating nature of the General Area, there are generally limited views to historic cores within the Green Belt (Purpose 4b, Score 2).

• Conisbrough 5 is associated with two Regeneration Priority Areas as identified by the Doncaster Core Strategy (2012). In the north, the boundary is connected to Conisbrough. In the east, the boundary is contiguous with New Edlington. (Purpose 5, Score 4).

Does the Resultant Green Belt Boundary represent a ‘boundary which is

The existing Green Belt boundary at this location includes the strongly-defined A630/Sheffield Road to the north, which is durable and readily recognisable boundary feature. Following release of the Proposed Green Belt site, the resultant Green Belt boundary would be defined by the following features: in the south by the private road of Spring Bank Road; in the south west by a field boundary with somewhat weakly defined and gappy hedgerow; in the north west by Park Lane, and in the east by extent of the Conisbrough Cemetery. The resultant Green Belt boundaries are weak, and particularly weak in the south and south west. The Resultant Green Belt boundary would therefore be created by a weakly indented area of built form which extends to the south of Sheffield Road.



Page 62

Resultant Boundary Strength: Weak



Whilst the wider General Area is considered to be contiguous with the ‘Main Town’ of Conisbrough within the Doncaster Local Plan Consultation: Homes and Settlements (March 2016), the Green Belt at this location is considered to be ‘connected to the South Yorkshire Green Belt but not in close proximity to any large built-up area’. Score: 1



The Proposed Green Belt Site is a small site supporting land gaps between Conisbrough and the ‘inset’ village of Clifton and Micklebring, which were both identified as a ‘Small Village’ within the Issues and Options Draft (2015), and ‘defined villages’ within the Doncaster Local Plan Consultation: Homes and Settlements (March 2016). The Proposed Green Belt site falls within the following land gaps: • Conisbrough and Clifton: The Proposed Green Belt site falls within a land gap which is approximately 1.65km from Clifton and contains isolated scattered farmsteads, the dismantled railway

line and the area known as Conisbrough Parks. A strongly undulating topography, disused railway line lined with a tree corridor which passes between the settlements which supports the perception of separation. The Proposed Green Belt site therefore falls within a Largely Essential land gap, however due to the scale of the Site and dense vegetation boundary, this is considered to be a Less Essential Gap.

• Conisbrough and Micklebring: Given the settlement of Micklebring exists almost directly to the south of Clifton beyond the M18, the assessment of this land gap is largely the same. However the presence of the M18 adds an additional boundary to the separation between these settlements and therefore the Green Belt at this location is considered to maintain a Less Essential Gap between settlements.

Score: 1


The A630 exists to the north and Park Lane also exists to the west of the Site which connects Conisbrough to settlements further west. Given built form exists to the north of the A630, development of the Proposed Green Belt Site would not perceptibly contribute to ribbon development. The Proposed Green Belt Site therefore would not contribute to ribbon development. Score: 0



General Area Assessment Summary: The General Area contains land which is predominantly rural, open, countryside character. The area directly to the south of Conisbrough contains the Crookhill Park Golf Course and a number of small wooded areas. Elsewhere within this northern section is a medium patchwork of arable fields and pastures which are divided by low hedgerows and occasional trees. The topography slopes upwards towards Conisbrough, restricting views into the settlement from this area. There are views of undulating land and occasional trees. The Ecus Landscape Character Capacity Study (2006) identifies the Proposed Green Belt Site as falling within A1 Conisbrough and Denaby Coalfield Farmlands is described as a complex undulating topography cut by many small streams. There is arable farmland with some pasture including horse grazing in an irregular patchwork of medium scale fields and thick mixed hedgerows with mature trees on field boundaries. There are trees along streams and a dismantled railway and occasional small blocks of woodland in the area. Proposed Green Belt Site Assessment: The Proposed Green Belt Site contains an agricultural field and an access track associated with the cemetery to the east. The Proposed Green Belt Site therefore contains features which are predominantly easily replaced and not considered to be rare or distinctive. Land at this location is gently undulating with a broad ridge passing through the Proposed Green Belt Site with the land in the north falling towards Conisbrough and in the south towards the Conisbrough Parks area. Development would therefore be particularly prominent in the southern portion of the Proposed Green Belt Site, where it would have an adverse effect on a higher quality landscape and where it would be in conflict with views, the landform and scale of the area. The southern part of the Proposed Green Belt Site is therefore considered to have a very limited tolerance to change, whereas nearing the built form, development would have less of an impact on views or key features of the landscape. The Proposed Green Belt Site is therefore considered to have a high sensitivity to encroachment in the south and moderately-high in the north. Score: 4


The Proposed Green Belt Site contains 2.6% built form which is connected to the newly developed track to the east which is associated with the Cemetery. This level of built form would categorise the Site as having a ‘Semi-urban character’. However, given a ‘Cemetery’ is identified as an appropriate land use in the Green Belt (Paragraph 89 of the NPPF), the Green Belt at this location is considered to be more reflective of a Moderately Strong Rural Character. Score: 3



Conisbrough is considered to have a ‘Complex Historic Core’ within the South Yorkshire Historic Environment Characterisation. The Conisbrough Conservation Area Appraisal (2015) states that: Conisbrough conservation area is dominated by the castle and the church, both of which are Grade I listed buildings, with the castle also being a Scheduled Ancient Monument. The castle is located on a hill-top within the town, which is centred around the church on a spur behind. The town dates from at least the Anglo-Saxon period, and its main street pattern and the church origins are from this period. There are a large amount of trees and green spaces especially around the castle and the north-eastern parts of the conservation area. The Conservation Area has several 17th and 18th century properties, but there are also numerous buildings from the Victorian period, mainly in the form of commercial and residential terraces. Buildings tend to be mainly of a simple form and use a limited range of materials; brick, render or stone for walls, with natural Welsh slate or clay pantiles for the roof. Stone boundary walls are a significant feature. Within the conservation area there are eight listed buildings. In addition, the South Yorkshire Historic Landscape Characterisation states that ‘character areas within this Complex Historic Core zone include those historic settlements identifiable on the 1st edition 6 inch to the mile OS mapping of Doncaster (1851-1854) that display a more complex urban form than settlements within the ‘Nucleated Rural Settlements’ zone.’ Based on analysis of the



