this document summarises public representations only ... · summary of representations –...

L D FDevelopment

FrameworkLocal

BARNSLEY

Development Sites and Places-Consultation Draft 2012

Summary of Representations Received

September 2013

This document summarises Public Representations only. It is NOT the councils position.

Summary of Representations – Development Sites and Places Consultation Draft 2012

1. Introduction This statement considers the representations received following the consultation on Barnsley’s Development Sites and Places Document in summer 2012. It sets out how many representations were received and summarises the main issues raised by the representations. The Development Sites and Places Consultation Draft was available for consultation for 10 weeks from 23rd July to 28th September 2012. We extended this period to allow additional comments for 2 weeks from 1st October to the 15th October 2012. We wrote to around 2000 people and organisations either by letter or email. This included specific and general consultees, Duty to Cooperate consultees and everyone on our consultation database. Appendices 2-6 provide a summary of the consultation undertaken.

A total of 5907 representations were received from 3693 people. The chart below shows the breakdown of how those responses were returned, either online, by post or email. We received 9 petitions which are detailed in section 3. The detailed representations are stored and collated on a database system. All of these representations are being taken into account when preparing the next stage of the plan.

1 .

DSAP Submissions

6%14%

79%

1%

Web Email Letter Other

2

2. Representations This section of the statement outlines the main issues raised on the 2012 Consultation Draft of the Development Sites and Places document in plan order. It should be noted that this is not a definitive list of all the individual representations received but rather a broad summary of the main issues raised. The issues are summarised from representations therefore do not represent the views of planning officers or the Council. The statement does not set out the Council’s response to the representations. The numbers of representations quoted are current indicative figures. We are unable to guarantee that the figures are exact for a number of reasons such as where representations have been entered via the website they have often been made against the wrong consultation point and therefore may not have been included in a count against a specific policy. Other issues may be where we have received duplicates, or where we have no contact details or comments are illegible. Section, policy, question or site

Summary of the main issues raised

General 21 representations

Pleased that the public have an opportunity to comment, but is sceptical that these views will be taken into account. General objection to the loss of green space to what is considered unjustified development.

Foreword 3 representations, 2 support

Support for the recognition of the need for private sector investment. Comments on the key aspects of the strategy being low density high value housing, improving transport links between

Leeds, Sheffield, Manchester and London; local retail services and amenities and education. Support for the documents role in enabling economic growth, getting people into work and reducing health

inequalities.

How to comment 5 representations Limited scope of consultation, citing issues including unsuitability of web based format, and concerns that responses

are limited by prescribed questions. No notification of residents living near areas of proposed Green Belt change. Insufficient publicity. Web based format difficult to use. Drop-in sessions were during work hours. Consultation is during school holidays when many residents are on holiday. Insufficient local member engagement with the community. Failure to engage sufficiently with Parish Council and community.

Question 1 – Are there any issues not covered by the DPD that you think should be dealt

Main issues that are not covered by the DPD but suggested should be dealt with include: An adequate evaluation of existing infrastructure and impact on existing communities concerning proposed housing

sites in Darton and Mapplewell. A telecommunications policy. The representation proposes text for proposed policy and supporting text.

3

with? Adequate treatment of the land supply for the housing development and the ability of the plan to meet the Council's own target of 21,500 net additional homes.

Provision of an oversupply of housing sites and not a shortfall as currently within the plan. Adequate provision for the supply of land for affordable housing particularly for social housing development. Clearer statement of the link between housing, local services, schools and improved public transport, walking and

cycle routes to main centres. Further clarity on the time period the document covers. An estimated level of accommodation set out for the sites allocated for Gypsies, Traveller and Showpeople

allocations. Proposed type of accommodation or management set out for the sites allocated for Gypsies, Traveller and

Showpeople allocations. Consistent referencing the up-to-date national policy position in the NPPF, particularly in the background documents. An explanation of the proposed need for Green Belt for low density, executive housing as a preferred option when

Safeguarded Land sites has not been similarly considered. An explanation of the preference for low density housing to meet the Economic Strategy for Barnsley yet high

densities are proposed on the residential allocations. Suggestions for a number of policy topics concerning how development proposals affecting Barnsley’s heritage

assets will be considered. These include further detail on. changes of use, alteration, extensions, development within their setting, status of archaeological remains (i.e. whether they are of national importance) and potential impact on historic parks and gardens or their setting.

Reference to the Joint Strategic Needs Assessment. Suggests a short Health Impact Assessment "scoping exercise" be carried out on these polices and others which

significantly change the councils existing site allocations.

Introduction 11 representations

Supports the new Economic Strategy of June 2012 as a specific application of aligning the Core Strategy with the national and regional objectives.

Support for the proposed increase in employment land allocations from the 350 hectares set out in the Core Strategy to the 500ha identified in the consultation document, and the focus on 3 business parks.

Suggestions of 4 particular areas/development sites that could be included in a neighbourhood plan. Notification that Oxspring Parish Council and local residents are producing a Neighbourhood Plan for Oxspring, with

the help of Planning Aid England. Opportunities should be explored to secure new health facilities and related services through the new community

infrastructure levy and section 106 agreements, especially within areas suffering from poor health or poor access to services. Without these interventions, potential synergies between spatial planning and health policies may not be realised.

Acknowledgement of awareness of latter 4 supplementary Planning documents. Supports guidance for developers.

4

Barnsley produced a Playing Pitch Strategy in February 2011 and Barnsley BSF Approach to Playing Pitch Provision in July 2010 as part of the Building Schools for the Future programme. Both documents should be used as the evidence base for any decisions resulting in the allocation of playing field land.

Question 2 – Are you considering including any development sites or issues in a Neighbourhood Plan that could be included in the Development Sites and Places DPD?

3 representations Suggestions for 4 particular areas/development sites within Urban Barnsley that could be included in a neighbourhood

plan. Notification that Oxspring Parish Council and local residents are producing a Neighbourhood Plan for Oxspring, with

the help of Planning Aid England.

Relationship to other plans and strategies

36 representations, 7 support

Support for the aims and objectives set out in the Ministerial Statement: Planning for Growth. Supports the signing of the Memorandum Of Understanding relating to the SCR Enterprise Zone in Hoyland area. Support the emphasis on sustainability in the Sheffield City Region Transport Strategy. Support for site D1A and recognition of the part it could play within the Dearne Valley Eco Vision, Eco Park aspiration. Support for the inclusion of the Eco Vision and the standards set by the Eco Vision for zero carbon developments,

climate change resilience, and a net gain in biodiversity within the plan. Support for the Nature Improvement Area. Support for complementary Landscape Partnership Scheme. Comment that Penistone Town Council is currently producing a community led Neighbourhood Plan which should be

included within the Barnsley LDF in line with the Localism Act. Consider that reference should be made to relevant plans for transport and infrastructure to ensure that developments

contribute to any required solutions. Consider that the Core Strategy is not consistent with NPPF advice particularly in relation to the economic policies

and strategy for the Borough with particular reference to the constraints imposed by policy CSP19. Questions as to whether the Core Strategy and Development Sites and Places documents are in line with the

National Planning Policy Framework with particular reference to provision for retail. The representation states that the retail studies which the Core Strategy was based on are now out of date and have been updated in part.

Public Transport plays a key role in supporting economic growth as it provides the location with accessibility and sustainability benefits.

Considers that reference to the Sheffield City Region Transport Strategy should be more comprehensive with reference to smaller scale schemes as well as major schemes.

In terms of housing market renewal, comment that improving the quality of local housing stock should be a priority as it can support economic growth. The completion of a Health Impact Assessment (HIA) of private sector housing will provide further evidence about the quality of housing in Barnsley and how it affects health.

Note that the next version of the document should be redrafted to reflect the latest position on whether higher eco

5

standards will be expected in this area. Concern about some of the allocations within the Nature Improvement Area as they will need to show net gain in

biodiversity. As it is recognised that some aspects of the document are not in line with the Core Strategy, the Core Strategy should

also be reviewed. Questions the need for the use of Green Belt land for Low Density Housing and the apparent concentration of such

sites in the Darton East ward. Notes that the Economic Strategy is not part of the Local Development Framework, yet its findings are reflected in the

allocations. Whilst there is support for the aspirational housing and employment allocations, it should be made clear what parts of

the Core Strategy will need to be reviewed.

Economic Strategy

The strategy does not reflect the hopes and aims of Barnsley people, businesses and employers and is not in line with the Core Strategy with particular reference to sections 9.6 to 9.8.

Rather than trying to attract business by building industrial units, an audit identifying skills base, employer’s skills needs, employer’s business needs and incentives should be the basis of any plan.

Questions whether the proposed allocations will deliver the ambitions of the Economic Strategy, citing the likelihood of low cost, poor quality housing development, questioning the provision of large industrial areas to bring in jobs, suggesting that the Town Centre regeneration be prioritised before tackling the reduction of outward commuting, questions the need for more housing when many new homes remain unsold and creating a nature/water park/forest walk at land at Lee Lane, Royston.

More explanation of how visitors and businesses will be attracted to the area required. The need for further employment land is questioned when there are a number of serviced, empty sites available. Further evidence is required to justify the large expanses of proposed employment land. There is a need for a more ambitious approach to economic growth than that set out in the Core Strategy. The overall aim to deliver 3,000 new homes, new employment sites and improvements in public realm, the need to

strengthen the visitor economy, using assets such as the Trans Pennine Trail. The representation recognises the documents role in achieving the Economic Strategy.

The continued vision to focus growth in areas of the existing local services and public transport connections. The Economic Strategy approach to providing a range of sites for employment development and suggests the same

approach should be taken for housing. Improvement of the borough’s economic situation to be at least comparable with the Yorkshire and Humber average. The recognition of the importance of the natural landscape and heritage as assets to boost the economy, attract

visitors, and improve the wellbeing of residents. However, it is noted that the area of Barnsley outside the NIA and LSP, particularly to the west, should not be overlooked in this respect.

6

Places General comments 8 representations

Support the settlement hierarchy as it is in line with the Core Strategy, LTP3 and its implementation plans. Support for the identification of Royston as a Principal Town. Considers that the portraits of the settlements in section 5 should under each settlement set out the amount of

employment land and housing land envisaged for that area. Request for clarity on the process for drawing settlement boundaries and any changes made as part of this process. Questions the justification for the Darfield settlement boundary, which seems inconsistent and proposes an alternative

settlement boundary on the western edge of Darfield. The meaning of the settlement boundary set out in paragraph 5.4 is unclear, with particular reference to the phrase

'they are not development limits'.

Urban Barnsley 9 representations

Supports the focus on Urban Barnsley as there is emphasis on the promotion of sustainability and strategically important locations of new development.

Considers the document fails to capitalise on the visitor attractions to the west and north of Barnsley. Suggests that infrastructure investment and opening up green areas to the public, creating wildlife areas and associated visitor attractions could increase visitor numbers and employment opportunities.

Considers that the construction of new employment sites across areas of green land should only be a last resort once other sites are full or have been redeveloped.

Questions how and why Darton, Staincross and Mapplewell are included within Barnsley Urban with concern that greenfield infill development will lead to a loss of community identity.

Questions the level of development proposed in Darton East given the lack of existing green space. Suggests that the clarity of the document could be improved if the number of houses for Urban Barnsley is stated

and a subtotal for each area within the housing allocations table is included.

