site allocations selection processprocess a esponse su council’s web process 3 ners to ssment...
TRANSCRIPT
SiteAllocationsSelectionProcessForthePreferredOptionsSiteAllocationsConsultationDocumentFebruary2014
Bassetlaw District Council
Table1 Int
Ide
2 Sta
Sta
Sta
Sta
Sta
Sta
Append
Append
Append
Append
Append
WO
RE
HA
TU
RU
eofContetroduction .
entifying th
ages in the
age 1: Ident
age 2: Issue
age 3: Scree
age 4: Susta
age 5: Ident
dix 1: Site A
dix 2: Site Sc
dix 3: Develo
dix 4: The Su
dix 5: Identi
ORKSOP.....
ETFORD ......
ARWORTH B
UXFORD ......
URAL SERVIC
ents..................
e Preferred
process .....
tifying Pote
es & Options
ening criter
ainability Ap
tifying the p
llocations S
creening As
opment Sce
ustainability
fying Prefer
..................
..................
BIRCOTES ...
..................
CE CENTRES
..................
d Sites .........
..................
ntial Sites ..
s Consultati
ia applied ..
ppraisal ......
preferred sit
creening M
ssessment R
enarios .......
y Appraisal
rred Sites a
..................
..................
..................
..................
S .................
...................
...................
...................
...................
ion .............
...................
...................
tes .............
Methodology
Results ........
...................
Framework
nd Discoun
...................
...................
...................
...................
...................
Site
...................
...................
...................
...................
...................
...................
...................
...................
y .................
...................
...................
k .................
ting Sites Su
...................
...................
...................
...................
...................
e Allocation
...................
...................
...................
...................
...................
...................
...................
...................
...................
...................
...................
...................
ummary .....
...................
...................
...................
...................
...................
ns Selection
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
Process
1
........... 2
........... 2
........... 3
........... 3
........... 3
........... 4
........... 5
........... 6
........... 7
......... 19
......... 75
......... 80
......... 83
......... 83
......... 89
......... 96
....... 101
....... 104
1
2
1.1
1.2
Sit
2
1 Int
Identi1 The pr
Options
a thoro
that are
been w
criteria
express
present
offer th
2 This rep
(Issues
next ro
(below)
1 The Pre
te Allocation
troductio
ifyingtheospective
s Site Alloca
ugh proces
e available
weighed aga
that cons
s intention
t the best o
he greatest
port sets ou
and Option
ound of con
).
eferred Option
ns Selection
on
Preferredhousing an
ations Deve
s of scrutin
for develop
ainst nation
ider the re
of Bassetla
opportuniti
benefits for
ut the stage
ns) and the
nsultation.
ns Site Allocat
n Process
dSitesnd employm
elopment Pl
y and revie
pment, to t
nal and loc
elative soci
aw District
es to delive
r the existin
es in the pr
e Preferred
The variou
Figure
tions DPD is av
ment sites
lan Docume
w. From th
he publicat
cal planning
al, environ
Council to
er the adop
ng commun
rocess betw
Options do
s stages of
e 1: Process Di
vailable on th
identified
ent (SAPO D
e initial stag
tion of the d
g policy req
nmental an
allocate fu
pted spatia
ity.
ween the p
ocument th
f this proce
agram
e Council’s we
in the Ba
DPD)1 have
ges of ident
draft docum
quirements
d economi
uture deve
l strategy f
revious rou
at has bee
ess are illus
ebsite at www
assetlaw P
all been su
tifying plots
ment, each
s and other
c merits. I
lopment si
for the Dist
und of cons
n prepared
strated in F
w.bassetlaw.g
referred
ubject to
s of land
site has
r robust
t is the
tes that
trict and
sultation
d for the
Figure 1
gov.uk
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2 Sta
Stage
1 To iden
put site
(SHLAA
2 The SHL
that the
agreed
biodive
employ
issues.
3 In addit
Settlem
This is
settlem
4 In man
assesse
Strategy
develop
consult
5 The fin
require
opportu
Stage
6 The dev
the SAD
forming
7 This co
residen
stage o
respons
docume
2 The Issuwww.bas
agesinth
1:Identif
ntify land th
es forward
A).
LAA ‘screen
ey were uns
SHLAA m
rsity intere
yment land
tion, only s
ment Hierar
to ensure
ments in the
y cases, id
ed as ‘may b
y Policies (
pment and
ation repor
al output o
further d
unities.
2:Issues
velopable s
DPD Issues
g part of the
onsultation
ts. All of th
of the site
ses receive
ent2.
ues and Optiossetlaw.gov.u
heproces
fyingPote
at is availab
for conside
ned out’ a s
suitable for
methodology
est, accessi
, flood ris
sites that ar
chy (Policy
e that dev
District.
entified co
be suitable’.
such as flo
were not b
rt.
of the SHLA
detailed in
&Options
ites and th
s & Option
e criteria.
attracted
ese comme
selection
d are set o
ons Consultatik
ss
entialSite
ble for hous
eration in th
significant n
r developme
y. These i
ibility and
k, pollution
re within o
CS1) were
velopment
nstraints ca
. Where this
od risk), th
een brough
AA is a list
vestigation
sConsulta
e draft scre
ns consultat
a high lev
ents were re
process. A
out in the
on Response S
es
sing develo
he Strategi
number of s
ent when a
nclude im
road capa
n/contamin
r next to a
e considere
is focused
an be over
s is not felt
he sites hav
ht forward f
of ‘develop
and cons
tation
eening crite
tion paper.
vel of respo
ecorded to
A summary
Issues & O
Summary Doc
Site
pment the
ic Housing
sites early o
ssessed aga
pacts on
city, acces
nation and
settlemen
ed as havin
in and a
rcome, in w
to be possi
ve been co
for conside
pable’ sites
sideration
eria were m
. With pub
onse from
aid in the a
y of this c
Options Con
cument is ava
e Allocation
Council inv
Land Availa
on in the pr
ainst the cri
heritage as
s to key s
other infr
t named in
g potential
round the
which case
ble, or fact
nsidered to
ration in th
s that could
of the re
made availab
lic opinion
interested
assessment
onsultation
nsultation R
ilable on the C
ns Selection
vited landow
ability Asse
rocess, dete
iteria set ou
ssets, feat
services, pr
rastructure
n the Core S
l for develo
most sus
the site h
ors go again
o be unsuit
he Issues &
d be allocat
elative mer
ble for com
from this
parties an
of sites in t
n process a
Response Su
Council’s web
Process
3
wners to
essment
ermining
ut in the
tures of
rotected
related
Strategy
opment.
tainable
as been
nst Core
able for
Options
ted, but
rits and
mment in
process
nd local
the next
and the
ummary
bsite at
3
4
2.8
2.9
2.1
2.1
2.1
Sit
4
Stage
Screen
8 Consult
scope o
receive
before
them in
not pre
The scr
emergin
9 Sites we
conflict
direct c
each sit
10 The crit
are rega
this bas
show t
balance
benefits
measur
Screen
11 While t
acknow
compar
(Appen
relative
the crit
sites.