Page 63

1st edition 6 inch to the mile OS mapping of Doncaster (1851-1854) and the assessment of the Conisbrough Conservation Area Appraisal, it is considered that the Green Belt within the Proposed Green Belt Site was originally adjacent to Providence Place and built form at Clifton View. The Proposed Green Belt site is therefore separated from the Historic Core of Conisbrough by Sheffield Road and vegetation surrounding Providence Place. Further assessment work would need to be undertaken to determine the heritage impact should this site be considered for development. Score: 4


Whilst there are views to the built form along Clifton View, there are limited views to the Conservation Area or the Historic Core despite the high point in topography identified at the centre of the Proposed Site. Views towards the historic core of Conisbrough are therefore considered to be enclosed by vegetation along the Sheffield Road, however there are moderate scale detractors in the form of modern built form. Score: 2


Conisbrough is considered to be a Regeneration Priority Area within the Core Strategy; the Proposed Green Belt Site is considered to be connected to this Regeneration Priority Areas. Score: 3

Summary The Strategic Green Belt General Area received a mixed score when assessed against the Local Interpretation of the Five Purposes of the Green Belt, achieving Moderate or Moderately High Scores across most Purposes owing to the General Areas proximity to the Doncaster Main Urban Area, role in preserving the separation between a number of neighbouring settlements, moderately strong rural character and proximity to the historic core of Conisbrough and regeneration priority areas. Following release of the Proposed Green Belt site, the resultant Green Belt boundary would be defined by the following features: in the south by the private road of Spring Bank Road; in the south west by a field boundary with somewhat weakly defined and gappy hedgerow; in the north west by Park Lane, and in the east by extent of the Conisbrough Cemetery. The resultant Green Belt boundaries are weak, and particularly weak in the south and south west. The Resultant Green Belt boundary would therefore be created by a weakly indented area of built form which extends to the south of Sheffield Road. The Proposed Green Belt site has a mixed role when assessed against the Local Interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes. Whilst the Proposed Green Belt Site does not have a role in checking the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas and a weak role in preventing neighbouring towns from merging, the Green Belt at this location does have a moderate role in assisting in urban regeneration. Most prominently, the Proposed Green Belt Site is only considered to be separated from the Historic Core of Conisbrough (that defined by Providence Place and Clifton View) by only a natural boundary (woodland to the rear of the Providence Place). The Site is considered to have a moderate role in assisting in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. The Green Belt at this site also contains features which are considered to be moderate-high sensitivity to development.



Page 64

22 Conisbrough 221: Garage off Sheffield Road/ Clifton Hill, Conisbrough (Site B)



Site Name Garage off Sheffield Road/ Clifton Hill, Conisbrough (Site B)



The site lies to the south of Conisbrough.


Conisbrough 5


• As Warmsworth forms part of the Main Urban area of Doncaster, the Green Belt in the north east is considered to be contiguous with the 'large urban area of Doncaster'. Therefore, the existing Green Belt designation has a role in preventing sprawl which would only otherwise be prevented by features lacking in durability (Purpose 1, Score 4).

• Conisbrough 5 supports a series of land gaps within and neighbouring the General Area. These include land gaps between Conisbrough and Maltby; Conisbrough and New Edlington/ the south of Warmsworth; New Edlington and Maltby; New Edlington and Balby; and New Edlington and Wadworth. Based on the number of land gaps and their role, the General Area was considered to have a mixed role in preventing neighbouring towns from merging (Purpose 2a, Score 4). The existing Green Belt boundary within Conisbrough has had a mixed role in preventing ribbon development (Purpose 2b, Score 3).

• Due to the topography, extensive views and countryside character, development in this area would have a negative impact on the physical landform. There are areas of built form surrounding the existing settlements where development would not be in conflict. As such, the area contains Green Belt land that is of moderately-high sensitivity to development. (Purpose 3a, Score 4). The General Area contains 1.12% built form which is identified as being a moderately strong rural character (Purpose 3b, Score 3).

• Given the scale of Conisbrough 5, and the fact that Conisbrough is considered to be a historic town, the general area attains a mixed score for the extent to which it has a role in supporting the character of the Historic Town or Place within the Borough (Purpose 4a, Score 3). In addition, as a result of the undulating nature of the General Area, there are generally limited views to historic cores within the Green Belt (Purpose 4b, Score 2).



The existing Green Belt boundary at this location is defined by the Sheffield Road A630 in the north and north west, and the indented extent of the built form associated with the Garage to the north and the Public House to the south. Whilst the A630 is considered to be a strongly defined, recognisable and likely to be permanent feature, the boundaries created by the built form are considered to be relatively weak. The Proposed Green Belt boundary would be created by a densely wooded corridor of trees to the south and south east. To the north east, the Green Belt boundary is weakly defined by no physical infrastructure or natural boundary, and instead is likely to be the extent of an area of landownership. The Proposed Green Belt boundary is therefore created by features which are mixed in strength: strong to the south and south east and weak to the north. The Resultant Green Belt boundary would be created by an angular area of built form which extends to the south of Conisbrough. Nonetheless, this could bring boundary coherence to the existing built form which is inset within the Green Belt to the south of Sheffield Road.