Hoyland 3 representations

Support the continued retail and employment allocations in Hoyland centre given the good public transport access. Support the proposed employment sites at Hoyland which take advantage of the strategic connections. Believes that the references to Elsecar contained with the Hoyland Places section of the document should be

strengthened to fully reflect the beneficial opportunities that the village has. This includes specific reference to Elsecar Park, the historic assets, greenways and the reservoir, all serving as visitor attractions in a country setting.

Raise some concerns in relation to housing site HOY10 as development is likely to require investment in public transport and the mixed density proposals. Request that the higher density elements of the mixed density housing allocations are located closer to the public transport access points, maximising the number of dwellings with access to

7

public transport.

Cudworth and Grimethorpe 3 representations

Public transport assessment scores for each of the sites are given, stating where support is given and improvements are required.

Considers that there is no need for Cudworth and Shafton to be separated by an area of Green Belt, as they are part of the same settlement, a pattern reinforced by the new Advanced Learning Centre.

Suggests that the number of homes for Cudworth should be set out in the document and the subtotals for each table calculated.

Wombwell and Darfield 2 representations

Public transport assessment scores for each of the sites are given, stating where support is given and improvements are required.

Considers that the LDF should cover issues wider than land use, taking into account the particular needs and nature of the community.

Dearne Towns 4 representations

General support for development in the Dearne Towns given the strategic rail connections to employment, training and leisure outside the borough and more local bus services connecting to the town centre.

That employment site D1 has limited public access and would require a specific transport intervention if it is developed. If it were to be phased with other large sites it could provide the critical mass for a large scale public transport project.

Noted that whilst the large employment site at D1A fronts Barnsley Road it does not have the same strategic locational advantages as Hoyland and the immediate motorway connections.

Suggests that the document could be improved by including reference to the number of homes for each area and then a sub total included within each proposed housing allocations table.

Penistone and Rural Hinterland 1 representations

Support the specific reference to recreational activities within Penistone using landscape assets and natural features.

Royston 2 representations

Objection to the amount of development proposed for Royston, which is considered to be at an unsustainable level.

8

Suggests that the clarity of the document would be improved if the number of houses for Royston is set out and sub totals for each of the Principal Town allocations set out.

Delivering the Spatial Strategy and Core Policies

13 representations

Support for development of land adjacent to Pennine Edge, Crow Edge (has been designated as urban fabric). Supports allocation of land at Whams Road as urban fabric. Support the indications of interrelations between policies. This chapter explains the rational of how sites have been allocated but the detail of this lies within another set of

evidence documents, which are as yet untested. Considers approach to urban fabric is unsound. Site at Pogmoor that is currently shown as urban fabric should remain in employment use. Request for full consideration of the natural environment in the process of selecting and assessing sites for allocation

through the plan, consideration of environmental designation sites. Some concern is also raised about ensuring that the land allocation can be delivered without conflicting with the Dearne Valley NIA project. Some of the large areas that are allocated for development in the Dearne Valley NIA could have a large impact on the delivery of the project.

Support for land at Barnsley Road, Goldthorpe, designated as urban fabric, to be used as housing rather than as employment use.

Concern over presentation of proposal map booklet. Concerns over the approach to urban fabric notation as a replacement of UDP housing and employment policy areas. Recommends that land to the north of Twibell Street, Barnsley be removed from the urban fabric and allow it to retain

its existing retail designation. Recommend a developer contributions policy, specifically referring to contributions to be made available for

maintaining and improving existing infrastructure, in addition to providing new infrastructure. Concern that the Transport Section of the document is limited and does not provide a strong mechanism for securing

public transport interventions through development management procedures.

SD1 Presumption in favour of sustainable development

8 representations

Concern about the weight afforded to the Council’s Economic Strategy that has not been through the examination process. This document should not be a part of planning policy determining planning applications, but rather a subordinate material consideration.

Concern that the policy must reflect sustainable development in transport terms in line with the NPPF, that is with reference to access to walking, cycling and public transport.

GD1 General Development Policy (was initially labelled

7 representations

Support for the policy.

9

incorrectly as SD1 in document)

Supports the policy but are concerned with regard to the protection of the water environment, reference should be made to the Water Framework Directive. It is also considered that reference should be made to green roofs should be mentioned as well as green walls and landscaping and planting should be designed to linked to green infrastructure and ecological networks.

There is no reference to environmental impacts at a local and global scale. Request for a reference to sites being enhanced for biodiversity and linked to the wider green infrastructure network.

Consider that minimising waste, pollution and the use of natural resources as well as the need for sustainable transport should also be mentioned.

Concern that the policy does not contain any reference to the impact of proposals on infrastructure and suggest the following wording. “Proposals for development will only be approved if they will not have a significant impact on the local and strategic road networks, or any significant impact can be mitigated through sustainable travel initiatives or physical improvements.”

GD2 Temporary Buildings and Uses


Supporting text should say that temporary use of the land for car parks is dictated by the policies of the Core Strategy's Transport Strategy and that local conditions will be considered.

"Temporary agricultural and forestry workers dwellings will be permitted in accordance with policy GB4".

MU1 Mixed Use 6 representations, 2 support

Policy should include clarification as to what is considered an employment use, this should exclude hospitals Suggestions for grammatical corrections. Request that the fourth bullet point be amended so that only development which has a ‘significant’ impact on centres

not be supported. Fifth bullet point should be deleted.

Flood Risk 4 representations, 2 support

Representations of support citing references to the work being carried out with the Environment Agency to investigate potential to deliver new flood storage areas and formalise areas know to flood, principles and approach to flood risk management.

Existing flood prevention measures are not being properly managed.

10

Notes an error in paragraph 7.2. Environment Agency flood maps do not show functional floodplain.

Housing Housing – General comments 10 representations

Request to see the evidence base for the proposed 15% windfall allowance. There is concern that there is an over reliance on windfall housing sites.

Objection to use of Green Belt land for housing. A statement setting out the current land supply situation is requested. Questions some of the previously safeguarded sites which have been allocated for housing, many are considered to

be unsustainable and contrary to Core Strategy Policy CSP25.

Housing Site Selection 16 representations There are developable sites outside the defined settlement boundary that should not be excluded at stage 1. Site assessments should be more detailed. Caution is required when choosing sites based on deliverability criteria. SHLAA should be updated. Concerns that as no weighting is given to individual factors under consideration as part of the scoring system. Suggestion that a re-evaluation of Green Belt land is needed rather than simply relying on former UDP safeguarded land.

The safeguarded sites may not be the best sites in terms of environmental sustainability. Concerns that some of the proposed sites would impact on local wildlife and ‘Yorkshire and Humber Biodiversity Forum

Biodiversity Opportunity Areas/Wildlife Trust Living Landscape Areas’. Suggestions as to how the impact on wildlife could be better considered.

Clarification within the methodology required to determine which flood zones have been considered. Appears to be an omission of any reference to water issues, which could be included as part of stage 3 of the methodology, detailed site appraisals.

Concern that not all housing sites have had a biodiversity assessment, and where they have been completed not all biodiversity value has been acknowledged as part of the site specific policies. Biodiversity assessments should be undertaken on all proposed housing sites as part of the allocation methodology, and not left to planning application stage.

Concern that consideration of accessibility, biodiversity and landscape impact is more detailed on housing site selection than employment site selection.

Discussion with NHS Commissioners and planning authority required to ensure adequate provision of health services in relation to an aging population.

Allocations 11 representations

11

Considers that the mixed density housing sites should not be spread across the borough but targeted at areas where they will be most attractive to potential buyers and that if less attractive areas are pursued, this could lead to a detrimental effect on the viability of some schemes.

Some concerns on concept of Mixed Density Housing Allocations. Supports the target of 1200 of low density dwellings, but are concerned that those identified on mixed density sites

may be undeliverable. Public transport assessment scores for each of the sites are given. Objection to the level of development proposed for Penistone on the basis that the existing road network is insufficient

and highway safety issues will result.

Larger and low Density, High Value Housing 20 representations

Support for large, low density and high value housing to support economic growth. Concern that sites do not meet minimum requirements of Core Strategy Policy CSP14, give enough regard to

affordable housing and are not evenly distributed across the borough. All non Green Belt Sites should be developed prior to releasing land in the Green Belt. Considers that real need is for affordable housing rather than executive homes. Considers that Green Belt land should be protected from development. Emphasis should be on low carbon building techniques. The community led plan being produced by Penistone Town Council should lead on development needs in Penistone Concern that the use of UDP safeguarded land (previously Green Belt) for housing may damage biodiversity and

destroy productive farmland. Objection to mixed density allocations spread around the borough as they may affect viability, high value housing

should be in the west of the borough where demand is more likely. Affordable housing should not be required on site – a contribution should be sought. Clarity required on the justification for the requirement for 1, 200 such homes, the need could be higher. Suggestion that a further housing category required for housing of a value £650 000 or more. Supports the intention

to attract business decision makers who influence business locations and thereby support economic growth. Larger and low Density, High Value Housing in the Green Belt 13 representations

Majority of representations offer general support Concern that Green Belt sites should only be used when all other sites exhausted. Deliverability of low density housing in the Green Belt questioned. Importance of Green Bet and Green Space for physical and mental health should be recognised. Contrary to Core Strategy policy CSP34. No exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated. Believes the Council has confused exceptional circumstances and very special circumstances, very special

circumstances cannot be demonstrated through the development plan.

12

General comments on the housing site tables 11 representations

Former UDP sites equating to 1, 595 dwellings that are considered to be undeliverable should be removed from the proposals.

Concern about the suitability and deliverability of the former school sites included in the proposals Concern that the estimated number of dwellings proposed is an over estimate, resulting from the high densities

required in line with Core Strategy CSP14. Suggest extra sites will be needed to meet the housing requirement. Suggestion that more information on dwelling numbers should be included in the housing allocations tables, including

a sub total for each settlement and information on windfall allowances. Suggestion that the site specific policies and references elsewhere which require conformity with the Goldthorpe

Masterplan, should be deleted. Concern over the extent of housing sites proposed in Hoyland and the impact on the M1. In relation to the proposals for high quality, low density housing there is a general objection to the lack of affordable

housing, in contrast to Core Strategy requirements, concern that the capacity of current infrastructure in Penistone and the rural west is insufficient to cope with an increased population, concern about an expanding social divide and the lack of provision for sustainable and mixed communities. Also suggests a greater proportion of low density housing should be provided in the east of the borough.

Suggest that low density housing should only be identified in Penistone, villages to the west of the M1 and good locations accessible from the M1.

Supports the early release of low density sites in line with the Barnsley Growth Plan.

Question 3 – We have identified a number of sites for residential development. What are your views on the deliverability of these sites to achieve a broad housing mix?

7 representations

Concerned about the impact on the surrounding housing market and housing type supply that would arise from large sites. Also, the short/medium term sustainability of introducing large numbers of units onto the local market. Suggests greater consideration to phased release of land.

Questions the housing allocations and deliverability of DSAP proposals. Suggests need for reduced densities (35 dwellings per hectare), greater consideration for open space in each site, removal of allocations that were UDP sites that have not come forward due to deliverability issues and identification of further and extended housing sites.

Concerned about the density levels of the allocations. Also, concerns on deliverability due to 'legacy allocations'. Greater justification needed for green belt land to alleviate local residents concerns. The methodologies do help to

some extent in supporting the case for using this land. Considers that to make the best use, high density development should be prioritised in areas of excellent public

transport connectivity, whilst trying to ensure that all developments have access to public transport services, including low density/high quality allocations.

13

Question 4 – Would you wish to develop any of these sites. If so how would you propose to develop it?