12 As note
intrinsic
develop
than an
been us
te Allocation
3:Screen
ingMetho
tation on th
of the scre
d on the dr
finalising t
n the secon
eviously con
eening met
ng from the
ere scored
ts, amber in
conflict. A s
te can be se
teria are no
arded as m
sis alone. Li
hat the sit
ed against o
s). As such
res can pote
ingAssess
the screen
wledge that
re scores fo
dix 2) there
e to each ot
eria, along
ed above,
c merits of
pment in th
ny others, t
sed to dete
ns Selection
ingcriter
odology
he SADPD I
ening crite
raft screeni
the Site All
nd stage scr
nsidered in
thodology c
e Sustainabi
against eac
ndicating so
summary o
een in Appe
ot ‘weighted
ore desirab
kewise, red
te has issu
other facto
, in instanc
entially deliv
smentResu
ing criteria
the unique
or sites in d
efore take n
ther. The a
with a sum
because th
f each site
hat location
the level of
rmine whic
n Process
riaapplied
Issues & Op
ria propose
ng method
locations S
reening ass
the first sta
criteria refle
ility Apprais
ch criterion
ome or mino
of the resul
ndix 2.
d’. Althoug
ble (with few
d lights do n
es requirin
rs in the as
ces where s
ver a range
ults
a were app
e circumsta
different se
note of the
ssessment
mary of ‘Ge
he criteria
and of th
. Where no
f communit
h sites are c
d
ptions Pape
ed for the
ology were
creening M
sessment. T
age of iden
ect Core Str
sal Scoping
using a traf
or issues (t
ts and key
h the sites
wer advers
not automa
g greater
ssessment (
sites have
of benefits
plied consi
ances of eac
ettlements.
merits of t
tables inclu
eneral Note
are not w
he potentia
o particular
ty support
carried forw
er gave opp
next stage
e subsequen
Methodolog
These criter
tifying suita
rategy polic
Report.
ffic light sys
hat can be
observatio
with the h
e effects), s
tically disco
mitigation
(e.g. its abi
accrued am
s for the wid
stently it i
ch settleme
The outco
the develop
ude a comm
es’ that docu
weighted th
al benefits
sites stand
for or obje
ward.
portunity to
of site sel
ntly used to
y (Appendi
ria address
able/availab
cy and wide
stem, with g
overcome)
ons or conc
ighest num
sites have n
ount sites. R
or has imp
lity to deliv
mber or red
der commu
is neverthe
ent mean th
mes of the
pable sites i
mentary on
ument com
he assessm
that might
out as bein
ection to a
o comment
lection. Co
o refine the
ix 1) and a
matters th
ble parcels
er policy or
green indic
and red in
cerns in rel
mber of gree
not been ra
Rather, they
pacts that
ver significa
d lights, m
nity.
eless impor
hat it is dif
e screening
in each sett
n the applic
mmon theme
ments comp
t be derive
ng more fav
particular
t on the
mments
e criteria
applying
hat were
of land.
themes
ating no
ndicating
ation to
en lights
nked on
y simply
may be
ant local
itigation
rtant to
fficult to
process
tlement,
cation of
es for all
pare the
ed from
vourable
site has
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
Stage4
Develo
13 While a
total) a
(SAOs),
Harwor
effects
scenario
relation
problem
As such
synergy
be dem
14 The dev
Council
the Stra
Sustain
15 The pu
through
of plan
Purchas
of the E
16 The SA
the area
into a s
arising
and Dev
to main
Framew
17 The SA
and in d
Options
18 The Ful
website
4:Sustain
opmentSce
all of the m
are subject
the scale o
rth Bircotes
of differen
os are like
n to each ot
ms, whilst a
h, while on
y and comb
monstrated t
velopment
demonstra
ategic Envir
nabilityAp
rpose of th
h better int
ns. The reg
se Act 2004
European St
Framework
a’s baseline
systematic a
policies an
velopment
ntain consi
work questio
weighs the
determining
s put forwa
ll SA for the
e.
nabilityA
enarios
most favour
to furthe
of developm
) meant tha
nt combina
ly to result
ther. One s
another ma
its own me
ined effects
to be a mor
scenarios w
ating consid
onmental A
ppraisal
he Sustaina
tegration of
ulations im
4 stipulate t
trategic Env
k is a key co
e social, env
and easily u
d allocation
Manageme
stency bet
ons.
e social, env
g the most
rd in the dr
e Preferred
ppraisal
rable sites
r assessme
ment require
at it was ne
ations of si
t in differe
scenario ma
y generate
erits a site
s of develo
re preferabl
were signifi
deration of
Assessment
ability Appr
f sustainabi
mplementing
that SAs of
vironmental
omponent
vironmenta
understood
ns. The fram
ent Policies
ween the t
vironmenta
sustainable
aft plan.
d Options Si
carried for
ent against
ed in the m
ecessary ass
ites or ‘gro
ent impacts
ay give rise
distinct op
may stand
ping a grou
le option.
cant in the
reasonable
Directive.
raisal (SA)
ility conside
g the prov
f developme
l Assessmen
in formulat
l and econo
tool that a
mework de
DPD has be
two parts
al and econ
e sites enab
ite Allocatio
Site
ward from
the Susta
main growth
sess the rel
owth scena
s dependin
to new pro
pportunities
out as the
up of margin
e Sustainabi
e alternativ
is to prom
erations in t
visions of t
ent plans s
nt Directive
ting the dev
omic inform
llows asses
eveloped fo
een utilised
of the pla
omic merit
bles the Co
ons DPD ca
e Allocation
the screen
inability Ap
areas (Wor
ative merits
arios’ (Appe
g on the lo
oblems or e
s and delive
most susta
nally less fa
lity Apprais
e options, i
ote sustain
the prepara
he Planning
hould meet
.
velopment
mation and s
sment of th
r the SA of
d for the SA
n. Appendi
s of each p
uncil to ide
an be viewe
ns Selection
ning proces
ppraisal Ob
rksop, Retfo
s and susta
endix 3). D
ocation of
exacerbate
er specific b
ainable opt
avourable si
sal, in term
in accordan
nable devel
ation and a
g and Com
t the requir
plan. It syn
sustainabilit
he potentia
f the Core S
A of SADPD
ix 4 shows
proposed al
entify the P
ed on the C
Process
5
ss (86 in
bjectives
ord, and
inability
Different
sites in
existing
benefits.
tion, the
ites may
ms of the
nce with
lopment
adoption
mpulsory
rements
thesises
ty issues
l effects
Strategy
in order
the SA
location
referred
Council’s
5
6
2.1
2.2
2.2
2.2
Sit
6
Stage
19 The fina
the dev
selectin
docume
20 Many o
therefo
parallel
Study3.