Page 65

Resultant Boundary Strength: Mixed in Strength



The Proposed Green Belt site adjoins the southern side of the settlement of Conisbrough, which is identified as a ‘Main Town’ within the Doncaster Local Plan Consultation: Homes and Settlements (March 2016). Therefore, Conisbrough does not form part of the ‘Main Urban Area of Doncaster’, and the Proposed Green Belt site is considered to be connected to the South Yorkshire Green Belt, but not in close proximity to the large built up area of Doncaster. Score: 1



The Proposed Green Belt Site is a small site supporting land gaps between Conisbrough and the ‘inset’ village of Clifton and Old Edlington, which were both identified as a ‘Small Village’ within the Issues and Options Draft (July 2015), and ‘defined villages’ within the Doncaster Local Plan Consultation: Homes and Settlements (March 2016). The Proposed Green Belt site falls within the following land gaps: • Conisbrough and Clifton: The Proposed Green Belt site falls within a land gap which is approximately 1.8km from Clifton and contains isolated scattered farmsteads and the Crookhill Park

Golf Course. Clifton is raised above the wider area, with the topography falling away towards the north. There is a disused railway line with a tree corridor which passes between the settlements which supports the perception of separation. The Proposed Green Belt site therefore falls within a Largely Essential land gap, however due to the scale of the Site and dense vegetation boundary, this is considered to be a Less Essential Gap.

• Conisbrough and Old Edlington: The land gap between Conisbrough and Old Edlington is approximately 2km from the Proposed Green Belt Site, and contains a large number of arable fields. There is no direct access between settlements. The topography is gently rising towards Old Edlington, but there are no views from the Proposed Green Belt Site due to the thick vegetation surrounding the site. The Proposed Green Belt site therefore falls within and maintains a Largely Essential land gap, however due to the scale of the Site and dense vegetation boundary, this could be considered to be a Less Essential Gap.

Score: 1


The Proposed Green Belt site exists to the south of Sheffield Road A630. Although there are instances of built form to the west of the site which existed on the 6 inch to the mile OS map (1888-1913), development at this location would contribute to existing ribbon development to the south of Conisbrough. Given there is built form to the south of the A630 in both easterly and westerly directions, development at this location would not contribute further to ribbon development. Score: 0



General Area Assessment Summary: The General Area contains land which is predominantly rural, open, countryside character. The area directly to the south of Conisbrough contains the Crookhill Park Golf Course and a number of small wooded areas. Elsewhere within this northern section is a medium patchwork of arable fields and pastures which are divided by low hedgerows and occasional trees. The topography slopes upwards towards Conisbrough, restricting views into the settlement from this area. There are views of undulating land and occasional trees. The Ecus Landscape Character Capacity Study (2006) identifies the Proposed Green Belt Site as falling within A1 Conisbrough and Denaby Coalfield Farmlands is described as a complex undulating topography cut by many small streams. There is arable farmland with some pasture including horse grazing in an irregular patchwork of medium scale fields and thick mixed hedgerows with mature trees on field boundaries. Scattered red brick farmsteads. There are trees along streams and a dismantled railway and occasional small blocks of woodland in the area. Proposed Green Belt Site Assessment: The Proposed Green Belt Site contains a large area of hardstanding in the south east, and a dense copse of trees to the south west and north of the Site. The Green Belt at this location is considered to display a mixed sensitivity to encroachment:

• The area to the south and west of the Proposed Green Belt Site is considered to contain features that are rare and distinctive, such as the dense area of woodland which adjoins the Ashfield Brick Pits SSSI. These features are no easily replaced or substituted and therefore the Green Belt has a relatively limited tolerance to change. Development at this location would have an adverse effect upon vulnerable features of the countryside. Further assessment work would be necessary to determine the impact of site release on these features.

• The area to the north east and east contains a large area of hard-standing, surrounded by some large trees. The Green Belt at this location is therefore considered to be tolerant of change and land at this location is considered to be in a poor and unkempt condition. Given the high levels of enclosure created by the dense woodland, development at this location could have a local impact on views, landform and sale of the site.

The Proposed Green Belt Site has a mixed sensitivity to encroachment: High in the south and south west and low in the north east. The Site is therefore considered to display a moderately-high sensitivity to encroachment. Score: 4


The Proposed Green Belt Site contains 40% built form which is connected to the area of hard-standing in the east. This level of built form means that the Site displays a Moderately-Urban Character. However as a result of the dense tree boundary, the Green Belt at this location is considered to be more reflective of a Semi-Urban Character. Score: 2

Purpose 4: To preserve the setting and special

Purpose 4a: Extent to which the Proposed Green Belt Site has a role in supporting the character of the

Conisbrough is considered to have a ‘Complex Historic Core’ within the South Yorkshire Historic Environment Characterisation. The Conisbrough Conservation Area Appraisal (2015) states that: Conisbrough conservation area is dominated by the castle and the church, both of which are Grade I listed buildings, with the castle also being a scheduled ancient monument. The castle is located on a hill-top within the town, which is centred around the church on a spur behind. The town dates from at least the Anglo-Saxon period, and its main street pattern and the church origins are from this period. There are a large amount of trees and green spaces especially around the castle and the north-eastern parts of the conservation area. The Conservation Area has several 17th and 18th century



Page 66

character of historic towns.

Historic Town or Place within the Borough.

properties, but there are also numerous buildings from the Victorian period, mainly in the form of commercial and residential terraces. Buildings tend to be mainly of a simple form and use a limited range of materials; brick, render or stone for walls, with natural Welsh slate or clay pantiles for the roof. Stone boundary walls are a significant feature. Within the conservation area there are eight listed buildings. In addition, the South Yorkshire Historic Landscape Characterisation states that ‘character areas within this Complex Historic Core zone include those historic settlements identifiable on the 1st edition 6 inch to the mile OS mapping of Doncaster (1851-1854) that display a more complex urban form than settlements within the ‘Nucleated Rural Settlements’ zone. Based on analysis of the 1st edition 6 inch to the mile OS mapping of Doncaster (1851-1854) and the assessment of the Conisbrough Conservation Area Appraisal, it is considered that the Green Belt within the Proposed Green Belt Site was originally adjacent to a Works and the Proposed Site is adjacent to the Conservation Area boundary which exists beyond Sheffield Road. The Proposed Green Belt site is therefore separated from the Historic Core of Conisbrough by Sheffield Road, by vegetation along the edge of the site and Clifton Hill Road and the existing Garage. Further site-specific work would be necessary to determine the impact of releasing any Green Belt land at this location on the Historic Core of Conisbrough. Score: 4