4 representations

WOM 5 Land off Roy Kilner Road Wombwell - Proposes a mix of housing types and tenures to compliment existing stock.

Concern over the ability of the local health services to accommodate new patients that arise from the proposed residential sites as there are no current plans in place to develop health related sites in the borough.

Support for delivery of BAR32 within the next 5 years.

Question 5 – Do you have any technical supporting information on any of the proposed sites that you could share with us? For example ground conditions, traffic impact assessments etc?

7 representations

Notes that any proposed sites that lie on the surface coal resource will need to take into account relevant mineral safeguarding policies, including the potential to extract the coal prior to development, where appropriate.

Notes that many of the sites could be affected by coal mining legacy features and appropriate ground investigations will need to be undertaken.

An application for residential development of 44 dwellings (application no. 2012/0861) at site BAR27 contains a number of technical documents.

Various technical documents have been supplied relevant to the suggestion of housing development at Land off Doncaster Road, Darfield (GT1 and SG09).

Various technical documents have been produced supporting proposed schemes in Hoyland. Note that a selection of data around health care and services can be provided. Public transport assessment scores for each of the sites are given. A number of technical reports are being prepared for site BAR32 and can be shared with the Council once completed.

Question 6 – Are there any other sites you think should be considered for development?

A total of 115 housing sites were proposed

Question 7 – Do you have any views on whether development of any of these proposed sites would have significant transport impacts and any suggestions or proposed solutions?

11 representations

Support for development of CUD3 as it would improve access opportunities. The allocation would enable access directly from the A628 roundabout with an additional road spur leading to land south of Weetshaw Lane.

Support for a freight consolidation centre on site UB11B due to its close location to a current freight line. This would help reduce the number of heavy vehicles on the local road network.

Supports the inclusion of the LUTI assessment. However, mitigation measures for proposed sites which have poor access to the public transport network needs to be looked at. The 'red' banding of the LUTI work are sites that would require mitigation, especially new bus services. 'Green' and 'amber' sites should be prioritised for allocation.

Concern that local roads in Thurlstone are too congested for further development, in particular site LD2

14

Considers that development of site LD5 would have a significant transport impact on the Cawthorne village and Darton Road in particular, as the roads are already very busy and the access would not be safe.

Concerned at impact of site BAR32 on traffic in local area. Strongly suggest independent traffic/transport survey conducted at peak times and in adverse weather conditions. Cites issues such as road safety, flooding, increased noise and congestions.

Objects to development of BAR34 as it does not comply with policy H3 and is located at a dangerous junction. Objects to development of site ROY2 based on the impact to the road network and the road safety around residential

areas. Also, limited public transport service in the area does not help mitigate this and so should be improved if this site is taken further.

Objections to further development in Dodworth based on increased congestion, air pollution and a lack of services. Traffic objections are based on safety and poor flow of traffic.

Objection to developments on grounds of public transport links not going to be able to handle demand, poor access on roads and traffic will increase (specifically at Station Rd. and High Street, Dodworth).

BAR9 Land off Green Road, Dodworth


Accessibility. Congestion and road safety. Dodworth cannot support extra development with particular reference to the service and facility infrastructure. Impact on schools. Green space should be maintained until all brownfield sites developed. Community, wildlife corridors and woodlands cannot be improved by any of the proposals. The site has high visual amenity. Part of the site functions as green space and should be protected. It is a buffer

between the motorway as well as a space for recreational activities. Impact on trees, including numerous Tree Preservation Orders. Impact on biodiversity, especially on birds included on the RSPB’s ‘red list’. Drainage and land stability. Damage to character of Dodworth, changing to a greater commuter settlement. Concerned that development would harm vital historical assets, including listed buildings – suggest a site specific

policy to protect these elements. Air pollution. Support and suggestion that if the site is to be developed should be done so in conjunction with BAR27.

BAR11 Land off Higham Lane, Dodworth

4 representations

Green space should be maintained until all brownfield sites developed. Community, wildlife corridors and woodlands cannot be improved by any of the proposals. Air pollution.

15

Congestion. Lack of services.

BAR12 Land off Coniston Avenue, Darton

12 representations

An unsuitable access road (safety if Pennine View becomes a through road). Loss of recreational green space and biodiversity impact. The amalgamation of communities (Darton and Staincross). Using greenbelt over brownfield land. Removal of farmland. Increasing housing density of the urban area increased pollution. Increased pressure on services (schools, doctors, dentists). Concerns over subsidence. Flooding (poor drainage infrastructure on Sackup Lane).

BAR17 Land West of Fish Dam Lane, Carlton

2 representations

Suggestion that as part of development on this site, buffers would be necessary and further enhancements with regard to the water vole population there.

Concern that historical assets would be negatively impacted upon if development occurs. A requirement is necessary as part of the site specific policy to protect the elements which contribute to the assets historical significance be protected.

BAR24 Land at Garden House Farm Close, Monk Bretton

1 representation

Concern that historical assets would be negatively impacted upon if development occurs. A requirement is necessary as part of the site specific policy to protect the elements which contribute to the assets historical significance be protected.

BAR26 Former North Gawber Colliery, Mapplewell


Road safety and congestion (including concern over HGV’s). The current road network not able to take an increase in traffic. Flooding and drainage. Loss of valued green space and associated impact on ecology (including hedgerows). Lack of parks and play areas to provide for increased population. Impact on local services, including doctors, dentists and schools. Loss of village identity.

16

Slow housing market. Risk of noise and air pollution. Should be more focussed on developing brownfield sites first. Concern over heritage implications for the United Methodist Free Church (Grade II) north of the site. Objections to the existing outline planning applications and questions as to whether compensation for loss of green

space has been allocated elsewhere.

BAR27 Land off Bamford Close, Dodworth

5 representations

Object to loss of Green Belt and associated impact on tourism. Congestion. Crime. Concern over capacity of existing infrastructure, especially schools and doctors. Access, delivery and removal of materials, noise and air pollution. Interaction between new and existing developments. Ground water problems which would result from the proposed development. Green space should be maintained until all brownfield sites developed. Community, wildlife corridors and woodlands cannot be improved by any of the proposals. A number of non-planning related issues. Air pollution.

BAR28 Land west of Smithy Wood Lane, Gilroyd


Green space should be maintained until all brownfield sites developed. Community, wildlife corridors and woodlands cannot be improved by any of the proposals. Congestion. Loss of green space/Green Belt/buffer area. Flooding. Possible ecological impact. Access. Increased pressure on doctors, schools and dentists. Inflated housing market. Increased crime. Loss of agricultural land. Erosion of the character of Dodworth, becoming a commuter village. Concern over reliance of delivering undeveloped UDP sites and the estimated number of dwellings on them. Air pollution. Support, also some support for low density housing and housing of a restricted height if development is to go ahead.

17

BAR30 Land off Burton Road, Monk Bretton


Representations of support subject to reduced density and recognising land ownership is under multiple owners.

BAR31 Land west of Wakefield Road, Mapplewell


Inadequate existing road infrastructure and increased traffic, noise and air pollution. Inadequate local services, oversubscribed schools, doctors and dentists. Loss of green space and resultant impact on wildlife and loss of trees. Loss of Green Belt/greenfield land - more brownfield land should be allocated instead. Potential increase in drainage and flood issues. Loss of village identity, self sufficiency and sense of community. Merging of villages. Property devaluation. Allocation contradicts NPPF and Core Strategy.

BAR32 Land east of Dearne Hall Road, Lower Barugh


Road safety, congestion (including high volumes of HGV traffic) and access. Flooding. Impact on health services and schools. Loss of green space and resulting drainage and possibly flood risk issues. Impact on flora and fauna. Existence of electricity pylons on the site. Impact on environmental, social and transport infrastructure. Capacity of the site may be less than proposed. Support and suggestion that requirement for low density housing included in the policy. Reference to wildlife corridors and SuDS are welcomed, and suggests sentence acknowledging flood risk and

requiring this area to be kept free of built development thereby adopting a sequential approach to site layout.

BAR33 Land east of Smithy Wood Lane, Gilroyd


Green space should be maintained until all brownfield sites developed. Community, wildlife corridors and woodlands cannot be improved by any of the proposals. Congestion, access and road safety. Loss of green space and potential resulting impact on tourism, flooding and farming. Loss of Green Belt.

18

Impact on local services, primarily schools. Increased crime. Inflated housing market. Unemployment. Creation of a commuter village. Air pollution. Subsidence. Drainage. Support. Suggestion that a ‘buffer’ is included as part of the site policy requirements and trees protected.

BAR34 Land north of Keresforth Road, Dodworth


Green space should be maintained until all brownfield sites developed. Community, wildlife corridors and woodlands cannot be improved by any of the proposals. Road infrastructure, safety, congestion and access. Flooding. Increased strain on infrastructure. Loss of wildlife habitats and green space. Topography of the land could make it difficult to develop. Does not meet requirements of policy H3. Impact on residential amenity of existing adjacent property. Suggestion that all mature trees on the perimeter should be retained. Air pollution. Impact on biodiversity.

BAR38 Land south of Bloomhouse Lane, Darton


Road safety, congestion, access, increased traffic and lack of capacity of existing road network. Development would have to mitigate the impact on Junction 38 of the M1. Lack of services for the population (including schools, doctors and dentists) and potential impact of more development

on them. Also a statement that the train station needs to be expanded. Flooding. Problems with drainage could be exacerbated and impact on existing properties. Loss of green space, trees and hedgerows and impact on biodiversity. Impact on the character of Darton, threat to the village way of life with the potential for town boundaries to merge. Disproportionate amount of housing allocations in Darton East. Concern over supermarket allocation.

19

Change to brownfield land. Clarity required on low density housing element of the site. Alternative sites suggested. Suggests land should be used for junction improvements and car parking facilities for the school opposite, rather than

a supermarket.

BAR39 Land west of Wakefield Road, New Lodge

1 representation of support.

BAR42 Land north of Wilthorpe Road, Wilthorpe


Loss of green space and resultant impact on wildlife, in particular bats, foxes, owls and their habitats. Impact on drainage infrastructure and flooding/flood defences. Potential for increased congestion, air pollution and related road safety issues. Policy should include a requirement for a buffer to protect and link together the green environment.

BAR43 Priory School, Monk Bretton

2 representations

Over allocation of sites. Site specific policy should include a buffer to help protect wildlife. Concern that no evidence to show the site is necessary or surplus to requirements. If necessary, re-provision should

occur for playing fields that are lost to development.

BAR44 Kingstone School, Broadway

1 representation

Concern that is a lack of justification and robust evidence which demonstrates the playing field is surplus to requirements.

Congestion. Air pollution. Lack of services.

BAR50 Monk Bretton Reservoir and land east of Cross Street, Monk Bretton

1 representation

Concern over the impact a development would have on the nearby heritage assets. The development would have to take this into consideration so the impact is not significant.

BAR54 Land off High Street, Dodworth

1 representation

20

Congestion and road safety. Oversubscription of primary schools. Erosion of the character of Dodworth and the creation of a commuter village. Potential loss of trees.

CUD1 Land off Pontefract Road, Cudworth

1 representation

Considers the site is undeliverable.

CUD2 Land at Carrs Lane/ Summerdale Road, Cudworth


CUD3 Land at Weetshaw Lane, Cudworth

3 representations of support. One raises some issues such as accessibility and the suggestion that the allotments be relocated to Royston Road.

CUD8 Land at Blacker Lane, Shafton

2 representations

Questions deliverability. Suggestion that the site should be extended.