Prefer
21 The Pre
preferre
map id
spaces.
develop
address
22 The pre
relevan
growth
3 Bassetla
te Allocation
5:Identif
al stage of
velopment s
ng the prefe
ent), along w
of the issu
ore existing
to the sit
rredOptio
eferred Opt
ed sites tha
entifying it
A policy,
pment of th
s issues that
eferred site
nt issues hav
targets.
w District Coun
ns Selection
fyingthep
site selectio
scenarios an
erred sites
with the rea
ues affectin
infrastructu
te selection
ons
tions Site A
at have em
s extent an
specific to
he site, inclu
t have been
es are now
ve been ide
ncil Infrastructu
n Process
preferred
on draws to
nd the SA. T
(i.e. those
asons for di
ng prospect
ure capacity
n and appr
Allocations
merged thro
nd any key
o each site
uding any m
n identified
subject to
entified and
ure Capacity Stu
dsites
ogether the
The table in
put forwar
iscounting a
tive develo
y and pote
raisal proce
Consultatio
ough the p
features s
e, sets out
mitigation o
in the selec
further con
d the best s
udy (February 2
e outcomes
n Appendix
rd in the P
all the othe
opment site
ntial future
ess, through
on Paper id
rocess desc
uch as acc
the param
r infrastruct
ction proces
nsultation t
sites for de
2014)
of the scre
5 summari
referred Op
r sites.
es are infra
needs hav
h the Infra
entifies eac
cribed abov
ess points
meters and
ture improv
ss.
o consider
livering the
eening asse
ses the rea
ptions cons
astructure
ve been ass
astructure C
ch of the C
ve. Each sit
or protecte
d requireme
vements ne
whether a
e District’s a
essment,
sons for
sultation
related,
essed in
Capacity
Council’s
te has a
ed open
ents for
eeded to
ll of the
adopted
Appen
INTROD
In light
Issues a
that set
future d
sites (a
Potenti
Housing
(ELCS)5.
conside
large nu
a furthe
consult
The Sit
Travelli
through
Showpe
method
STAGE
Housin
A numb
the ass
either s
out in t
In addit
Settlem
develop
settlem
Suitabil
Sites co
effects
4 Please se5 Please se
ndix1:Si
DUCTION
of comme
and Option
ts out the
developmen
mixture of
al housing
g Land Av
. The scree
erations (e.g
umber of si
er detailed
ation.
e Allocatio
ng Showpe
h the criter
eople. Dete
dology.
EONE:IDE
ng
ber of sites
essment us
suitable or
he agreed m
tion, only s
ment Hiera
pment, to e
ments in the
lityoftheS
onsidered in
of which m
ee the council’see the council’s
iteAlloca
ents receive
s Paper, th
process tha
nt. This is c
housing an
and employ
ailability A
ening meth
g. SHLAA as
tes put forw
Sustainabil
ns DPD wil
eople. How
ia set out i
ermining th
ENTIFYIN
proposed t
sed for the
available fo
methodolog
sites that ar
rchy (Polic
ensure that
District.
Site
n the SHLAA
ight impact
s planning pages planning page
ationsScr
ed following
is methodo
at the Coun
hiefly land
d employm
yment sites
Assessment
hodology i
ssessments
ward in the
ity Appraisa
ll also alloc
wever, asse
n Core Stra
he suitabili
NGSITESF
to the Coun
SHLAA. Su
or developm
gy.
re within o
cy CS1) h
t developm
A were asse
t on their su
es at www.basses at www.bass
reeningM
g consultat
ology has b
ncil will foll
for housing
ment uses to
s have been
(SHLAA)4
s a tool (
)) to help t
Issues and
al of the pre
cate land to
essments o
ategy Policy
ity of such
FORTHEI
ncil have al
uch sites ar
ment when
r next to a
have been
ent is focu
essed agains
uitability for
setlaw.gov.uk setlaw.gov.uk
Site
Methodo
ion, along w
been update
low in selec
g and emplo
ogether).
n identified
and Emplo
to be used
the Council
Options Pa
eferred site
o accommo
of potentia
y DM6: Gyp
h pitches is
ISSUES&
lready been
e those tha
considered
settlemen
considere
sed in and
st the follow
r developm
e Allocation
ology
with the Sit
ed. This is n
cting sites t
oyment, alo
initially thr
oyment Lan
d in conju
make the t
aper, to the
es and the n
odate Gyps
al pitches/p
psies, Trave
s not part
OPTIONS
n ‘screened
at were not
d in relation
t named in
ed as hav
around the
wing potent
ent:
ns Selection
te Allocatio
now the fin
to be alloca
ong with mi
rough the S
nd Capacit
unction wit
transition f
Preferred O
next stage o
sies, Travell
plots will
llers and Tr
of this sc
SSTAGE
d out’ as a r
t considere
n to the crit
n the Core S
ving poten
e most sus
tial constra
Process
7
ons DPD
nal draft
ated for
ixed‐use
Strategic
y Study
h other
rom the
Options,
of public
lers and
be met
ravelling
creening
result of
ed to be
teria set
Strategy
tial for
tainable
ints, the
7
8
Sit
8
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
In many
as ‘may
Policies
develop
consult
Availab
Any site
Options
statuto
develop
Employ
Potenti
attracti
In addit
line wit
develop
develop
employ
te Allocation
Heritage as
Site of Spec
Local Wildl
Access to th
Levels of ac
Protected t
Protected s
Ancient wo
Local Natur
Geodiversit
Biodiversity
Protected o
Protected e
Highways a
Ground Co
Flood Risk
Pollution o
Land stabili
Access to u
y cases, suc
y be suitable
s (such as
pment and
ation repor
bilityofthe
e that is no
s consultati
ry allotmen
ping the site
yment
al employm
on to the m
tion, only s
th the strat
pment. Wh
pment in o
yment alloca
ns Selection
ssets (includ
cial Scientif
ife Sites
he site and
ccess to key
trees
species
oodlands
re Reserves
ty
y
open space
employmen
access
nditions/To
r contamina
ity
utility infrast
ch constrain
e’. Where t
flood risk
were not b
rt.
Site
ot actually
on report. S
nts) or wh
e.
ment sites
market and t
ites that ar
tegy set ou
ile the Cou
other areas,
ations.
n Process
ding Conser
ic Interest (
local road n
y services an
s
nt land
opography
ation
tructure
nts can be o
his is not fe
k), the site
een brough
available fo
Such sites a
here the la
were cons
their overal
re within or
t in the Co
uncil will, c
, it is only
rvation Area
(SSSI)
network ca
nd facilities
overcome,
elt to be pos
es have b
ht forward f
or developm
are, for exam
and owner
sidered in
ll planning p
r next to W
ore Strategy
clearly, sup
these thre
as and Liste
pacity
in which ca
ssible, or fa
been consid
for conside
ment was d
mple, those
is not kn
the ELCS,
potential.