The Conservation Area Appraisal identifies one of the key views into the Conservation Area is along Clifton Hill road which exists to the east of the site. Views to the Castle and the Historic Core of Conisbrough are strong with limited low-lying detractors. Further site-specific work would be necessary to determine the impact of releasing any Green Belt land at this location on the Historic Core of Conisbrough. Score: 4



Summary The Strategic Green Belt General Area received a mixed score when assessed against the Local Interpretation of the Five Purposes of the Green Belt, achieving Moderate or Moderately High Scores across most Purposes owing to the General Areas proximity to the Doncaster Main Urban Area, role in preserving the separation between a number of neighbouring settlements, moderately strong rural character and proximity to the historic core of Conisbrough and regeneration priority areas. The Proposed Green Belt boundary is therefore created by features which are mixed in strength: strong to the south and south east and weak to the north. The Resultant Green Belt boundary would be created by an angular area of built form which extends to the south of Conisbrough. Nonetheless, this could bring boundary consolidation to the existing built form which is inset within the Green Belt to the south of Sheffield Road. The Proposed Green Belt site has a mixed role when assessed against the Local Interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes. Whilst the Proposed Green Belt Site does not have a role in checking the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas and a weak role in preventing neighbouring towns from merging, the Green Belt at this location does have a moderate role in assisting in urban regeneration. Most prominently, the Proposed Green Belt Site is only considered to be separated from the Historic Core of Conisbrough by Sheffield Road and existing built from, and therefore the Site is considered to have a relatively strong role in preserving the setting of the Historic Town of Conisbrough. The Proposed Green Belt Site has a mixed sensitivity to encroachment: high in the south and south west and low in the north east, whereby overall, the Proposed Green Belt Site is considered to have a moderately-strong role in assisting in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.



Page 67

23 Conisbrough 825: Fields off Drake Head Lane, Conisbrough



Site Name Field off Drake Head Lane, Conisbrough



The site lies to the east of Conisbrough.


Conisbrough 5


• As Warmsworth forms part of the Main Urban area of Doncaster, the General Area in the north east is considered to be contiguous with the 'large urban area of Doncaster'. Therefore, the existing Green Belt designation has a role in preventing sprawl which would only otherwise be prevented by features lacking in durability (Purpose 1, Score 4).

• Conisbrough 5 supports a series of land gaps within and neighbouring the General Area. These include land gaps between Conisbrough and Maltby; Conisbrough and New Edlington/ the south of Warmsworth; New Edlington and Maltby; New Edlington and Balby; and New Edlington and Wadworth. Based on the number of land gaps and their role, the General Area was considered to have a mixed role in preventing neighbouring towns from merging (Purpose 2a, Score 4). The existing Green Belt boundary within Conisbrough 5 has had a mixed role in preventing ribbon development (Purpose 2b, Score 3).

• Due to the topography, extensive views and countryside character, development in this area would have a negative impact on the physical landform. There are areas of built form surrounding the existing settlements, and therefore in these locations, development is unlikely to be in conflict. As such, the area contains Green Belt land that is of moderately-high sensitivity to development. (Purpose 3a, Score 4). The General Area contains 1.12% built form which is identified as being a moderately strong rural character (Purpose 3b, Score 3).

• Given the scale of Conisbrough 5, and the fact that Conisbrough is considered to be a historic town, the general area attains a mixed score for the extent to which it has a role in supporting the character of the Historic Town within the Borough (Purpose 4a, Score 3). In addition, as a result of the undulating nature of the General Area, there are generally limited views to historic cores within the Green Belt (Purpose 4b, Score 2).



The existing Green Belt boundary at this location is formed by the weakly defined Drake Head Lane in the north and the built form to the rear of Rye Croft and Templestowe Gate in the south and south west. The existing Green Belt boundary is therefore considered to be mixed in strength: weakly defined by the Drake Head Lane private track in the north and moderately defined by the angular residential built form in the south. The Proposed Green Belt boundary would be created by weakly defined field boundaries in the north, north west, east and south east. Proposed Green Belt boundaries are therefore considered to be relatively weak. Given the nature of the Proposed Green Belt site, the Resultant Green Belt boundary at this location would create an isolated area of Green Belt to the rear of Drake Head Lane in the north west, which would perforate the designation. The Resultant Green Belt boundary is therefore also considered to be weak. Resultant Boundary Strength: Weak



Page 68



The Proposed Green Belt site adjoins the southern side of the settlement of Conisbrough, which is identified as a ‘Main Town’ within the Homes and Settlements Strategy Consultation Draft. Therefore, Conisbrough does not form part of the ‘Main Urban Area of Doncaster’, and the Proposed Green Belt site is considered to be connected to the South Yorkshire Green Belt, but not in close proximity to the large built up area of Doncaster. Score: 1



The Proposed Green Belt Site support land gaps between Conisbrough and New Edlington which was identified as Third Tier ‘Service Town and Village’ within the Doncaster Local Plan Consultation: Homes and Settlements (March 2016). This land gap between these settlements is 630m at its narrowest point. However, the topography raises to a high point between settlements at the end of Drake Head Lane, and therefore there are limited views between these settlements. There is a strong perception of separation at this location. Therefore, the Proposed Green Belt Site falls within and maintains a Largely Essential Gap between two or more settlements where the overall openness and scale of the gap is important to restricting merging or protecting gaps involving other Green Belt Settlements, but where limited development may be possible. Score: 3


There are no access tracks within the Proposed Site and therefore there are no opportunities for ribbon development to occur. Score: 3