CUD12 Land off Brierley Road, Grimethorpe

1 representation

Considers that the site is undeliverable.

DEA2 Land off Barnburgh Lane, Goldthorpe

3 representations, 1support.

Suggestion that if site is allocated, buffering should be used to protect the waterway and its inhabitants from development.

Support for the requirement for a wildlife corridor within the site and a recommendation that the site policy takes in all of the area that is shown to be in flood zone 3.

DEA3 Land north of East Street, Goldthorpe

2 representations

Concern about level of reliance placed on this site as an undelivered UDP allocation that hasn’t been delivered Suggestion that the proximity of the heritage assets be noted as part of the policy and be protected during

development.

DEA5 Land south of Lindley Crescent,

1 representation of support and suggested site extension to field boundary.

21

Thurnscoe DEA11 Clayton Lane Playing Fields, Thurnscoe

1 representation which suggests that if the site is developed, re-provision of the playing field would need to occur or compensation of other forms of open space e.g. allotments.

DEA15 Land off Hall Street/ Former Dearne High School site, Goldthorpe, Barnsley

1 representation

Concern about level of reliance placed on this site as an undelivered UDP allocation that has not been delivered. Given the current function of green space/playing field this may be an unreliable allocation in terms of delivery.

HOY4 Land off Clough Field Lane, Hoyland

2 representations

Suggestion that there should be a site specific policy that requires a buffer to be provided in the site as it is adjacent to a local wildlife site. Potential impacts should be considered and mitigated where necessary through policy.

Concern expressed at the proposal to consider green belt sites for low density housing which may be contrary to the Core Strategy and the NPPF.

HOY5 Land off Meadowfield Drive, Hoyland

1 representation

Suggests that there should be a site specific policy should that requires a buffer to be provided in the site as it is adjacent to a local wildlife site. Potential impacts should be considered and mitigated where necessary through policy.

HOY9 Land north of Hoyland Road, Hoyland Common


HOY10 Land north of Stead Lane, Hoyland


Support for a buffer at the site to protect important natural space. However, there is some concern for the potential impact on the nearby ancient woodland site.

HOY11 Land north of Armroyd Lane, Hoyland


Concern that Elsecar and Hoyland may merge further, potentially damaging the character of Elsecar. Development would result in disturbance of a trail and bridleway which would no longer be in a rural setting. Concern that development could impact on nearby designated heritage assets.

HOY14 Land south of Hay Green Lane, Birdwell

3 representations Site allocation supported. Considers a lower density on this site appropriate to reflect its potential to deliver low

density dwellings and to protect the character of the area and amenity of nearby residents. Comment that a site specific policy for HOY14 required as the site is close to a listed barn. This policy should ensure

22

that those elements which contribute to the significance of the barn are not harmed.

PEN1 Land at Talbot Road, Penistone


Unacceptable landscape impact (as acknowledged by the Councils own survey). The sites steep topography is likely to affect the economic viability of the site. Drainage issues. Poor public transport access and the level of congestion and pollution from cars will increase (concern is shown for

Manchester Road). Access to the site is poor and private roads would need to be improved (specifically Talbot Road). Utilities can not cope. Residential amenity. Development on the site may affect tourism and the Trans Pennine Trail. The allocation is contrary to the objectives of the Core Strategy and the site is attractive countryside which is vital to

the setting of Penistone and to encourage tourism. Additionally the Councils site assessment does not support allocation of the site.

Note that PEN1 is adjacent to the Penistone conservation area and any development needs to recognise this and ensure that the conservation area is not harmed. A site specific policy should be included to cover this along with a section on development requirements.

Lack of healthcare facilities.

PEN2 Land west of Talbot Road, Penistone


Support and a suggestion that the site be extended on its eastern boundary. The existing business and jobs would be relocated to Millhouse Green.

The impact this allocation will have on traffic congestion, especially on Manchester Road. Suggests that this site has no suitable access. Lack of healthcare facilities. Increased traffic. Gas main running across field.

PEN5 Land east of Saunderson Avenue, Penistone

66 representations

Concern that the proposed housing allocation was subjected to an ecological assessment carried out in November, which is the wrong time of year. Additionally if the site is developed it could lead to increased flooding of surrounding properties.

Traffic.

23

Flooding/drainage. Service capacity. Impact on wildlife. Loss of green space. Lack of healthcare facilities.

PEN6 Land east of Mortimer Road, Cubley

3 representations

The site should have a specific policy that ensures buffers are provided within the site to the adjacent Local Wildlife Site and links provided through any development to it. Other potential impacts from development on LWS should also be considered and appropriate mitigation measures included as necessary in a site specific policy.

The impact on local traffic congestion and peoples’ enjoyment of the countryside. Lack of healthcare facilities.

PEN10 Land south east of Schole Hill Lane, Penistone

4 representations

Support, suggesting access could be improved as part of the sites development. Development would lead to unacceptable congestion and the loss of outstanding countryside. Due to the site’s proximity to a Local Wildlife Site, mitigation policies are suggested.

ROY2 land at Lee Lane, Royston


Loss of green space and mature trees. Proximity of the coking plant to the new green space designation. Air pollution. Lack of local education and health services. Lack of employment opportunities. Increasing volume of traffic on Lee Lane, Applehaigh View and Park View Road leading to highway safety issues. Reduced visual amenity. Lack of support/investment for currently empty employment sites. Questions market viability of new housing given the existing supply of empty homes. Proximity of commercial buildings to executive housing could deter buyers. Mitigation policies required due to proximity of Ancient Woodland sites. Alternative sites available including, the former High School Grounds, the former Suba Seal factory and the former

Spring factory. Questions the site’s conformity with council policy regarding the natural landscape. Loss of Green Belt.

24

Impact on countryside, flora and fauna. Lack of environmental survey. Risk of flooding to existing properties. Limited public transport would need improvement.

ROY6 Site of former Royston High School, Royston


One support subject to the lack of village infrastructure and public transport needs being addressed. Availability of health facilities, suggestion that a medical facility should be included in the site. Lack of justification for housing allocation. Would like to see the site reallocated as playing fields.

ROY7 Land north west of Windmill Terrace, Royston

4 representations of support, one being subject to demonstration that adequate village infrastructure can be shown to support the development.

ROY10 Land north of Melton Way, Royston

1 representation of support subject to demonstration that adequate village infrastructure can be shown to support the development.

ROY11 Land south of Church hill, Royston

302 representations

The site contains a bridle path and it will negatively affect wildlife. The pony club also use the land helping to keep children active which will be lost if the site is developed. Majority

concerned with the loss of the Pony Club. Flood risk. Road capacity. Non-planning issues (including property devaluation and disruption of views). Note that part of the site falls within flood zone 3 which should be acknowledged in the policy and be kept free from

built development. A sequential approach to site layout is suggested. Old sewage overflow routes. Part of the site is the historic fairground of Royston and hosts local fairs. Previous applications have been refused on traffic considerations. Potential merging of Royston and Carlton.

WOM3 Land at Edward Street, Haverhill Grove & Low Croft, Wombwell

22 representations

The impact this would have on the trees contained on the site and the nature reserve adjacent to the site. Flooding both within and around the site and the mitigation that would be required. Potential increase in traffic, unsuitable road infrastructure and road safety.

25

Inadequate local facilities. Loss of wildlife. Loss of green space. Given proximity to a Local Wildlife Site, a mitigation policy is suggested. Suggestion for a site specific policy including biodiversity enhancements and links to the wider ecological network. Would like to see a robust and justified sequential test – should not progress further due to flood risk implications.

WOM5 Land off Roy Kilner Road, Wombwell

2 representations, 1support

Loss of green space/playing field. Suggests the playing field should be re-allocated elsewhere.

WOM7 Land north of Barnsley Road, Wombwell


WOM11 Site of former Wombwell High School, Wombwell

3 representations

The over reliance on delivery of school sites and the loss of open spaces used for recreation, including playing fields. Concern that a legacy applies to the school playing fields and they should be removed from the allocation. Concern over lack of justification for school Playing Fields. Compensation will be required if the allocation is taken

forward. Density. Access and form of development. Loss of green space. Air quality.

WOM12 Former Foulstone School, Darfield – Playing Fields

882 representations

Clarification sought as to whether the site is proposed for low or mixed density housing, how access will be achieved, so that impact on existing nearby residents is minimised.

Concern that the plan does not show which area is to be kept at playing fields and that there will be overlooking of existing properties.

Concern regarding the large electric pylons which cross the site and the risk associated with living directly underneath.

Playing fields are an important green part of Darfield that would be spoiled by large density housing. Site should be retained as playing fields in order to ensure there is no loss of capacity should pitches at the new

school not be available. There is a resolution for the former governors of Darfield Foulstone School asking that the playing fields are kept and either run by the Council or a local community organisation.

26

There are associated legal conditions and covenants on this site which need to be given serious consideration. Further consultation should take place with the football teams who owns the field currently. The potential effect of flooding on the rest of Darfield should be assessed, should this site be developed. Loss of recreational space. Flood risk. Access to the site and concerns associated with road infrastructure. Strain on village resources (particularly medical, educational and leisure). Deprivation of legacy from Darfield. Loss of community and recreation space which could have a negative impact on education and health. Space used

for village events and is a growing need to expand the field for growing football clubs. Lack of justification and consultation with users of the field. At least 50% of the playing field should be retained to promote long term sustainability of sports in Barnsley and build

on the achievements of the Newham and Barnsley partnership to make sure the 2012 Olympic games has a real positive legacy.

Existence of pylons. Allocation does not encourage the ‘Olympic legacy’. Playing fields should be removed from the allocation. Over reliance on school sites to deliver housing. Concern about the loss of recreational space – compensatory space will be required if the site is carried forward. Alternative housing sites suggested, including land at Pitt Street and pockets of land in the village. Impact on services.

WOM13 Former Foulstone School site, Darfield


The loss of the CLC, a valuable community building and services. Suggests space is used for the CLC, gym and community facilities. Over reliance on the delivery of housing on former school sites and the associated loss of open space. Lack of infrastructure to support development Pedestrian safety. Hazardous waste. Parking difficulties. Suggest site be developed for mixture of retail and housing. Would like to see a site specific policy noting nearby heritage schemes and ensuring sufficient mitigation policies are

necessary to avoid harming these. Particular reference is given to the Darfield Conservation Area. Concern about over reliance on delivery of housing on former school sites and the resultant loss in playing fields. Playing fields should be removed from the allocation. There appears to be an understanding that the site was donated by Squire Taylor, 60-70 years ago and should be

retained as a park for the people of Darfield. Suggest site should be developed as a village centre.

27

WOM20 Land rear of Kings Oak Primary School, Bondfield Crescent, Wombwell

1 representation

Concern for over reliance on the delivery of housing on former school sites and the resultant loss of open space.

LD2 Land south of New Smithy Drive, Thurlstone

316 representations, 3 support.

Access and road safety concerns. Flood risk. Road safety near the school/nursery. Narrow roads and an overpopulated school. Lack of services and facilities in Thurlstone to serve the new site. Lack of school spaces. Destruction of green space. Creation of a ‘commuter; village. Poor parking facilities (an excess of cars parked at Royd Moor Road and Towngate). Slow housing market. Development would contravene BMBC Economic Strategy. Road congestion and access (roads through the village to Manchester Road are narrow and congested). Water run-off on the fields which could become inhibited leading to greater flooding (Highbank land and Hedgehill

Road in particular). Concern that the site has been removed from Green Belt despite a lack of employment opportunities, lack of

sustainable attributes of the site and the inability of the site to contribute to viability of the settlement. Objects due to potential impact on nearby designated heritage assets. These sites/assets need to be noted within Site

Specific Policies along with a requirement for mitigation of impact. Impact on flora and fauna. Lack of consultation. Potential scale of development.