Worksop, Ret
y, are consi
pport suitab
e towns th
d Buildings)
ase the site
ctors go ag
dered to
ration in th
discounted
e protected
own or is
which look
tford or Ha
dered as h
ble applicat
hat will be
)
has been a
gainst Core S
be unsuita
he Issues &
from the I
for other u
not intere
ked at the
arworth Birc
having pote
tions for ec
the focus
assessed
Strategy
able for
Options
ssues &
ses (e.g.
ested in
eir likely
cotes, in
ntial for
conomic
for new
Assessm
The ELC
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
It reach
be of p
Issues &
The rem
listed a
have pa
consult
mentofthe
CS assessme
Access to st
Local road
Proximity t
Proximity t
Site charac
Market per
hed a view
poor quality
& Options c
maining site
above, to en
assed this in
ation repor
qualityofp
ent scored s
trategic roa
access
o urban cen
o incompat
teristics inc
rceptions of
on whethe
y by the EL
onsultation
es have also
nsure that
nitial screen
rt.
potentialsit
sites against
ad network.
ntres includ
tible uses
cluding deve
f the site
r sites were
LCS have n
n report.
o been asse
any potent
ning are pu
tes
t the follow
.
ding access t
elopment co
e good, ave
not been br
essed for th
tial constrai
ut forward f
Site
wing conside
to labour an
onstraints
erage or poo
rought forw
heir suitabi
ints have b
for conside
e Allocation
erations:
nd services
or quality. S
ward for co
lity against
een consid
ration in th
ns Selection
Sites consid
onsideration
the SHLAA
dered. All si
he Issues &
Process
9
dered to
n in the
A criteria
tes that
Options
9
1
Sit
0
STAGE
In addit
Options
criteria
screeni
second
assessm
Sites w
no conf
overcom
relation
These c
identify
Core St
Scoping
intende
Althoug
desirab
rank sit
that a s
greater
assessm
situatio
these i
commu
When i
accomp
will be g
Site ref
00
te Allocation
ETWO:ID
tion to seek
s consultat
. The sites
ng criteria
formal rou
ment achiev
ill be score
flicts with a
me) and red
n to each sit
criteria add
ying suitabl
trategy polic
g Report. P
ed to be a si
gh the site
le (with the
tes, or disco
site cannot
r mitigation
ment (e.g.
ons where a
ssues or im
unity. In suc
dentifying t
panying eac
given for a s
Community Su
pport
Compatib
ility with
neigh
bourin
g land uses
A G
ns Selection
DENTIFYIN
king opinion
tion paper
s considere
in order to
und of cons
vable based
d against e
a specific c
d indicating
te will also b
ress matter
e/available
cy and wide
lease note
implistic filt
es with the
e least amo
ount them o
t be conside
n or has im
its ability
a site may a
mpacts a g
h situations
the Preferre
ch site’s ass
site’s select
Economic b
enefits
A A
Table 1
n Process
NGSITES
n on the sui
sought vie
ed in that
o help dete
sultation: t
on the leve
ach criterio
criterion, am
g direct con
be provided
rs that were
parcels of
er policy or
that the c
ter system f
e highest n
ount of miti
on this basis
ered. These
mpacts tha
to deliver
ccrue more
greater ran
s, sites may
ed Options,
essment. A
tion or disco
Agricu
ltural La
nd Class
SPZ
A ‐
1: Proposed S
FORTHE
itability of p
ews on the
consultatio
ermine wh
the Preferre
el of inform
on using a t
mber indica
nflict. A sum
d.
e not previ
f land. The
r themes em
criteria are
for discount
number of
igation requ
s alone. Like
e simply sh
at may be
significant
e amber or
nge of ben
y also be car
, it will also
As well as th
ounting. An
Landsca
pe Characte
r
SETTLEMENT X
R A
Screening As
PREFERR
potential de
e scope of
on paper w
ich sites w
ed Options
ation availa
traffic light
ating some
mmary of ke
ously consi
e screening
merging fro
not ‘weigh
ting sites.
green light
uired), it is
ewise, red l
ow that th
balanced
local bene
red lights, b
nefits could
rried forwar
o be necessa
he ‘scores’ a
n example is
Built C
haracte
r
Green In
frastructu
re
A A
ssessment Te
REDOPTI
evelopment
f the scree
will be ass
will be carri
report. Th
able to the C
system, wit
or minor i
ey observat
dered in th
methodolo
m the Susta
ted’, nor is
ts will be
not the Co
lights do no
e site has
against oth
efits). As su
but in addre
d be achiev
rd to the Pr
ary to consi
against each
s set out at
Infrastru
cture co
nstrain
ts
G Com
comm
emplate
IONSSTAG
t sites, the
ening meth
sessed aga
ed forward
his will be t
Council to d
th green in
issues (that
ions or con
he initial pro
ogy criteria
ainability A
s the meth
regarded a
ouncil’s inte
ot necessari
issues that
her factors
uch, there
essing or m
ved for th
referred Op
ider the co
h criterion,
Figure 1 be
Commenta
mment A; commen
ment C …
GE
Issues &
odology
inst the
d to the
the best
date.
ndicating
t can be
ncerns in
ocess of
a reflect
Appraisal
odology
as more
ntion to
ily mean
require
s in the
will be
itigating
e wider
tions.
mments
reasons
elow.
ary
nt B;
In settle
them in
particul
Followi
sites it
Options
while ac
SiteAs
1. Is the
Public
conside
key to t
The lev
site, or
decision
can be
there a
have eq
Design
conform
It is rec
consult
the resu
conside
respons
Consult
Consult
that som
A maj
for the
A bala
propo
6 For the phave been7 Debate oCentre tie
ements wh
n planning
lar site, will
ng the site
considers b
s), seeking t
chieving the
ssessmen
e local com
opinion6, w
eration in th
the continu
vel of suppo
r the amou
n‐making p
addressed
re a numbe
qual ‘score
Statement,
mity with th
ognised tha
ation with
ults of thes
ered accord
ses receive
tation Pape
tation respo
me sites hav
ority of res
e proposed
ance of vie
osed use
purposes of pren recorded by Oover whether oer of the settlem
ere there m
and susta
be of parti
assessment
best suited
to deliver t
e right bala
ntCriteria
munity sup
where it is
he site allo
ed preparat
ort express
unt of grow
rocess but
through the
er of sites in
es’. Additio
or an eme
hose of the
at land own
local comm
se consultat
dingly. The
d through
r).
onses on ea
ve had no c
spondents e
use
ews were e
eparation of thiOfficers attendior not a village rment hierarchy.
may be seve
inability te
cular signifi
ts, the Coun
to accomm
the right ra
nce betwee
a
pportive of t
s based on
ocations pro
tion of the p
ed by resp
wth in a pa
may not be
e developm
n a given loc
nally, wher
rging Neigh
Core Strate
ers or prosp
munities to g
tion exercis
e Council w
its own con
ach site will
comments m
expressed s
expressed fo
s DPD, public ong public meetreceives any ho.
eral sites w
rms, the le
icance.
ncil will pre
modate the
nge and typ
en impact o
the develo
n legitimate
ocess. As su
plan.
pondents to
articular vil
e the overr
ment proces
cality betwe
re villages
hbourhood P
egy, these m
pective dev
gauge supp
es have bee
will, howev
nsultation p
be conside
made for or
support for
or the dev
opinion compristings, setting ouousing growth is
Site
with the sam
evel of pub
esent for co
required le
pe of devel
on and bene
pment of th
e planning
uch, on‐goi
o consultati
lage7 will b
riding factor
ss. It will be
een which it
have an e
Plan, the ob
may also be
velopers ma
ort for the
en submitte
ver, base
processes (
ered as follo
r against the
r the develo
elopment o
ses only formal ut planning reass only applicab
e Allocation
me score an
blic opinion
nsultation t
evels of gro
opment in
efits to local
he site?