General Area Assessment Summary: The area between Conisbrough and New Edlington consists of a patchwork of medium-size arable fields which are divided by low, fragmented hedgerows and occasional trees. To the east, adjacent to New Edlington is a body of water enclosed by a sparsely wooded area. A dismantled railway crosses the area at the approximate centre which is lined with a partial tree corridor. The area raises to a high point between settlements, and therefore views between Conisbrough and New Edlington are restricted. The Ecus Landscape Character Capacity Study (2006) identifies the Proposed Green Belt Site as falling within the C1 Stainton to Edlington Limestone Plateau Character Area which is described as a gently rolling landform dipping gently to the north and east, with large intensive arable farmland with some pasture around settlements. There are occasional streams along dips in the landform and some ancient woodlands with many small blocks of trees and wooded strips along roads and watercourses. Mature roadside hedges restrict views but elsewhere there is an open feel with extensive views to the east and west. Proposed Green Belt Site Assessment: The Proposed Green Belt site comprises two agricultural fields which are bounded by low, gappy hedgerows in the east and west. Green Belt land at this location is considered to be in a fair and maintained condition and contains components which are considered to be easily replaced or substituted. The topography ascends away from Conisbrough and the site is somewhat contained by existing built form to the north and west, therefore, development at this location would have an impact on the physical landform and views across the area. The Proposed Green Belt Site is therefore considered to contain features which are moderate sensitivity to encroachment. Further investigative work of the impact on the New Edlington Brickpit SSSI should be carried out, should development take place in this area. Score: 3


The Proposed Green Belt Site contains 0.0% built form and therefore contains land which display a ‘strong unspoilt rural character’. Score: 5



Conisbrough is considered to have a ‘Complex Historic Core’ within the South Yorkshire Historic Environment Characterisation. The Conisbrough Conservation Area Appraisal (2015) states that: Conisbrough conservation area is dominated by the castle and the church, both of which are Grade I listed buildings, with the castle also being a Scheduled Ancient Monument. The castle is located on a hill-top within the town, which is centred around the church on a spur behind. The town dates from at least the Anglo-Saxon period, and its main street pattern and the church origins are from this period. There are a large amount of trees and green spaces especially around the castle and the north-eastern parts of the conservation area. The Conservation Area has several 17th and 18th century properties, but there are also numerous buildings from the Victorian period, mainly in the form of commercial and residential terraces. Buildings tend to be mainly of a simple form and use a limited range of materials; brick, render or stone for walls, with natural Welsh slate or clay pantiles for the roof. Stone boundary walls are a significant feature. Within the conservation area there are eight listed buildings. In addition, the South Yorkshire Historic Landscape Characterisation states that ‘character areas within this Complex Historic Core zone include those historic settlements identifiable on the 1st edition 6 inch to the mile OS mapping of Doncaster (1851-1854) that display a more complex urban form than settlements within the ‘Nucleated Rural Settlements’ zone.’ Based on analysis of the 1st edition 6 inch to the mile OS mapping of Doncaster (1851-1854) and the assessment of the Conisbrough Conservation Area Appraisal, it is considered that the Green Belt within the Proposed Green Belt Site is separated from the Historic Core of Conisbrough by post-WWII development. Score: 2

Purpose 4b: Extent to which the Proposed Green Belt Site has a role

The Conservation Area Appraisal identifies that there are no key views to the Historic Core from this area of Conisbrough. Whilst some views of the historic core may be possible from the north of the proposed site, these are likely to channelled and constrained, and be impacted by moderate-large scale detractors such as extensive post-WWII development.



Page 69

in supporting the views into and out of the historic core.

Score: 2



Summary The Strategic Green Belt General Area received a mixed score when assessed against the Local Interpretation of the Five Purposes of the Green Belt, achieving Moderate or Moderately High Scores across most Purposes owing to the General Areas proximity to the Doncaster Main Urban Area, role in preserving the separation between a number of neighbouring settlements, moderately strong rural character and proximity to the historic core of Conisbrough and regeneration priority areas. The Proposed Green Belt boundary would be created by weakly defined field boundaries in the north, north west, east and south east. Proposed Green Belt boundaries are therefore considered to be relatively weak. Given the nature of the Proposed Green Belt site, the Resultant Green Belt boundary at this location would create an isolated area of Green Belt to the read of Drake Head Lane in the north west, which would perforate the designation. The Resultant Green Belt boundary is therefore also considered to be weak. The Proposed Green Belt Site has a mixed role when assessed against the Local Interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes. Whilst the Proposed Green Belt Site does not have a role in checking the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas, the Green Belt at this location does have a moderate role in assisting in urban regeneration and a moderate role in preventing neighbouring towns from merging. Whilst the Proposed Green Belt Site is considered to be separated from the Historic Core by post-WWII development, views to the historic core are likely to be constrained and channelled. Owing to no built form within the area and the relative isolation from the extent of existing built form of Conisbrough, the Proposed Green Belt is considered to have a moderate – strong role in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.



Page 70

24 Conisbrough 826: Field off Clifton Hill, Conisbrough



Site Name Field off Clifton Hill, Conisbrough



The site lies to the south of Conisbrough.


Conisbrough 5


• As Warmsworth forms part of the Main Urban area of Doncaster, the General Area in the north east is considered to be contiguous with the 'large urban area of Doncaster'. Therefore, the existing Green Belt designation has a role in preventing sprawl which would only otherwise be prevented by features lacking in durability (Purpose 1, Score 4).

• Conisbrough 5 supports a series of land gaps within and neighbouring the General Area. These include land gaps between Conisbrough and Maltby; Conisbrough and New Edlington/ the south of Warmsworth; New Edlington and Maltby; New Edlington and Balby; and New Edlington and Wadworth. Based on the number of land gaps and their role, the General Area overall was considered to have a mixed role in preventing neighbouring towns from merging (Purpose 2a, Score 4). The existing Green Belt boundary within Conisbrough has had a mixed role in preventing ribbon development (Purpose 2b, Score 3).

• Due to the topography, extensive views and countryside character, development in this area would have a negative impact on the physical landform. There are areas of built form surrounding the existing settlements where development would not be in conflict. As such, the area contains Green Belt land that is of moderately-high sensitivity to development. (Purpose 3a, Score 4). The General Area contains 1.12% built form which is identified as being a moderately strong rural character (Purpose 3b, Score 3).