A number of suggestions for alternative sites were put forward including sites at Saviours Church (both sides of the A628), the South Yorkshire Home Improvements site and the field opposite and a site near the B642 Sheffield Road, accessed by Lairds Way as a suitable brownfield site. There is also a suggestion that the plan should allow a 'buffer zone' to preserve the character of High Bank.

LD3 Land north of Halifax Road, Thurgoland


Sewage/drainage system and surface water increase.

28

Lack of village amenities (especially school capacity). Narrow roads and access issues. The new housing meeting local needs. Environmental and visual impact. Expansion of the village. The new housing does not meet local needs. Slow housing market. Lack of parking facilities. Pedestrian safety. Additional traffic. Neglect during consultation. Public transport provision (limited bus service). Concern that current village infrastructure not able to support extra housing. Clarification requested as to whether current land with planning permission is included in the figure.

LD4 Land east of Beech Avenue, Silkstone Common

69 representations

Access (specifically via Beech Avenue) and narrow roads. Additional traffic. Capacity of sewerage utilities. Drainage concern and flood risk. Loss of recreational green space. Visual and habitat impact. Losing a public footpath and right of way. Lost of building character. Impact on the quiet community. Land stability. Some concern about the consultation process. Loss of ‘safeguarded land’. Village resource capacity (especially school capacity). Site specific policy recommendation ensuring a buffer between the LWS and link the woodland to the green space on

the site.

LD5 Land north of Darton Road, Cawthorne


Increase in congestion (see: Darton Road, Taylor Hill, Tivy Dale). Sewage disposal.

29

Market demand for these houses and the ability of them to bring businesses to Barnsley. The impact on the environment and village life. Lack of school spaces. Access problems including narrow roads (Horncroft/post-office corner). Loss of farm land and wildlife. Possibility of creating a commuter village (especially Cawthorne). Inadequate parking facilities. Lack of amenities in Cawthorne. Not enough mixed housing. Increase stress on the old bridge on Kexborough Road. Pedestrian safety. The lack of economic impact development would have on Barnsley. The damage to allotments. Suitability of the land ('waterlogged'). The development not being sympathetic to the village character and ‘village culture’. Not meeting the spatial strategy. The field is part of the Higher Level Countryside Stewardship scheme (Natural England) and the impact on bio-

Diversity, in particular the population of Great Crested Newts. Questions regarding density and traffic reduction and the environmental impact, alternative access points and

possible school expansion. Road improvements are suggested including a reduced speed limit on Darton Road; a chicane system between

junctions with Church St and Stanhope Ave and turn the bridleway between Cawthorne Lane and Barnsley Road into a link road terminating in a roundabout at Barnsley Road.

Poor access. Drainage infrastructure issues. Loss of Green Belt. Impact on wildlife. Concern over scale of development. Question as to whether conforms with the NPPF, traffic impact assessment required. Believes the site allocation contradicts the SHLAA and the ability to attract business. Alternative sites are suggested.

LD6 Land north of Upper Field Lane, High Hoyland


That development would exacerbate congestion (public transport is already limited). Lead to a major change of character to the conservation area in the existing village. a further drain on limited village resources and amenities (especially school places) Impact the visual amenity. The site has poor access due to narrow roads.

30

Concerns about the affordability of new housing and whether the housing market is strong enough to support more dwellings.

Development will exacerbate surface water run off. Impact on the character of the village. Poor infrastructure. Loss of recreational land. Lack of demand for more properties. Questions deliverability.

LD7 Land west of Church Heights, Hoylandswaine


Increased congestion impacting access and access constraints. Road safety (Church Lane is dangerous to residents). Noise and pollution from vehicles. Hoylandswaine does not have the amenities or infrastructure to support further large scale developments. Inadequate parking facilities. Loss of green space and oak trees which subsequently impact on wildlife. Urban sprawl and abundance of brownfield sites. Water table impact, surface water and flood risks. Visual impact of the development. The site is used as foul drainage. Comments that development as it would impact on nearby designated heritage assets. These assets would need to

be mitigated against if development goes through and requirements would need to be placed within the Site Specific Policies. There should be specific attention to the Church of St John the Evangelist.

Loss of safeguarded land. Loss of Green Belt. Impact on the character of the village. School capacity. Flooding and drainage issues.

LD8 Land south of Wellthorne Avenue, Ingbirchworth

5 representations

Poor access (which would include a loss of Green Belt). Slow housing market, there are 25 empty new homes which have been empty for several months. Lack of services in Ingbirchworth. Loss of green space. The topography of the site is very sloped with undulating levels which may cause problems with the placement and

31

construction of houses. Privacy of neighbours. Concern over the level of housing being built in the village. Further justification for the allocation requested. Appropriateness of the sites for development questioned. Suggest the site should be included in the Green Belt.

LD9 Land south of Wellthorne Lane, Ingbirchworth

5 representations

There is an understanding that the site is owned by Yorkshire Water, has pipes underneath and would not be built on. Impact on village identity. Lack of services to support the development. Vehicular access to the site is poor. Concern over the level of housing being built in the village. Further justification for the allocation requested. Appropriateness of the sites for development questioned. Suggest the site should be included in the Green Belt. Site specific policy recommended that would buffer the Local Wildlife Site and link the woodland to the green space

on the site.

LD10 Land north and south of Roughbirchworth Lane, Oxspring

97 representations

Flooding and drainage issues, increase surface run-off leading to more flooding. Congestion. Lack of doctors and dentists in Oxspring. Changing character of the village and the size of the development being disproportionate to the village. Limited school capacity. Road safety ('the road with the bridge', Roughbirchworth Lane). Heritage issues and the loss of agricultural land. Local facilities/infrastructure capacity. Poor public transport and the impact on the rural character. Access issues (Roughbirchworth Lane, Fields End, school access, Sheffield, Barnsley and Penistone roads). Impact on the environment and wildlife (bat populations is mentioned). Contradicts UDP review recommendations. Requests that status as Green Belt be reinstated. Concern over affordable housing deliverability, conformity of the low density housing with the NPPF, Core Strategy

requirements on affordable housing and mixed housing density standards. Local and environmental impact.

32

Contradiction with Core Strategy. Impact on visual and residential amenity. Loss of Green Belt.

Some representations ask a number of questions, including:

The necessity of more housing when the current stock is unsold. The councils 'green policy' is under question considering the impact new houses will have, with regard to travel. There are questions of poor consultation. The impact on farming and why the agricultural land is not considered to be Green Belt. Compliance with Core Strategy and NPPF.

LD11 Land south of Lidget Lane, Pilley


Narrow roads (e.g. Lidgett Lane) and congestion causing poor access. School capacity. New housing under construction. Flood risk (New Road). Sewage issues. Landscape visual impact. The removal of the 'Mission Church'. Increased fouling related to increase in pets (cats/dogs). The presence of a geological fault line. Justification and decision-making process questioned regarding farm land being designated as housing. Congestion. Impact on wildlife. Poor access. Alternative sites suggested.

LD12 Land south of Lidget Lane, Pilley


Narrow roads (e.g. Lidgett Lane) and congestion causing poor access. School capacity. New housing under construction. Flood risk (New Road). Inadequate sewage system. The landscape visual impact.

33

Pollution. Pedestrian safety and parking issues around the school. The presence of a geological fault line. The village character changing. An increase in 'anti-social behaviour'. The impact on wildlife and green space/agricultural land. Justification and decision-making process questioned regarding farm land being designated as housing. Concern that existing infrastructure is inadequate to support further housing development, listing many of the

particular concerns raised above. Suggests a site specific policy including biodiversity enhancements alongside consideration of and potential mitigation

measures given the adjacent Local Wildlife Site. Concern that there has been an over allocation of sites in the document.

LD13 Land east of Cote Lane, Thurgoland


Sewage/drainage issues, including concerns over increased surface water run off. The capacity of the school. Narrow roads leading to congestion and access problems e.g. Cote Lane. Impact on the environment. Public transport provision. The consultation process. Insufficient road network. Recommended a site specific policy that would buffer the Local Wildlife Site and link the woodland to the green space

on the site. Concern that existing infrastructure is inadequate to support further housing development, listing many of the

particular concerns raised above.

LD15 Land north east of Rookery Way, Thurgoland


Sewage/drainage system and surface water run-off. School capacity. Congestion, including narrow access roads (e.g. access from Rookery Way and Halifax Road). Lack of amenities. New housing being able to meet local needs. Visual impact. Consultation process. Lack of parking facilities. Pedestrian safety. Lack of information to landowners about the allocations.

34

A surplus of housing stock, limited bus service. Access concerns. Concern that existing infrastructure is inadequate to support further housing development, listing many of the

particular concerns raised above.

Sites for Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople

2 representations

It is implied that Gypsies and Travellers are the same, but they are actually two distinct ethnic groups. Paragraphs 8.21 and 8.22 need clarification in terms of the number of protected sites. Website and online system difficult to use. Considers the policy fails to achieve fair ad equal treatment for Gypsies and Travellers citing an out of date evidence

base, the refresh has been discredited at recent appeals in Doncaster and it is not clear whether robust for Barnsley. Questions decision to allocate only for immediate shortfall and not for full plan period and no details for how need will

be met for plan period. Questions delivery timetable and has the opinion that Barnsley has a poor record of doing anything to assist

travellers. Little detail in terms of size of site, tenure and pitch numbers. Questions why sites in Green Belt ruled out when Green Belt sites proposed for low density housing. Supports protection of existing sites but considers should not be used to retain sites in unsuitable locations-such as

Ings Road Wombwell due to flooding. Considers that the proposed new sites are contrary to CSP18 and questions their suitability. Considers that the policy does not appear to have had regard the potential of existing private sites. Believes the site selection table should have been made available at the beginning of the consultation period and

further information is required to consider suitability of the two proposed sites identified. Considers the policy fails to identify suitable sites for small family sites.

Proposed Site GT1 Doncaster Road, Darfield

771 representations

The preferred location within the site would be the fenced/lightly wooded area which is secluded, quiet, easy to access and a short distance to Darfield and the Town Centre.

Highways concerns including safety and increased congestion. Poor access for pedestrians and vehicles. Loss of green space. Visual impact on Remaking Barnsley Initiative and the village. Existence of power cables and MOD pipeline. Uneven distribution of sites in the East of the Borough, and in the Darfield area. Questions deliverability as believes that the existing Travelling community do not favour the site, questions

deliverability.