concerns,
ng public c
on for or a
be a signifi
r, particular
e particularl
t is difficult
xisting Pari
bjectives of
taken into a
ay hold thei
developme
ed to the C
its conclus
such as the
ows (taking
em):
opment of
of the site
written commesons for or agaile to those with
ns Selection
nd little to s
n, for or ag
the combin
owth (the P
the best lo
l communit
is a fund
consultation
against a pa
icant facto
rly where c
ly importan
to decide o
ish Plan or
which are i
account.
r own indep
ent of a site
Council, they
sions prima
e Issues &
account of
the site
for the
ents and otherinst a site,. hin the Rural Se
Process
1
separate
gainst a
nation of
referred
ocations,
ties.
amental
n will be
articular
r in the
concerns
nt where
or which
r Village
in broad
pendent
. Where
y will be
arily on
Options
the fact
G
A
s that
ervice
11
1
Sit
2
No co
propo
A maj
site fo
Notwith
decision
support
of them
such in
whethe
upgrade
objectio
2. Will d
land us
From th
develop
its surr
privacy
industri
Is com
Likely
Likely
3. Will t
To deliv
sites w
exist fo
Some
develop
deliveri
The Co
develop
force, a
this crit
te Allocation
omments w
osed use
ority of res
or the propo
hstanding t
n that plea
t for any of
m have to be
stances, gre
er they are
es to the h
ons.
developme
es?
he point of
pment sites
roundings, t
. For exam
ial site and
mpatible wit
to be comp
to be incom
the site hel
ver the Cou
ill be alloca
or sites to d
existing em
pment uses
ng econom
uncil ackno
pment in te
and new loc
terion, how
ns Selection
were expre
spondents e
osed use
this, such is
ases everyo
f the sites p
e allocated
eater focus
related chie
highways n
ent of the si
f view of b
s, it will be
taking into
mple, new h
vice versa.
h existing a
patible with
mpatible wit
p to delive
uncil’s emp
ated solely
deliver both
mployment
s (e.g. housi
mic developm
owledges th
rms of cons
cal spendin
wever, is to
n Process
ssed about
expressed a
s the nature
one. This w
proposed fo
to ensure t
s will need
efly to facto
etwork; ne
ite be comp
oth existing
essential to
considerat
housing is
Sites will be
nd propose
existing an
th existing a
r economic
ployment la
for econom
h housing a
sites may
ing), which
ment.
hat there a
struction jo
ng power, b
consider th
t the deve
an objectio
e of planni
will certainly
or developm
hat the Dist
to be given
ors that can
ew school p
patible with
g public am
o ensure th
tion, for ex
unlikely to
e classified
ed uses
nd proposed
and propos
c developm
and targets
mic develop
and employ
y, howeve
may impac
are econom
obs and the
brought to
he econom
lopment o
on to the de
ng that it i
y be the c
ment in part
trict can me
n to the na
n be overco
provision; e
h existing a
menity and
hat new dev
xample, iss
o be compa
as follows:
d uses
ed uses
ent opport
(as set out
pment purp
yment uses
er, be put
ct negativel
mic benefits
subsequen
the area by
ic benefits
f the site
evelopment
s often imp
ase where
ticular loca
eet its deve
ture of com
ome by the
etc), rather
nd/or prop
that of the
velopment
ues of nois
atible with
unities?
t in the Co
poses. Opp
through m
forward
ly on the Co
s to be der
t introducti
y new resid
to be deriv
for the
t of the
possible to
there is a
lities and y
lopment ta
mmunity vie
developme
than ‘in p
posed neigh
e occupiers
is compati
se, odour,
an existin
ore Strategy
portunities w
mixed‐use sc
for non‐ec
ouncil’s stra
rived from
ion of a new
dents. The f
ved from al
W
R
reach a
lack of
et some
rgets. In
ews and
ent (e.g.
rinciple’
hbouring
of new
ble with
light or
g heavy
G
A
R
y), some
will also
chemes.
conomic
ategy of
housing
w labour
focus of
llocating
land fo
employ
Will le
Will n
Will re
4. Will t
Naturalfurther most veUnder must be
f
Advice cumulaplannin The Nat
The Comost dbrownffuture gfor agriknown screeni
8 Consiste9 The Tow10 It shoulrequire th
or employm
yment sites
ead to the d
ot lead to t
esult in the
the site res
l England’ssubdividesersatile agrSchedule 5e consulted
‘Developmeprovisions hectares ofwas last usgrades 1, 2for agricultto a further(Schedule 5
may also tive loss ofng permissio
tional Plann
‘Local plannof the bestagriculturaseek to use
uncil acknodistinctive afield sites ingrowth will icultural puareas of pong criteria)
ent with the Natwn and Country d be noted thahe allocation of
ment creati
to other lan
delivery of e
he delivery
loss of a go
ult in the lo
Agricultur grade 3 intricultural la5 of the De for single (
ent which isof a develf grades 1, sed) for ag2 or 3a agrictural purposr loss of ag5, para. x).
be soughtf agriculturaon on this b
ning Policy F
ning authort and most al land is dee areas of po
owledges thand valuedn Bassetlaw need to beurposes is moorer qualitto be achie
tional Planning Planning (Devet even if brownreplacement e
ing uses8 a
nd uses (suc
economic de
of econom
ood quality e
oss of best a
ral Land Clto 3a and 3nd. Gradesevelopment(individual)
s not for agropment pla2 or 3a agricultural pcultural landses, in circuricultural la
t from Naal land (in oasis).
Framework
rities shouldversatile a
emonstratedoorer qualit
he rural chad features. available foe on greenfminimised wty land, unleved that ou
Policy Framewelopment Mananfield employmmployment lan
and the ne
ch as housin
evelopment
mic developm
economic d
and most v
lassification3b). Grades s 3b, 4 andt Managemapplication
ricultural puan and invgricultural lapurposes; ord which is fumstances iand amount
tural Englaorder to av
(NPPF) stat
d take into agricultural d to be necty land in pr
aracter of Given thaor developmfield land. Twherever pess there autweigh ret
work’s definitionagement Proceent sites are dend, which would
Site
egative imp
ng). Sites w
t opportuni
ment oppor
developmen
versatile agr
n separates1, 2 and 3a 5, are seement Procens for the fo
urposes andvolves— (i) and which r (ii) the losfor the timein which theting cumula
and regardvoid future
tes (para. 1
account theland. Whe
cessary, locareference to
Bassetlaw at there arment10, howTo ensure thossible, there benefitsention of th
n of Economic Ddure) (Englandeveloped for hod be on greenfi
e Allocation
pacts of lo
ill be consid
ties
rtunities
nt site
ricultural la
s land intoa are regarden as being dure Orderollowing:
d is not in athe loss ofis for the tiss of less the being usede developmatively to 20
ing the posite allocat
12) that:
e economic re significaal planningo that of a h
as being one only a lwever, a sighat loss of e Council w(identified
he land for a
Development ) Order 2010 ousing, the effeeld sites.
ns Selection
osing good
dered as fol
and?
o five gradded as the bg of poorer r9 Natural
accordance f not less time being uhan 20 hecd (or was la
ment is likely0 hectares o
otential imtions being
c and other ant developg authoritieshigher quali
ne of the Dlimited numgnificant amland most v
will seek to through thagricultural
ects of this will b
Process
1
quality
llows:
G
A
R
es (and best and quality. England
with the than 20 used (or ctares of ast used) y to lead or more’
mpact of refused
benefits ment of s should ity’
District’s mber of mount of valuable allocate he other l use.
be to
13
1
Sit
4
Becauseunavailarepreseof the p No imp
Impact
Impact
5. Will t
The ma
sources
a major
The Env
for sett
identifie
sensitiv
importa
and wa
contam
quality.