• Given the scale of Conisbrough 5 and the fact that Conisbrough is considered to be a ‘Complex Historic Town Core’, the general area attains a mixed score for the extent to which it has a role in supporting the character of the Historic Town or Place within the Borough (Purpose 4a, Score 3). In addition, as a result of the undulating nature of the General Area, there are generally limited views to historic cores within the Green Belt (Purpose 4b, Score 2).



The existing Green Belt boundary at this location is defined by the rear of residential built form along Medley View in the north west and Snake Lane in the north east, which is supported by the rear of residential built form and allotments off Corn Hill. The Proposed Green Belt boundary would be created by the strongly defined Clifton Hill in the south west and former dismantled railway line, which is now supported by low-lying vegetation, an embankment feature and residential built form to the south. The Proposed Green Belt boundaries are therefore considered to be mixed, but predominantly strong. Should the Proposed Green Belt site be released, the Resultant Green Belt boundary would be strongly defined by the Dismantled Railway supported by the existing extent of residential built form in the north. The Resultant Green Belt boundary would be linear, recognisable and likely to be permanent. Resultant Boundary Strength: Strong, although somewhat weaker in the south east



Page 71



The Proposed Green Belt site adjoins the southern side of the settlement of Conisbrough, which is identified as a ‘Main Town’ within the Doncaster Local Plan Consultation: Homes and Settlements (March 2016). Therefore, Conisbrough does not form part of the ‘Main Urban Area of Doncaster’, and the Proposed Green Belt site is considered to be connected to the South Yorkshire Green Belt, but not in close proximity to the large built up area of Doncaster. Score: 1



The Proposed Green Belt Site is a small site supporting land gaps between Conisbrough and the ‘inset’ village of Clifton and Old Edlington, which were both identified as a ‘Small Village’ within the Issues and Options Draft (2015), and ‘Defined Villages’ within the Homes and Settlements Strategy Consultation Draft (2016). Therefore there is a need to assess the extent to which there are opportunities for these settlements to merge with the built form of Conisbrough. The Proposed Green Belt site falls within the following land gaps: • Conisbrough and Clifton: The Proposed Green Belt site falls within a land gap which is approximately 1.3km from Clifton and which contains isolated scattered farmsteads and the Crookhill

Park Golf Course. Clifton is raised above the wider area, with the topography falling away towards the north. This undulating area of land limits the possibility for views between settlements. Therefore, whilst the wider Green Belt at this location does support a Largely Essential Gap between these settlements, because of the scale of the site and limited views, there is a strong perception of separation and the Proposed Green Belt site is recalibrated to supporting a Less Essential Gap.

• Conisbrough, New Edlington and Old Edlington: The land gap between Conisbrough and Old Edlington is approximately 1.6km from the Proposed Green Belt Site, and approximately 1.3km from New Edlington, The land gap contains a large number of agricultural fields, and however with the landform rising toward Conisbrough Common in the central and southern area, there are limited views between settlements. Whilst there is no direct access between settlements, Carr Lane and Edlington lane provide access to both settlements. The Proposed Green Belt site therefore falls within a Largely Essential land gap.

Overall the Proposed Green Belt site is considered to fall within and maintain a largely essential gap. Score: 3


There are two residential properties to the south of the Proposed Green Belt site, which were not present on the 6-inch to the mile OS map (1999 – 1947). Therefore the B6094 at this location has resisted ribbon development in part. Score: 3



General Area Assessment Summary: The Proposed Green Belt Site falls within two of the defined areas within the Stage 1 assessment of Conisbrough 5. • A distinct area exists in the west of the General Area and surrounds the settlement of Clifton. The area consists of a patchwork of medium to large arable fields which are divided by low,

fragmented hedgerows, shrubbery and occasional trees, particularly lining country lanes. Clifton is raised above the surrounding agricultural fields and topography slopes down towards a valley-like feature in the north. There are views into Clifton as it is positioned on higher ground, there are also views of tree corridors and undulation in the horizon.

• A distinct area exists directly to the south of Conisbrough contains the Crookhill Park Golf Course and a number of small wooded areas. Elsewhere within this northern section is a medium patchwork of arable fields and pastures which are divided by low hedgerows and occasional trees. The topography slopes upwards towards Conisbrough, restricting views into the settlement from this area. There are views of undulation and occasional trees.

The Proposed Green Belt Site falls within the Ecus Landscape Character Capacity Study (2006) C1 Stainton to Edlington Limestone Plateau area. This area is described as a gently rolling landform dipping gently to the north and east, with large intensive arable farmland with some pasture around settlements. There are occasional streams along dips in the landform and some ancient woodlands with many small blocks of trees and wooded strips along roads and watercourses. Mature roadside hedges restrict views but elsewhere there is an open feel with extensive views to the east and west. Proposed Green Belt Site Assessment: The Proposed Green Belt Site contains a single agricultural field which is contained by built form to the north, north west and south east and a dismantled railway embankment to the east. Although the Site is in relatively close proximity to the Ashfield Brick Pit, the Green Belt Site itself contains no features which are considered to be rare or distinctive. Whilst there are long-distance and open views to the south, development would only a limited impact on views from the south and east. The Proposed Site would therefore be contained within the existing boundary features, however this would still retain perceived separation between Conisbrough and the Farmstead along Denbrook Lane. Green Belt at his location is in a fair and maintained condition, and land is considered to be of limited tolerance to change. The Proposed Green Belt Site is considered to contain features which are of moderate-high sensitivity to encroachment. Score: 4


The Proposed Green Belt Site contains 0.0% built form, and is therefore considered to display a strong unspoilt rural character. However as a result of the perceived levels of containment, created by the built form along Clifton Hill to the south, the Green Belt at this location is considered to be more representative of ‘Strong Rural Character’. Score: 4

Purpose 4: To preserve the setting and special

Purpose 4a: Extent to which the Proposed Green Belt Site has a role in supporting the character of the

Conisbrough is considered to have a ‘Complex Historic Core’ within the South Yorkshire Historic Environment Characterisation. The Conisbrough Conservation Area Appraisal (2015) states that: Conisbrough conservation area is dominated by the castle and the church, both of which are Grade I listed buildings, with the castle also being identified as a Scheduled Ancient Monument. The castle is located on a hill-top within the town, which is centred around the church on a spur behind. The town dates from at least the Anglo-Saxon period, and its main street pattern and the church origins are from this period. There are a large amount of trees and green spaces especially around the castle and the north-eastern parts of the conservation area. The Conservation Area has several



Page 72

character of historic towns.