35

Contamination concern. Impact on wildlife, wildlife habitats and adjacent arable land. Concern for safety of existing community and property devaluation (and resultant claims for compensation). Increased pressure on schools. Proximity to existing community, particularly the elderly community. Impact on area of former Green Belt functioning as a buffer between Ardsley and Darfield. Questions whether relevant feasibility studies have been carried out, including impact of nearby proposal for low

density housing site, risk assessment concerning the toxic dump nearby and the gas pipeline which crosses the site. Considers the site does not meet the necessary criteria or meet Government guidelines. Previous planning applications for housing have been refused due to accessibility issues. Concerns about unnatural mounds in the wooded area and what is potential underneath them. Limited services such as gas, electricity, telephone, water and drainage. Site is outside urban area. Does not appear to take account of the potential within existing privately owned sites. Further information is required to assess the site’s suitability. Impact on police resources. No local support from the local Gypsy and Traveller or settled community. Questions how the site would be funded. Impact on existing community. Public footpath through site. Loss of Green Belt. Limited amenities in Darfield. Over concentration of sites in the area. Believes the site should be located in a less residential area. Additional cost of compulsory purchase. Land in local authority ownership would be more suitable. Does not meet necessary criteria or meet Government guidelines. Concern about protected species near to the site. Asks whether the site would be run by the Council. Loss of Green Belt Land, believes planning permission previously refused due to Green Belt status. Concern about impact on local businesses. Methane present on site. Safeguarded land and Gypsy and Traveller site proposals would be better shown as housing proposal. Questions site selection methodology and site preparation costs. Potential flood risk/drainage concerns. Does not meet the location criteria set out in the 2007 Gypsy and Traveller Needs Assessment. Should consider reviewing Green Belt land for use as Gypsy and Traveller site provision, as doing with employment

land as well as considering the potential use of the former school sites. Believes there is inconsistency in the application of criteria to determine this site as a preferred option.

36

Other non-planning issues.

Proposed Site GT2 Shaw Lane, Carlton


Key concerns are

The consultation process, there is concern that the decision was already taken before public consultation. Contradicts government guidelines. Land contamination (arsenic, lead). Safety issues regarding contaminants. Traffic and road safety concerns. In adequate pedestrian and vehicular access. Residents with intimidation concerns and accusations of anti-social and criminal behaviour. Lack of services and shops in the area to serve new residents. Reclamation is expensive. Suggests there is a van covenant on the site. Petitions signed objecting to the site, but no specific reasons given. Questions whether an Environmental Impact Assessment has been completed. States there are sites already available in Brierley and Smithies. Considers that the money required to deliver the site could be better spent in Carlton. Site allocation is too large, the farthest point from the road could be isolated. The land immediately to the left of the site would be preferred. Concern about noise and odour from adjacent factory and waste centres. Limited public transport and limited local amenities. Concern over mining shale. Concern over lack of services including water provision. Flood risk and land stability concerns. Potential impact of local adjacent employer. Site is not located in an urban area. Does not appear to take account of the potential within existing privately owned sites. Further information is required to assess the sites suitability. Other Non planning issues. Proximity to existing housing and impact on residential amenity. Proximity to Trans Pennine Trail. Electricity pylons crossing the site. Adjacent existing rail line. Impact on existing house prices. Impact on local schools.

37

Impact on Nature Reserve, Rabbit Ings and Carlton Nature Reserve. Consider site would be better used as employment land. Impact on visual amenity. Concerns over security and crime rates. It is considered there is no legal obligation to provide further pitches. Believes requirements say that sites should only be next to existing properties where residents agree and should be

located adjacent to industrial land. Impact on regeneration of the Borough. Impact on vulnerable people. Proximity to school and playing fields. Over concentration of sites in the area. Believes there is a covenant for ‘no van dwellers’ on the land. There are vacant pitches on existing sites. Health implications for potential residents given surrounding uses. Site fails DCLG criteria on deliverability. Access required through private land. Criticisms of consultation process. Planning permission previously refused due to contamination. Potential future impact of proposed High Speed Rail line. Since the release of the proposals a developer of new housing at Shaw Lane has seen sales decrease.

Question 8 – Are there any other sites in private ownership that meet the site selection criteria in CSP18 and should be developed for Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople

A total of 31 alternative Gypsy and Traveller sites were proposed. However, many of these were suggestions of a general area. There were 13 specific sites proposed.

H1 Uses on allocated housing sites


H2 Residential development on small non-allocated sites


H3 Residential development on large non-allocated sites

6 representations of support

38

Concern that reference to previously developed land could result in the delivery of otherwise suitable housing sites being delayed.

Concern that wording of the policy is unclear and vagueness of criteria set out in the supporting text.

H4 Phased release of allocated housing land

13 representations

Should be flexibility in the phasing policy to allow phase 2 sites to come forward in the absence of a 5 year supply of housing sites.

Timescales should be attached to the phases. More of the Hoyland sites should be brought forward to phase one to assist economic growth in the borough. Request to be consulted as soon as possible if sites in Hoyland, Darton and Dodworth are to be considered.

H5 Protection of existing larger dwellings

1 representation

Contrary to Core Strategy Policy CSP34 and NPPF. No exceptional circumstances to justify development in the Green Belt, which is likely to be unsustainable.

Question 9 – Do you know of any sites in the Green Belt which would be suitable for low density high value housing

A total of 82 Low Density Housing Sites were proposed.

Economy Chapter 31 representations

Support for site at West Road, Pogmoor for use as light industry, mixed new houses, care home and a crèche. Representations of support for the indication that the Council are likely to allocate more than 350ha of employment

land. Support for site C1 which is considered to have potential to be developed alongside the site to the west of Brierley

Road to create mixed use development. Public transport assessment scores for each of the sites are given. 18 new sites proposed for employment use. Building new units as employment opportunities will only work if they are offered with significant incentives to make

businesses relocate. Don't build new units until the existing units are populated first. Employment land should not be used for housing. Opposed to the replacement on the proposals maps of the route of the Northern Orbital by a line entitled the Northern

Economic Corridor as it lessens its emphasis. Concerns that some of the proposed sites would impact on local wildlife and ‘Yorkshire and Humber Biodiversity

Forum Biodiversity Opportunity Areas/Wildlife Trust Living Landscape Areas’. Suggestions as to how the impact on

39

wildlife could be better considered. Concern that the SA states that no biodiversity assessment has taken place for any of the proposed employment

sites. As it is important that biodiversity is included as one of the criteria in the identification of the allocations, clarification is sought that a biodiversity assessment will be undertaken before the finalisation of the LDF employment site designations.

Concern that a preliminary assessment of potential employment sites indicates that a number of them are not sustainable locations and would not fulfil the Core Strategy Policy 25 New Development and Sustainable Travel or would fulfil the NPPF criteria for sustainable development.

Question 10 – Which of the employment site options do you prefer?

5 representations

Preferred employment site options include: UB12; All of the proposed sites with particular reference to UB4A and UB4B and related Northern Economic Corridor; Enhancement to Capitol Park and Dearne Valley Parkway.

Suggest investigating why the existing employment sites are not performing and try to address those issues prior to releasing large new sites. Believes that small units are needed to help businesses, rather than large industrial sheds.

Support the use of site P1 for housing rather than employment.

Question 11 – Are there particular parts of the proposed employment sites which you prefer?

1 representation

Consider it would be more beneficial to extend built up sites rather than Greenfield sites such as UB4. Therefore preferences would be UB1, UB3, UB6, UB7, UB12, UB13, and UB16.

Question 12 – do you think that the proposed employment sites will be attractive to investors and expanding businesses to generate employment growth in the borough?

4 representations

Representations suggesting sites will be attractive to investors and expanding businesses include UB7 and UB8. Consider that the Council need to know investors are interested before building. There are lots of empty warehouses

at places such as Wombwell which should be marketed, rather than new built. Does not believe the site on Barugh Green Road will be attractive to investors and expanding businesses. There are

already numerous industrial sites within a 3 mile radius, many with empty units. There is nothing in Barugh Green area to attract more business.

Supports the use of site P1 for housing rather than employment.

Question 13 – What type of businesses do you think would be attracted to the proposed employment sites?

2 representations

Large scale businesses likely to be attracted to Dearne Valley Parkway. The final phases of Capitol Park (UB8) will provide various opportunities for businesses seeking large B8/B2

40

industrial/warehousing, B1 light industrial/research and development or offices. UB7 Capital Park Extension is an ideal deliverable site to meet future employment needs of Urban Barnsley.

Question 14 – Can you provide supporting information on the deliverability of the proposed employment sites?

8 representations

Note that any proposed sites which lie on the surface coal resource will need to take into account relevant mineral safeguarding policies, including the potential to extract the coal prior to development, where appropriate.

Note that many of the sites could be affected by coal mining legacy features and appropriate ground investigations will need to be undertaken.

Some information concerning site H2 has been provided with an expression of willingness to work collaboratively with the Council.

Information has been supplied supporting the development site of P1 for housing rather than employment. Technical work has been prepared for site D1A, and there is a willingness to work with the Council. Information supplied in relation to the deliverability of site H1 and the Hoyland Cluster. Recommend that B1 uses and high density employment areas are focused in central areas, around existing services

and with access to high quality public transport services. Typically this means local centres and existing employment locations such as the Dearne Valley. BMBC currently apply these principles and the continued application ensures that the critical mass of demand is maintained. This therefore increases the commercial viability and long term sustainability of existing networks.

Information provided in relation to sites UB7 and UB8.

Question 15 – Do you have any views on whether the development of any of these proposed sites would have significant transport impacts and any suggestions or proposed solutions?

7 Representations

With some references to UB4 - Concern for increased traffic associated with both construction warehouse development. Higham Common Road is already too congested. Lorries are too large for such a small area.

o Suggests the need for weight, width and height restrictions on the road and continuation of speed bumps. o Suggests developing existing employment land rather than allocating new. o Employment Land should be located near to the motorway network.

Site UB4 may divert traffic from Higham Common Road which would be welcome Concern about increased congestion resulting from further housing and employment development at Royston (Site

R1 and ROY2). Wakefield District Council raise concern about the accessibility and sustainability of site N3 given its location remote

from centres of significant population. Support for UB7 and UB8.

UB4 Land south of Barugh Green Road


Some support for a new road potentially taking traffic off Higham Common Road.

41

Loss of Green Belt (is this necessary when there are brownfield sites, plots on existing employment sites and vacant units across the borough).

Loss of agricultural land. Loss of public rights of way. Impact on residential amenity. Impact on flora and fauna. Highways capacity and safety concerns. Ground stability. Potential noise pollution. Impact on residential character of the area. Site is liable to subsidence. Concern that any units built will remain empty.

UB6 Zenith Extension 31 representations

Loss of a well used green space with valued recreational function (is this necessary when there are brownfield sites,

plots on existing employment sites and vacant units across the borough). Impact on residential amenity. Impact of flora and fauna. Highways capacity and safety issues. Pollution. Lack of consultation.

UB7 Capitol Park extension


Loss of Green Belt. Highways capacity and safety concerns. Proximity to Local Wildlife Site an important consideration. Visual impact. No need for the development as many empty units remain available.

UB8 Capitol Park 2 representations of support.

UB9 Land east of Wakefield Road

42 representations


Loss of agricultural land. Highways capacity and safety issues.

42

Impact on wildlife.

UB11 Land off West Green Link Road

1 representation

Proximity to Local Wildlife Site is an important consideration. Support for a freight consolidation centre on the site.

UB14 Land east of Grange Lane

2 representations Proximity to Local Wildlife Site is an important consideration Drainage.

UB15 Land south of Doncaster Road

2 representations

Site proposed for residential use. Proximity to Local Wildlife Site is an important consideration.

C1 Land off Engine Lane 6 representations, 1 support.

Loss of Green Belt, queries why this is necessary, considers there are brownfield sites, plots on existing employment

sites and vacant units across the borough. Impact on residential amenity. Flood risk. Ground stability. Highways capacity and safety issues. Impact on flora and fauna.

C2 Land off Ferrymoor Way

2 representations

Flood risk is a concern.

C3 Land west of Springvale Road

1 representation Proximity to Local Wildlife Site is an important consideration.

C4 Land east of Springvale Road

1 representation Proximity to Local Wildlife Site is an important consideration.