Housing
being c
this crit
by the
contam
conside
It is imp
uses m
Potenti
Not in
In Sou
In Sou
11 Finding
te Allocation
e data to dable, sites ents a precapotential va
pact on agri
t on grades
t on grades
the site imp
ajority of w
s are essent
r role in the
vironment A
ting gradua
ed extractio
ve. The maj
ant to cons
ater source
mination, req
.
g is not gen
considered
terion. Emp
Environme
mination of
ered solely f
portant to n
may still be
al employm
n a Source P
urce Protect
urce Protect
from the Basse
ns Selection
distinguish located on autionary alue of sites
icultural lan
3, 4 or 5 ag
1 or 2 agric
pact on a So
water supp
tial in provid
e area’s ecol
Agency is r
ated Source
on point, w
jority of Ba
ider the po
e extraction
quiring mor
nerally cons
solely for h
ployment u
nt Agency a
ground wa
for employm
note here th
acceptabl
ment and m
Protection Z
tion Zones 2
tion Zone 1
etlaw Water Cy
n Process
between ggrade 3 lapproach thacurrently in
nd
gricultural la
cultural land
ource Prote
lies in Bas
ding drinkin
logy.
responsible
e Protectio
which is the
assetlaw’s m
otential imp
n; the close
re mitigatio
idered by t
housing dev
ses (such a
as potentia
ater sources
ment uses a
hat sites tha
e subject t
ixed‐use sit
Zone
2 or 3
ycle Study Janua
grade 3a annd will be at is neithen agricultur
and
d
ection Zone
ssetlaw com
ng water fo
for identify
on Zones (S
most sens
major settle
pact develop
er to an e
on to ensure
the Environ
velopment
as industria
al polluting
s, this crite
and potenti
at are in a S
to the agr
tes will be a
ary 2011.
nd 3b land categoriseder unnecessral use. Site
e? (Employme
me from G
r the Distric
ying ground
SPZ) around
itive area, w
ements are
pment a sit
extraction p
e the develo
ment Agen
will not, th
l developm
uses, and w
erion will o
al mixed‐us
SPZ will scor
eement wi
ssessed as
across Basd as amberarily restrices will be as
ent sites only)
roundwate
ct’s resident
d water ext
d them. Zo
with Zones
e in a SPZ o
e could hav
point the g
opment doe
cy as a poll
herefore, b
ents), how
which prese
only be app
se sites.
re amber/re
th the Env
follows:
ssetlaw is cr. It is felt tctive nor dissessed as fo
)
r Sources11
ts as well a
traction po
one 1 conta
2 and 3 be
of some lev
ve on groun
greater the
es not affec
luting activi
be assessed
wever, are r
ent a highe
plied to site
ed, but cert
vironment
currently that this smissive ollows:
G
A
R
1. These
s having
ints and
ains the
eing less
vel. It is
ndwater
e risk of
ct water
ity. Sites
against
egarded
er risk of
es being
tain land
Agency.
G
A
R
6. Is the
The im
Strategy
Althoug
wider la
in term
recomm
Policy Z
Co
Con
Re
Con
R
Conserv
Re
R
Reinforc
Restore
C
Policy Z
impacts
12 Copy of
e site in a la
mportance o
y Developm
gh individua
andscape u
ms of land
mended lan
Zone Categor
onserve
serve and
einforce
serve and
Restore
ve and Creat
einforce
Restore
ce and Creat
e and Create
Create
Zones where
s of new de
f this study can
andscape ch
of protectin
ment Manag
al sites hav
nit. The Bas
dscape con
dscape acti
ry
Actions
in good
Actions
and stre
Actions
conditio
removin
te Actions
whilst c
poor co
Actions
landsca
Actions
remova
te Actions
landsca
or are in
e Actions
detracti
been los
Actions
or are in
e landscape
evelopment
be accessed fro
haracter Po
ng the Dis
gement Poli
ve their ow
ssetlaw Lan
ndition and
ons) in the
that encour
condition
that conser
engthen and
that encou
on, whilst r
ng or mitigat
that conser
creating new
ndition
that strengt
pe
that encou
l or mitigatio
that strengt
pe, whilst cr
n poor condi
that restore
ng features,
st or are in p
that create
n poor condi
e needs to b
t, whereas
om the plannin
olicy Zone th
strict’s land
icy DM9.
wn characte
ndscape Cha
d sensitivity
following w
Recommen
rage the cons
rve distinctiv
reinforce th
urage the co
restoring ele
ting detractin
rve distinctiv
w features or
then or reinf
urage the r
on of detract
then or reinf
reating new
tion
e distinctive
, whilst crea
poor conditio
new feature
tion
be conserve
areas that
ng pages of the
Site
hat should
dscape cha
eristics they
aracter Asse
y, identifyi
way:
nded Landsc
servation of
ve features
hose features
onservation
ements or
ng features
ve features
r areas wher
force distinc
estoration o
ting features
force distinc
features or a
e features an
ting new fea
on
es or areas w
ed are the m
need new
Council’s webs
e Allocation
be conserv
racter is re
y neverthele
essment12 a
ing Policy
ape Actions
distinctive f
and feature
s that may be
of distinctiv
areas in po
and feature
re they have
tive features
of distinctiv
s
tive features
areas where
nd the remo
atures or are
where existi
most sensiti
landscape
site: www.basse
ns Selection
ved?
ecognised
ess form p
assesses the
Zones (ba
features and
es in good co
e vulnerable
ve features
oorer condit
es in good co
e been lost
s and patter
ve features
s and patter
e they have b
oval or mitig
eas where th
ng elements
ive to the p
character
etlaw.gov.uk
Process
1
in Core
part of a
e District
ased on
features
ondition,
e
in good
tion and
ondition,
or are in
ns in the
and the
ns in the
been lost
gation of
hey have
s are lost
potential
creating
15
1
Sit
6
are lea
introdu
In Poli
In Poli
In Poli
In Poli
In Poli
In Poli
In Poli
In Poli
In Poli
No rele
7. Will
settlem
Many s
protect
develop
streetsc
Assessin
clearly
sites m
design c
Likely
Unlike
Likely
8. Will
settlem
Green I
areas; d
te Allocation
ast sensitive
ce new or e
cy Zone ‘Cr
cy Zone ‘Re
cy Zone ‘Re
cy Zone ‘Re
cy Zone ‘Re
cy Zone ‘Co
cy Zone ‘Co
cy Zone ’Co
cy Zone ‘Co
evant Policy
the devel
ment or neig
settlements
t and enhan
pment whe
cape.