Historic Town or Place within the Borough.

17th and 18th century properties, but there are also numerous buildings from the Victorian period, mainly in the form of commercial and residential terraces. Buildings tend to be mainly of a simple form and use a limited range of materials; brick, render or stone for walls, with natural Welsh slate or clay pantiles for the roof. Stone boundary walls are a significant feature. Within the conservation area there are eight listed buildings. In addition, the South Yorkshire Historic Landscape Characterisation states that ‘character areas within this Complex Historic Core zone include those historic settlements identifiable on the 1st edition 6 inch to the mile OS mapping of Doncaster (1851-1854) that display a more complex urban form than settlements within the ‘Nucleated Rural Settlements’ zone.’ Based on analysis of the 1st edition 6 inch to the mile OS mapping of Doncaster (1851-1854) and the assessment of the Conisbrough Conservation Area Appraisal, it is considered that the Green Belt within the Proposed Green Belt Site is separated from the Historic Core of Conisbrough by post-WWII development. Further investigative work would be necessary to determine the impact of site release on the Historic Core. Score: 2


The Conservation Area Appraisal identifies one of the key views into the Conservation Area is along Clifton Hill road which exists to the west of the site. Whilst views to the Castle and the Historic Core of Conisbrough are spreading and open from this location, there are some medium scale detractors in the form of modern residential built form. Further investigative work would be necessary to determine the impact of site release on the Historic Core. Score: 3 (Mixed, 3 and 4)



Summary The Strategic Green Belt General Area received a mixed score when assessed against the Local Interpretation of the Five Purposes of the Green Belt, achieving Moderate or Moderately High Scores across most Purposes owing to the General Areas proximity to the Doncaster Main Urban Area, role in preserving the separation between a number of neighbouring settlements, moderately strong rural character and proximity to the historic core of Conisbrough and regeneration priority areas. The Proposed Green Belt boundaries are considered to be mixed, but predominantly strong. Should the Proposed Green Belt site be released, the Resultant Green Belt boundary would be strongly defined by the Dismantled Railway supported by the existing extent of residential built form in the north. The Resultant Green Belt boundary would be linear, recognisable and likely to be permanent. The Proposed Green Belt site has a mixed role when assessed against the Local Interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes. Whilst the Proposed Green Belt Site does not have a role in checking the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas and a weak role in preventing neighbouring towns from merging, the Green Belt at this location does have a moderate role in assisting in urban regeneration. Whilst the Proposed Green Belt Site is considered to be separated from the Historic Core by post-WWII development, there are views to the Historic Core which are only limited by medium-scale detractors. The Green Belt at this location is considered to have a moderate-strong role in assisting in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.



Page 73

25 Denaby Main 251: Hill Top Road, Denaby Main



Site Name Hill Top Road, Denaby Main



The proposed Green Belt site adjoins the southern edge of Denaby Main.


Mexborough 2


• The proposed Green Belt site falls within Mexborough 2. Mexborough is a ‘Large Urban Area’ in the Doncaster Local Plan Issues and Options (July 2015) and a ‘Main Town’ within the Doncaster Local Plan Consultation: Homes and Settlements (March 2016). The settlement of Mexborough is therefore not considered to represent a ‘Large Built up Area’. Therefore, the Green Belt at this location is therefore connected to the South Yorkshire Green Belt, but is not considered to have a role in checking the unrestricted sprawl of a Large Built-up Area (Purpose 1, Score 1).

• The General Area supports a number of land gaps including between Mexborough and Denaby; Denaby/Conisbrough and Mexborough and Swinton/Kilnhurt; Mexborough and Old Denaby; and Mexborough and Swinton/Kilnhurst. The General Area therefore has a mixed role in preventing neighbouring towns from merging (Purpose 2a, Score 3). Ferry Boat Lane, Denaby Lane, Doncaster Road (A6023) and Hill Top Lane (A630) extend from Mexborough and Denaby. The A630 and Denaby Lane have resisted ribbon development; Doncaster Road does not have a role in resisting ribbon development; and Ferry Boat Lane has had a role in ribbon development in part. Therefore the General Area has resisted ribbon development in part (Purpose 2b, Score 3).

• The landscape of the area is predominantly arable fields, with some flood plains located in the west of the site. Due to the undulating topography and countryside character, development in this area would have a negative impact on the physical landform. As such the area contains Green Belt land that of moderately-high sensitivity to encroachment (Purpose 3a, Score 4). The General Area contains 2.82% built form and is considered to have a having a semi-urban character. The more open south east and south west are considered to be more characteristic of a moderately-strong rural character (Purpose 3b, Score 2).

• Mexborough is considered to have a complex historic core, but the Green Belt is separated from this by the River Don, a natural boundary (Purpose 4a, Score 4). Due to the wooded character of the landscape, views towards the historic core of Mexborough are only possible from the centre-west of the Green Belt. Views to the historic core of the settlement from the Green Belt or out from the historic core are channelled and constrained (Purpose 4b, Score 2).

• Mexborough 2 is associated with one Regeneration Priority Area. In the north, the boundary is connected to and in close proximity to Mexborough (Purpose 5, Score 3).