D1 Land south of Dearne Valley Parkway

41 representations, 2 support. 22 signatures on a petition

43


Loss of agricultural land. Loss of residential amenity. Impact on Birdlife and nearby RSPB reserve. Highways capacity and safety issues. Air pollution. Flood risk. Site should be protected as an important green space and part of the Dearne Valley Green Corridor. Loss of visual amenity. Impact on Dearne Valley Green Heart Project.

H1 Land west of Sheffield Road

6 representations, 1 support Loss of agricultural land. Impact on neighbouring sports facility. Impact on residential amenity. Impact on access to Tankersley. Air pollution. Loss of Green Belt.

H2 Rockingham 4 representations, 1 support

Air pollution is a concern.

H3 Shortwood Extension 4 representations, 1 support

Air pollution. Proximity to Local Wildlife Site and Ancient Woodland are an important consideration.

H4 Shortwood Business Park

1 representation Proximity to Local Wildlife Site and Ancient Woodland are an important consideration.

H5 Land south of Dearne Valley Parkway


Proximity to Local Wildlife Site and Ancient Woodland are an important consideration. Impact on Grade II Listed Building.

H6 Land north of Dearne 1 representation of support

44

Valley Parkway Proximity to Local Wildlife Site and Ancient Woodland an important consideration.

H7 Ashroyd 1 representation

Air pollution is a concern.

P1 Land south of Sheffield Road

1 support for site for use as housing rather than employment.

P2 Land north of Sheffield Road

1 representation

Proximity to Local Wildlife Site is an important consideration.

R1 Land north of Lee Lane, Royston

94 representations 40 signatures on a petition

Support. Support for use as housing rather than employment. Loss of Green Belt, queries if this necessary when considers there are brownfield sites, plots on existing employment

sites and vacant units across the borough. Loss of agricultural land. Damage to an important gateway to the village. Highways capacity and safety concerns. Impact on residential amenity. Impact on flora and fauna.

W2 Everill Gate Lane 1 representation


N1 Wentworth Industrial Park, Tankersley

1 representation


N2 Park Springs, Houghton



N3 Land east of M1 10 representations

45

Junction 38 Loss of Green belt. Loss of agricultural land. Major flood risk and drainage issues. Accessibility and sustainability concerns.

EMP1 Uses on employment land

9 representations

Further clarity required as to what constitutes ‘employment uses’, for example B1-B8. Hospitals should be excluded. The definition of employment uses should be widened beyond B1-B8 uses, including town centre uses, B1 Offices,

certain sui generis uses, some ancillary uses and employment generating uses. The appropriateness of protecting existing employment areas needs to be assessed. Employment land should not be used for housing. The supporting text to Policy EMP1 should highlight the importance for new job opportunities to be provided for local

people. Types of appropriate employment uses (having regard to impact on the environment and employment density) should

be directed to specific sites. The final sentence should be amended to state other uses will be considered and that account will be taken of market

signals relating to the continued need to protect the site for employment use.

Transport 4 representations

Support for the proposal for an Integrated Transport Site at Penistone, however, it is considered that specific land should be set aside for this purpose.

Support for the recognition of the contribution that cycleways, footpaths, greenways and canal towpaths can play in encouraging active travel but believes that the document should include reference to the significance of the Trans Pennine Trail.

Suggested text to improve clarity on the relationship with the Sheffield City Region Transport Strategy and have suggested additional policy(ies) to include reference to a mechanism for developer funding, a policy relating to other measures that can increase sustainable travel habits through travel plan incentives, reference to the recently adopted Parking SPD and Transform South Yorkshire Residential Design Guide and recognition of the need to incorporate infrastructure that supports the SCR Transport Strategy's aim to encourage low carbon vehicles.

The Historic Environment

1 representation

Recommendation that Barnsley’s Listed Buildings should be included within the document.

46

Site CA8 Darfield 1 representation

Notes the importance of the Darfield Conservation Area, recognised by the Heritage Lottery Fund as the most important and most in need of investment of those within Barnsley, due to its potential to attract visitors.

CA1 Conservation Areas – planning application procedure

2 representations

Objects to the refusal to accept outline planning applications in Conservation Areas and suggests an alteration to allow additional materials to be submitted so a sufficient assessment on the effects of the conservation area.

Support for the policy with some suggested changes: Amend the first sentence to read - ”For development proposals within or likely to impact upon the setting of a Conservation Area, the following procedures will apply; Amend the third bullet-point to read - “Where permission is granted…”

LB1 Listed Buildings – planning applications procedure

1 representation

Supports the policy but requests that the information required from applicant be expanded to include "… and landscaping and provide an assessment of the effect their proposals are likely to have on the significance of that building”

LB2 Listed Buildings – demolition

1 representation

Suggests two amendments to the policy to better reflect the National Planning Policy Framework provision: Add an additional bullet-point along the following lines - “All efforts have been made to obtain grant funding or ownership by a charity or other public body and none is available”; Amend the third bullet-point to read - “There are substantial public benefits of alternative proposals for the site”; Amend the second Paragraph to read - “Where permission is granted…”

ARC1 Archaeology – planning application procedure

1 representation

Supports the policy.

ARC2 Archaeology and development

2 representations

The policy should be amended to better reflect the National Planning Policy Framework with particular reference to the opening sentence of the policy, and the words, “In the exceptional circumstances”, that should both be deleted.

Supports the second part of the policy but suggests changes to the first part as follows: Delete the first Paragraph and

47

replace with “Development which would result in harm to the significance of a Scheduled Monument or other nationally important archaeological site will not be permitted. The preservation of other archaeological sites will be an important consideration. When development affecting such sites is acceptable in principle, the Council will seek to ensure mitigation of damage through preservation of the remains in situ as a preferred solution.”

HPG3 Cannon Hall 1 representation

Concern that an area of land to the rear of Tivydale Drive, Cawthorne, has been excluded from the boundary of the countryside park and shown as Green Belt.

Town Centres 5 representations

Support for the policy options to increase retail and leisure facilities around existing locations. Support for Royston as a district centre and a suggestion for an extension to the boundary. Consider that there is more scope for convenience shopping in the town centre than is suggested by the England and

Lyle May 2011 Assessment. Considers that the need for convenience retail should be directly addressed by the document, including site

allocations, such as the B&Q site at Stairfoot. The area between St Marys Street and the Tesco store and car park should be identified as part of the primary

shopping area and new units in this area, which have planning permission, should be shown as secondary shopping frontage.

Goldthorpe defined district centre should be extended eastwards up to and including 101 Doncaster Road. A food store is required in the centre and the best location would be the primary school site which should be allocated as a site for a new store. If the school cannot be relocated provision should be made for a new food store on land between East Street and West Street, north of Doncaster Road and to the rear of 43 - 79 Doncaster Road.

TC1 Primary shopping frontages

1 representation

Considers that A2 uses such as banks and building societies should not be subject to restrictions within primary shopping frontages as they actively add to the vitality and viability of town centres.

TC3 Thresholds for impact assessments

4 representations

Consider that there is more scope for convenience shopping in the town centre than is suggested by the England and Lyle May 2011 Assessment.

Considers that the need for convenience retail should be directly addressed by the document, including site allocations, such as the B&Q site at Stairfoot.

With regard to local centres the threshold above which an impact assessment is required should be 250 square metres and not 500 square metres as currently drafted.

48

The policy contradicts policy in the NPPF and needs substantial redrafting to mirror NPPF policy and include local thresholds with justification for them in the supporting text.

TC4 Retail parks 4 representations

Considers that the policy is arbitrary, unduly restrictive and without appropriate justification. The default policy position should be that additional floorspace or any relaxation of goods will only be permitted subject to complying with the sequential test and impact tests set out in NPPF.

Suggests the opening sentence of the policy should include reference to the need for relevant proposals to satisfy the sequential approach and, if appropriate, an impact assessment.

Considers that the designation of retail parks on the basis of ownership is incorrect. There should be a section on retail warehousing and the designated areas should be enlarged to include the contiguous established buildings that are in retail warehouse/ quasi retail usage at the present time and are perceived by Barnsley's people as part of the "out of town retail offer." The representations then suggest how the retail warehouse designations should be amended in this manner.

Questions the minimum size thresholds as they appear arbitrary. It is noted that many of the current occupier stores are below these sizes.

Green Infrastructure 3 representations

The document does not provide enough detail about green infrastructure and concentrates on the canal network Notes that Green Infrastructure can have significant health benefits. Recognise that the Core Strategy has a Green Infrastructure policy but believes it would be useful if a more detailed

Green Infrastructure Strategy was included in the document or an SPD.

GI1 Canals – Safeguarded routes

9 Representations, 2 support

Support for the policy. Considers policy GI1 is inconsistent with Wakefield Council policies regarding canals. It should secure a continuous line of canals for restoration, some suggesting including the full "Atkins" route. It should be clear that Green Infrastructure includes geological sites and suggests Barnsley may wish to develop local

Green infrastructure corridors based on assets. Green Belt 42 representations

Agreement that localised review of Green Belt boundaries is necessary in accordance with adopted Core Strategy and findings of Economic Strategy.

Supports proposed changes to Green Belt boundaries to help address housing and employment needs in borough. Undertaking Green Belt review during preparation of the new Local Plan is in accordance with NPPF (paragraph 83)

49

Support for decision to review Green Belt boundaries. 31 proposals for Green Belt amendments, or suggested mixed use developments. Green Belt should not be used for building of housing or industrial developments as there are available alternatives. Objection to proposed Green Belt employment site at Higham Lane (UB4) as detrimental to wildlife, fauna and culture. There is a belief that most of the residents of Higham and Barugh Green are not against a new road. Consider that the need to build high value dwellings is a consideration to be taken into account, but not a very special

circumstance to alter Green Belt Boundaries in the document. Development of Green Belt for housing is contrary to the Borough’s objectives as set out in the Core Strategy and

discussed during the Core Strategy Examination in Public; and National Planning Policy. Development of Green Belt around villages is unsustainable. Green Belt land should only be developed for housing and employment where no alternatives are available, such as

empty industrial units and land away from houses, around the Grimethorpe Bypass. Objection to development of Green Belt land in and around Shafton village. Objections to particular amendments to Green Belt boundaries made. As remaining green space is taken, the community will be very watchful about any encroachment onto Green Belt. Green Belt should not be used for building of housing or industrial developments as there are available alternatives.

GB1 Replacement, extension and alteration of buildings in the Green Belt


GB2 Changes of use in the Green Belt

1 representation

Supports the policy but questions part of its justification, which states that reasonable attempts need to have been made to secure a use which would support the rural economy. This does not accord with the NPPF and should be removed.

GB3 Permanent Agricultural and forestry workers dwellings


GB4 Temporary agricultural and forestry workers dwellings


GB5 Safeguarded land 2 representations Considers the policy is not flexible enough. Safeguarded land may need to be brought forward for a variety of reasons

and does not need to remain permanently open. The policy should be drafted to allow for this.

SG03 Land south of Broadwater Estate and south of Carr Head Lane, Bolton on Dearne

1 representation

50

Promotes site for residential development.

SG09 Land south of Doncaster Road, Darfield

2 representations

Considers that site could be suitable for residential development.

SG13 Land north of Midland Road, Royston

2 representations

This site should be used for industrial/commercial development rather than the proposed site on Lee Lane (R1). Promotes site for residential development.

SG14 Land north of Keresforth Road, Dodworth

1 representation

Objection to development of site.

SG21 Land south of Lundhill Grove/ Grantley Close, Wombwell

3 representations

Considers site suitable for residential development.