ng the aest
not possible
ay represen
consideratio
to complem
ely to either
to detract f
the develo
ment or neig
Infrastructu
developmen
ns Selection
e (and ma
enhanced la
eate’
estore and C
einforce and
einforce’
estore’
onserve and
onserve and
onserve and
onserve’
y Zone – sit
opment de
ghbourhood
s within Ba
nce. Conver
ere it would
thetic merit
e to assess
nt more log
ons, offer b
ment the ex
r detract fro
from the ex
pment det
ghbourhood
ure is a netw
nt of a gree
n Process
ay benefit
andscape ch
Create’
d Create’
d Create’
d Restore’
d Reinforce’
e lies within
etract from
d?
assetlaw ha
sely, there
d result in a
ts of a desig
the impact
gical extens
better conne
xisting built
om or enhan
xisting built
ract from o
d?
work of mu
enfield site
from appro
haracter fea
n an urban
m or enhan
ave a sensit
are a numb
a positive i
gn is an inh
t of a develo
ions to the
ectivity/leg
character
nce the exis
character
or enhance
ulti‐function
may not, b
opriately d
atures). Site
area
nce the ex
tive built f
ber of areas
mpact on a
erently sub
opment sch
existing bu
ibility. Sites
sting built c
the existin
nal green sp
by definitio
designed sc
es will be as
isting built
orm, which
s that would
a derelict s
bjective pro
heme at this
uilt form or,
s will be asse
haracter
ng Green Inf
paces in bo
n, lead to t
chemes tha
ssessed as fo
t character
h it is desi
d benefit fr
site or poor
ocess and w
s early stag
r, in terms o
essed as fo
frastructur
oth rural an
the loss of
at could
ollows:
G
G
G
A
A
A
R
R
R
W
r of the
rable to
om new
r quality
while it is
ge, some
of urban
llows:
G
A
R
e of the
d urban
a Green
Infrastr
integral
Althoug
(statuto
protect
Council
Core St
Open S
Green I
enhanc
opportu
opportu
informa
Likely
Unlike
Likely
9. Are t
Various
SHLAA
develop
For site
identifie
identifie
underta
The res
106 co
contrib
address
sewerag
While t
significa
be achi
alongsid
Finally,
integral
ructure asse
l to the hea
gh potentia
ory and non
ted species
’s attention
trategy Pol
Space and S
Infrastructu
e, restore a
unities to
unities will
ation that is
to enhance
ely to detrac
to detract f
there identi
s constraint
(constraint
pers and lan
es to prog
ed infrastru
ed constrai
aken by land
solution of a
ontributions
utions and
s deficienci
ge, electrici
the Counci
ant strategi
evable if a
de the deve
developers
l part of th
et. These g
alth and qua
al allocatio
n‐statutory)
and other
n through t
icy DM9 (G
Sports Faci
ure assets,
and even cr
create, en
be consid
s available t
e existing Gr
ct from or r
from or res
ified and un
ts may be id
ts listed o
ndowners.
ress to the
ucture cons
ints may b
downers or
any identifi
s and/or t
levy paym
es in local
ity supply, l
il’s work w
c infrastruc
number of
elopment of
s are often
heir develo
reen space
ality of susta
ons posing
were disco
unprotecte
the consulta
Green Infra
lities), whil
new develo
reate habita
nhance or
ered throu
o the Coun
reen Infrast
result in sign
ult in signifi
nresolved c
dentified fo
on Page 2)
e Preferred
traints have
e achieved
r potential d
ed infrastru
the payme
ments are in
infrastructu
ack of scho
with infrast
cture proble
f specific in
f the site.
n able to p
pment (e.g
s support n
ainable com
a significa
ounted in th
ed open spa
ation on th
astructure;
le it is imp
opment can
ats and spe
provide g
ugh the scr
cil. Sites wi
tructure
nificant loss
icant loss of
constraints
or a site thr
) or ELCS
d Options s
e been reso
d through f
developers.
ucture cons
ent of a C
ntended to
ure created
ool places or
ructure pro
ems, the de
nfrastructur
provide faci
g. a doctors
Site
natural and
mmunities.
ant threat
he SHLAA a
aces have b
he Issues an
Biodiversity
portant to m
n also gene
ecies’ popul
reater acce
reening pro
ll be assess
s of Green I
f Green Infr
to the deliv
rough the in
or through
stage they
olved or are
further wor
straints may
Community
provide co
d by the de
r play areas
oviders to
evelopment
e improvem
ilities of va
s’ surgery o
e Allocation
ecological
to designa
nd ELCS pro
een identif
nd Options
y & Geodiv
minimise a
rate opport
ations. The
ess to gre
ocess, takin
ed as follow
nfrastructu
rastructure
very of the
nitial assess
h discussio
must dem
e resolvable
rk, submitt
y be achieve
y Infrastruc
ommitment
evelopment
).
date has
of an indiv
ments are d
alue to the
or a commu
ns Selection
processes
ated wildli
ocesses, ha
fied/brough
Paper. In li
versity; Lan
dverse imp
tunities to
y may also
een spaces
ng into acc
ws:
re
site?
sment in eit
ons with p
monstrate t
e. The resol
ed to the
ed through
cture Levy
ts and/or f
t (e.g. road
not identif
vidual site m
delivered be
communit
unity hall)
Process
1
and are
ife sites
bitats of
ht to the
ine with
ndscape;
pacts on
protect,
provide
. These
ount all
G
A
R
ther the
potential
hat any
ution of
Council,
Section
. These
funds to
, water,
fied any
may only
efore or
ty as an
and are
17
1
Sit
8
usually
commu
constra
No ext
Some
Const
te Allocation
required t
unity benefi
aint that the
tant constra
constraints
raints that h
ns Selection
o deliver a
its may als
e developm
aints
s, which hav
have not be
n Process
ffordable h
o be consid
ent of the s
ve been or c
een or cann
housing as
dered as a
site would c
can be reso
not be resolv
part of res
n approach
create. Sites
olved
ved
idential dev
h to overco
s will be ass
velopments
oming an id
sessed as fo
s. These
dentified
llows:
G
A
R
Appe
These
The sc
endix2:Site
e tables set out t
creening results
Worksop
Retford
Harworth Birc
Tuxford
Beckingham
Blyth
Cuckney
East Markham
Elkesley
Everton
Gamston
Mattersey
Misson Nethe
North Leverto
North and Sou
Sturton‐le‐Ste
Walkeringham
eScreeningA
the findings of th
s are identified fo
cotes
m
er Langwith
on
uth Wheatley
eeple
m
AssessmentR
he site screening
or all sites in the
Results
g assessment us
e following Settl
sing the Site Allo
ements:
ocations Screenin
S
ng Methodology
Site Allocations
y set out in Appe
Selection Proces
1
endix 1.
ss
19
S
2
Please
future
In add
unsui
Site Allocations S
0
e note that base
e housing growt
Clarborough/H
Gringley on th
Ranskill
Sutton‐cum‐Lo
dition, following
table for develo
Selection Proces
ed on consultatio
th target and the
Hayton
he Hill
ound
g further investig
opment. Therefo
ss
on responses, re
erefore as screen
gation, all of the
ore no sites will b
eceived the follo
ning of their site
potential sites w
be allocated in D
owing settlemen
e is not required
within Dunham‐
Dunham‐on‐Tren
nts within the Ru
:
‐on‐Trent are wi
nt so screening o
ural Service Cent
thin identified f
of the sites in th
tres are not bein
lood zones and
e village is not r
ng allocated a
are considered
equired.