The existing Green Belt boundary is defined by industrial built form along Elland Road and the extent of Hill Top Road in the north. The Proposed Green Belt site would be defined to the west by Denaby Wood, to the south by the Doncaster Green Belt boundary which is supported by a corridor of mature trees, and the Hill Top Road and a weakly defined field boundary in the east. The Proposed Green Belt Site is therefore considered to be strongly defined, recognisable and likely to be permanent in the west and south, and weaker in the east. Resultant Boundary Strength: Mixed in Strength



Page 74



Denaby Main with Conisbrough is considered to be a ‘Main Town’ within the Doncaster Local Plan Consultation: Homes and Settlements (March 2016). The settlement of Denaby Main and Conisbrough is therefore not considered to represent a ‘Large Built up Area. Therefore, the Green Belt at this location is therefore connected to the South Yorkshire Green Belt, but is not considered to have a role in checking the unrestricted sprawl of a Large Built Up Area. Score: 1



The Proposed Green Belt site falls within a land gap between Denaby and Hooton Roberts, which exists 1.7km to the south of the Site. However, this is a Green Belt Settlement within Rotherham which is washed over by the Green Belt. Therefore, the Proposed Green Belt Site would have no discernible contribution to separation between Denaby and Hooton Roberts. Given the built form of Denaby extends further to the west than the Proposed Green Belt site, the Site would make no discernable contribution to separation between Denaby and the Defined Village of Old Denaby. Score: 1


Whilst the Hill Top Road exists to the north east of the Proposed Site, which connects Denaby to Conisbrough in the east, the built form of Denaby Main extends further eastwards than the Proposed Green Belt Site. Therefore, the Proposed Green Belt Site would not represent ribbon development along an access track that would reduce the perception of separation between settlements. Score: 0



General Area Assessment Summary: The wider General Area is predominantly characterised by arable fields, although the western area is characteristics of flood plain associated within the River Don. The topography within the area is undulating in the east, with a steep escarpment down to the river floodplains in the west. The General Area is dominated by arable fields, although there are some low and gappy hedgerows, copse of woodland associated with the River Don and areas of dense woodland surrounding Denaby Wood in the north east. The area to the north east is therefore distinctly more enclosed, whereas the character of the west of the General Area is slightly more open. Access is limited. The Ecus Landscape Character Capacity Study (2006) identifies the land as falling within A1 Conisbrough and Denaby Coalfield Farmlands. The A1 area is described as a complex undulating topography cut by many small streams. Landform rises up as an escarpment to the limestone plateau immediately to the east. There is arable farmland, with red-brick farmsteads and with some pasture including horse grazing in an irregular patchwork of medium scale fields. There are dense mixed hedgerows with mature trees on field boundaries. Trees generally exist along streams and a dismantled railway and occasional small blocks of woodland in the area. Proposed Green Belt Site Assessment: The Proposed Green Belt site comprises a single agricultural field, which is bordered by a strongly defined wooded corridor in the south west, areas of industry in the west and areas of woodland in the north. Aside from the wooded corridor to the south of the site, the Proposed Green Belt Site therefore contains features which are considered to be easily replaced (such as the agricultural field) and relatively few features within the Site which are considered to be rare or distinctive. Given the high levels of screening provided by the wooded corridor and sloping topography, which declines towards Denaby in the north, development would have a limited effect on views or the physical landform. Green Belt at this location is considered to be in a fair condition, however there does appear to be areas of hardstanding that exist on the north western edge of the site. Overall, the Green Belt land is considered to have a limited tolerance to change. The Proposed Green Belt Site is considered to contain features which are of a moderate sensitivity to encroachment. Score: 3


There is no built form within the General Area which should mean that the General Area displays a ‘Strong Unspoilt Rural Character’. However, as result of the enclosed topography and the urbanising effect of the industrial sheds to the south west, the Green Belt at this location is considered to be more representative of a ‘Strong Rural Character’. Score: 4



Mexborough is considered to have a ‘Complex Historic Core’ within the South Yorkshire Historic Environment Characterisation. Mexborough is considered a complex historic core due to the presence of a market place, castle and complex multi-phase planned layouts, all of which constitute evidence for deliberate acts of medieval planning. Conisbrough is also considered to have a ‘Complex Historic Core’ within the South Yorkshire Historic Environment Characterisation. Old Denaby is considered to be a ‘nucleated rural village’. Analysis of the 1st edition 6 inch to the mile OS mapping of Doncaster (1851-1854) indicates that the Proposed Green Belt Site is separated from the Historic Core of these places by significant areas of pre-and post-WWI development to the north, and Denaby Forest and Old Denaby to the north west. The Proposed Green Belt Site is therefore considered to be separated from the Historic Core by pre- and post-WWII development. Score: 3


The Proposed Green Belt Site displays high levels of containment based on the wooded corridor to the south, the declining topography and built form to the north. The Proposed Green Belt Site is therefore considered to have very limited views of any key historic features. Score: 1



Page 75


Denaby is considered to be a Regeneration Priority Area within the Core Strategy. The Proposed Green Belt Site is therefore considered to be contiguous with the Regeneration Priority Area of Denaby. Score: 4

Summary The existing General Area is considered to have a weak role in checking the unrestricted sprawl of a large built up area and a moderate role in preventing neighbouring towns from merging. In addition, the Green Belt at this location is considered to contain land that is of moderately-high sensitivity and a moderate role in assisting in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. To the north of the General Area, the Historic Core of Mexborough is only separated from the Green Belt by the natural boundary of the River Don and the General Area has a relatively-strong role in preserving the setting and special character of a Historic Town. The General Area has a moderate role in encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. The Proposed Green Belt site would be defined to the west by Denaby Wood, to the south by the Doncaster Green Belt boundary which is supported by a corridor of mature trees, and the Hill Top Road and a weakly defined field boundary in the east. The Proposed Green Belt Site is therefore considered to be strongly defined, recognisable and likely to be permanent in the west and south, and weaker in the east. The Proposed Green Belt Site has a moderate role when assessed against the Local Interpretation of Green Belt Purposes. Whilst the Proposed Site only has a weak role in checking the unrestricted sprawl of a large built up area and makes no discernable contribution to preventing neighbouring towns from merging, the Green Belt at this location does have a moderately-strong role in assisting in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment and a moderately-weak role in preserving the setting of a Historic Town. Green Belt land at this location does have a relatively strong role in encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land in Denaby.

Documents

Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council...Although the Local Plan process is considering far more Green Belt site representations than just the 55 sites identified by the Council, Doncaster