Green Space 16 representations

Supports the Green Space Chapter. Support for particular areas of green space. Note that Access to good quality green space has a clear effect on physical and mental health and well-being. 1 general representation of support for the concept plans and statements. Some sites identified as green space which are not considered to be functioning as such. Some suggestions for sites to be allocated as green spaces which are believed to be functioning as such. Seems that greater emphasis placed on housing development than protecting existing green space. No reference to river corridors. Green Ways are too restricted to footpaths and public rights of way. Requests that text listing benefits of Green space also refers to recreation, quality of life, health and environmental

sustainability. Requests that text be amended to require allotment provision as part of requirement of new dwellings.

51

GS1 Development and green ways and public rights of way


Concern over the legal basis on which private land can be designated a public right of way, suggests a particular amendment.

Lacks detail on how the policy will be implemented with particular reference to proposed high quality, low density housing in the Green Belt.

Question 16 – Should the Concepts include other green spaces that are not currently identified?

2 representations

Suggest that specific guidance is provided for housing sites. e.g. segregated green pedestrian routes, easy access and defensible space.

The concepts would benefit from further consultation at neighbourhood level.

Littleworth Lane Concept (Urban Barnsley)

1 representation Concern over funding sources and relationship with CIL.

Darton Area Concept (Urban Barnsley)

1 representation Concern over funding sources and relationship with CIL and prematurity of Concept Statement when site allocations

within it are still under review.

Monk Bretton Area Concept (Urban Barnsley)

1 representation

Monk Bretton concept plan needs clarification. Access points for walkers and possibly cyclists exist from Carlton Rd to the Carlton industrial estate.

Wombwell Area Concept 1 representation

Suggest the provision of leisure and entertainment facilities in Wombwell to support the community, boost the economy, create jobs and attract visitors from elsewhere.

Royston Area Concept 4 representations

Agrees that improvements to local green space are needed. Makes particular reference to the requirement of changing facilities at Oakwood Field, and parking and drainage needs to also be considered.

Supports the on-going development of the 'Rabbit Ings' area as a high quality multi functioning open space and development around the former Dearne High Playing Fields to provide opportunity to improve the open space available.

More detail required on the relationship of development to the TPT, the local aspiration for an active travel inner ring road around Royston and routes to school.

52

Supports reflection of former Royston High School site as mixed use

Biodiversity and Geodiversity

8 representations

Support for the section with some proposed amendments for clarity. Proposed allocation sites do not appear to have been subject to an assessment of potential biodiversity, geodiversity or historic environment interests within the identified areas.

There does not appear to have been any assessment of the biodiversity and geodiversity opportunities that these allocations may provide, within the area or as a result of mitigation including biodoversity and/or geodiversity offsetting.

It would be helpful for the Proposals Maps to differentiate between biodiversity and geological sites. Seeks the addition of a summary or cross reference to the objectives of the NIA to improve clarity and add context. Suggests inclusion of a short paragraph on the implications and provide guidance for development within the NIA.

These additions could be added as an appendix. Local Wildlife Sites should be listed in the document. The Regionally Important Geological Site boundaries are not accurate.

Site MIN1 1 representation

Concerns about the Green Belt Designation. Some of the installations and activities are currently in the Green Belt and considers the expansion of these activities would be hampered by Green Belt policy. Requests an amendment to the Green Belt boundary to coincide with the current boundary of the PPC Permit Area.

MIN1 Existing permitted reserves and areas of search

4 representations

Supports policy MIN1. Requests additional area of search to be added showing an area of fireclay and other relevant mineral reserves that

has been identified in Cawthorne. Requests an additional area of search for dimension stone and flagstone and potentially sandstone roofing slate and

rock suitable for clayware products that has been identified at Hazlehead Hall Farm. Notwithstanding the fact that shallow coal resources underlie virtually the whole of the borough, a Mineral

Safeguarding Area should still be designated. To comply with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), national benefits now also need to be taken into

account in considering whether benefits outweigh the likely impacts.

MIN2 Non mineral development and

3 representations

53

safeguarding minerals Whilst it is recognised that certain minor development proposals should not be subject to mineral safeguarding, the minimum size criteria set out in Policy MIN2 or paragraphs 17.14 and 17.15 are not accepted. It is not necessary to set a minimum size of site threshold given the list of minor development exceptions and Policy MIN2 should be amended accordingly.

A Mineral Safeguarding Area for all shallow coal resources should be designated. Support for the policy but seeks clarity about how the chosen threshold relates to the size of the proposed site

allocations. Objection the presence of a threshold of development proposals of 2 ha or more in the first paragraph as it is

considered to be arbitrary and could let through development which might not sterilise mineral in its footprint but could have much wider effects.

Object to the fifth bullet point of the second paragraph as the two criteria as written do essentially the same thing so one is unnecessary. Suggest that the non viability of mineral development should be restricted to questions of cost of extraction or markets for the material.

MIN3 Mineral extraction 5 representations

Supports policy MIN3. As planning permission is not always required for mineral extraction, suggest that paragraph 17.19 is rewritten as

follows. "It should be noted that where prior extraction is deemed appropriate, separate planning application may be required for mineral extraction and the non minerals development depending upon the scale and nature of the prior extraction activity."

Considers that it is often not necessary for there to be separate planning applications for mineral extraction and the non minerals development but can be included within the overall planning application. A separate planning application for minerals extraction should only be necessary where the extraction proposal is significant in size and scope.

Change sought in text of Policy MIN3 as follows. The word "quality" be added to the bullet point "Impacts on the flow and quantity of surface and groundwater" as water quality could be impacted upon by mineral extraction processes.

Paragraph 17.20 and Policy MIN3 fail to recognise that the adverse impacts of mineral extraction can often be offset, wholly or in part, by mitigation measures. Policy MIN3 should specifically refer to mitigation.

Note that whilst there is no objection to the current wording but neither this document nor the Core Strategy is sufficiently encouraging of the building stone sector.

UT1 Hazardous Substances


UT2 Utilities safeguarding

2 representations

Considers the new policy will carry forward the same protections for services and utilities as the UDP, although an

54

amendment has been suggested to make sure new development on utilities sites is appropriate.

Monitoring and Implementation

2 representations

Notes that policies and the justification for them should be flexible enough to address changes that may happen over the plan period, and remain effective in their implementation.

Recognises the importance of annual monitoring in ensuring the deliverability of the plan and managing any changes required to meet development needs.

Appendix 4 Eco Towns Standards

2 representations

Would like to see Eco Standards in respect of water resources and waste management issues applied to development sites across the borough, not just in the Dearne Valley.

Support for the need to take into account the health and social Care needs of the residents when developing eco town standards.

55

3. Petitions

Site GT2 Land off Shaw Lane, Carlton - Additional site for Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople – 137 signatures Object to the proposed site Site GT2 Land off Shaw Lane, Carlton - Additional site for Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople – 568 signatures Objection to the proposed site. Key concerns are:

consultation process (concerned that the decision was already taken before public consultation). contradicts government guidelines, land contamination (arsenic, lead). safety issues regarding contaminants, traffic and road safety concerns. residents with intimidation concerns and accusations of anti-social and criminal behaviour. lack of services and shops in the area to serve new residents. reclamation is expensive and suggests there is a van covenant on the site.

Housing Site WOM11 Site of Former Wombwell High School – 68 signatures Supports housing on the site but are concerned that the existing security fence will be removed if development occurs and also concerned about high levels of congestion. Objects to the site for use by Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Show People and suggests two alternative sites for Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Show People. Housing Site LD2 - 264 signatures Objection to the proposed site. Key concerns are:

access. flood risk. road safety near the school/nursery. narrow roads and an overpopulated school.

Housing site LD4 Site east of Beech Avenue, Silkstone Common - 62 signatures Strong objection to the proposed building of 18 houses on the field to the rear of South Yorkshire Buildings, known as site LD4. Housing site ROY2 and employment site R1 – 182 signatures (please note 2 signatures within this supported ROY2 Housing Site, and 1 did not object to ROY 2 housing site) The main points of concern are

Reduced visual amenity. Loss of a recreational area. Other more suitable site available.

Employment Site R1 Land north of Lee Lane – 134 signatures

56

Objection to the proposed site. Key issues are: Concern over environmental degradation. impact on views, congestion and road safety. loss of green belt. the abundance of alternative sites (suggests 3 specifically).

Employment Site D1 Land south of Dearne Valley Parkway – 24 signatures Object to the proposed site on the following grounds:

adverse impact on birds/wildlife. adverse impact RSPB Old Moor including wildlife jobs and tourism. would put some of the employment, training tourism and educational opportunities at risk. would be visually unattractive to this main corridor and would affect the ethos of the Remaking Barnsley plan. highways safety issues, increase in traffic, potential for more road traffic accidents. flooding issues. too many nearby industrial units empty, could be sited on Grimethorpe Bypass, Birdwell and Manvers.

Employment site UB4 – 47 signatures Object to the proposed site on the following grounds:

harm to the Green Belt. destruction of farmland. damage to the environment and habitat for wildlife. loss of visual and recreational amenities including footpaths. disruption to quality of life for residents. risk that area will become surrounded by industrial sites. land for employment likely to be unviable in the long term.

Appendix 1: Summary of consultation undertaken

Key methods of consultation

Notice in the Chronicle, 27th July 2012 (see appendix 2) Press releases, 28th June, 4th July, 11th July, 18th July and 23rd July 2012 (see web

links in appendix 3) These press releases were also sent out via the council’s e-newsletter Open Mail (sent to over 1900 people), Facebook and Twitter

Press coverage (examples attached in appendix 4) Wrote to everyone on our system in July (including all Parish Councils) – around

2000 people and organisations in total Drop in sessions in all principal towns and an exhibition in town centre unit over a

number of weeks (see list of venues in appendix 5) Fliers and posters at local events and venues and Barnsley Connects Centres Website with a link from the Council’s home page Documents were available to view at The Civic and at branch libraries across the

borough Article in Open Door Magazine – a council publication sent to every household at

beginning September (see appendix 6) Attended Parish Council Meetings where requested

57

Appendix 2: Press Advert in the Chronicle 27th July, 2012

58

Appendix 3: Consultation events

Town Centre and Principal Town Events Cudworth – Bow Street Council Offices Monday 6th August 2pm to 4pm

Goldthorpe (Dearne Towns) - Goldthorpe Library, Barnsley Road Tuesday 7th August10am to 12pm

Hoyland – The Hoyland Centre, High Croft Thursday 9th August 10am to 12pm

Penistone – Penistone Library, High Street Thursday 9th August 2pm to 4pm

Penistone – Penistone Market Hall Saturday 4th August 10am to 12pm

Royston – Royston Lifelong Learning Centre, The Grove, Station Road Wednesday 8th August 2pm to 4pm

Town Centre - The Pod, 18 May Day Green Monday 6th August 2pm to 4pm Wednesday 5th September 11am to 2pm Saturday 8th September 11am to 2pm

Wombwell – Wombwell Library, Station Road Friday 10th August 10am to 12pm

Additional Events Carlton Church Hall - Monday 3rd September 5pm to 7pm Meeting to discuss the proposed site for Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople at land off Shaw Lane, Carlton

Darfield, Illsley Road Community Centre – Saturday 15th September 10am Meeting to discuss the proposed site for Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople at Doncaster Road, Darfield

Mapplewell and Staincross Village Hall – Tuesday 4th September 6pm to 8pm

59

Appendix 4: – Open Door Article, September 2012

60