WO
Site
8
9
1
1
1
ORKSOP SITES
e ref
Community Su
pport
neigh
bourin
g land uses
8
9
11
14
15
Compatib
ility with
neigh
bourin
glan
duses
Economic b
enefits
Agricu
ltural La
nd Class
SPZ
Landsca
pe Characte
r
Built C
haracte
r
Green In
frastructu
re
Unresolve
d co
nstrain
ts
Sligforlogwobu
Ovproanpomocomsecpo
WiStuproconjunhato
DealovalSanlimacc
Detheredpro
ght objection; Grade 3 Arm, set on the edge of a gical urban‐rural border;oodland – this provides at yet to be agreed.
verall support for the siteoximity to the Grade I lisd landscaped scheme wtential impact on PROWodern estate on the urbampleted suggests that tcond from within St. Anntentially may be a need
thin the urban area, theubbing Lane would not cotrusion into the green cnstraints due to problemnction. This would have lf of the site, due to floomanage flood risk/runo
velopment would be ouong Sandy Lane; developlue) following the river andhill Lake local wildlifemited by the access – sercess road will be require
velopment will result ine existing linear form of development of a brownoblems with the visibility
S
Comme
ALC; ‘create’ LCA Policy Zresidential area, filling i; care should be taken toa Green Infrastructure e
e; Grade 2 ALC; high valsted Manor Lodge, Engliwill not have a significantW to west of the site; thean rural fringe; resolvedhere should be two poinne's estate). Discussionsfor traffic signal contro
erefore no landscape catcomplement the existingcorridor which follows tms with increasing traffito be addressed; only hod risk on the eastern haoff.
ut of character with the ping the site would interand canal into Worksop, site; the amount of devrved from a private driveed to highway adoption
n loss of a small local emresidential properties anfield site; adjacent to Sy, which would need to
Site Allocations
ntary
Zone; would complemenin the current incongrueo avoid intrusion/harm tenhancement opportuni
ue landscape character;ish Heritage have indicat negative impact on thee site relates well to the d access constraints – Trnts of access (one from s with the Highways Autl or a right lane turn.
tegorisation; developingg form, representing an the river and canal into Wc at Stubbing Lane and Nas potential for eight dwalf; appropriate mitigatio
existing linear form of rrrupt the green corridor , with loss of trees and svelopment achievable oe. For substantial residestandard.
mployment site; would belong Sandy Lane, althouSandhill Lake local wildlifbe addressed.
Selection Proces
2
nt the existing built ent deviation from the to the adjacent ty; access – resolvable,
; despite close ted a suitably designed e heritage asset; existing built form – a ansport report Mansfield Road and thority suggest that
g to the east of incongruent Worksop; access Newcastle Avenue wellings on western on measures included
esidential properties (of high landscape shrub land; adjacent to n site is severely ntial development an
e out of character with ugh involves fe site; access –
ss
21
S
2
WO
Site
2
2
28 &
3
3
Site Allocations S
2
ORKSOP SITES
e ref
Community Su
pport
neigh
bourin
g land uses
23
26
& W6
30
35
Selection Proces
Compatib
ility with
neigh
bourin
glan
duses
Economic b
enefits
ss
Agricu
ltural La
nd Class
SPZ
Landsca
pe Characte
r
Built C
haracte
r
Green In
frastructu
re
Unresolve
d co
nstrain
ts
Relanide
A padjdeforfoo
A mlocwedewitforhetakaccun
OvadjvaladjadjthiforArene
StrsiteneconinfOw
development of land at ndscape categorisation; entified.
prominent gateway to thjacent to Old Gateford Cveloped; the site is landrming an extension of anotway to the site frontag
mixed use site; overall sucated to the south, adjacell positioned to deliver elivery potential is limitethin SPZ outer zone 2; wrm of the estate on the sdgerows on existing fielken into consideration ifcess required – one off Cdertaken on this by the
verall support for the sitejacent to a primary scholue landscape characterjacent form, may compljacent site of local interes area suffers from antisr enhancement; near to ea of tipping on the siteighbouring properties.
rong objection; Grade 3 e it is a logical extensiontwork and the existing entinuation would complfrastructure enhancemewday Wood & Rough Pie
Comme
the rear of existing prowithin CA, possible arch
he town; Grade 3 ALC; pCA which would have to‐locked by roads, while n existing built form; Accge.
upport for the site; an acent to railway and existeconomic developmentd by the proposed 80/2within urban, therefore nsouth side of Gateford Rd margins; site is adjacef the site was developedClaylands Avenue and oagents).
e – considered likely to sool (NE) and Lady Lee Qu; development in a lineaement the built charactest, along with loss of exsocial behaviour therefoManor Lodge Grade I lis, which may be contami
ALC; ‘conserve’ LCA Poln to the existing built forestate’s design/relationslement the existing formnt opportunities, relatinece local wildlife sites; w
ntary
perties; within the urbahaeological interest; acc
potential loss of mature be taken into considerait is isolated from othercess off Shireoaks Comm
rea of good quality empting employment area; a benefits, although limit0 housing employment no LCA category; compleRoad; potential loss of ment to Old Gateford CA wd; Resolved access constne off Shireoaks Commo
support regeneration ofuarry/Lady Lee Pasture war form along a crescentter; potential for significxisting grassland habitatore development may psted building and Gradeinated; site is on higher
icy Zone; despite the sigrm, taking into account ship with the surroundinm; sensitive site design cng to existing nodes on twoodland to the north pr
n area, therefore no ess problems
hedgerows; site is ation if the site was r buildings therefore mon would require
ployment land is a gateway site that is ted employment split; Grade 3 ALC; ements existing built mature trees and which would have to be traints – two points of on (work is being
f Rhodesia; lies wildlife sites (S); high t, similar to existing cant impact on the t. However, conversely, resent opportunities e II listed Lodge Farm; ground than existing
gnificant scale of the the existing road ng countryside – a could provide green the northern fringes – rovides a logical
WO
Site
3
39W
4
6
7
9
ORKSOP SITES
e ref
Community Su
pport
neigh
bourin
g land uses
38
9 & W10
45
60
75
90
Compatib
ility with
neigh
bourin
glan
duses
Economic b
enefits
Agricu
ltural La
nd Class
SPZ
Landsca
pe Characte
r
Built C
haracte
r
Green In
frastructu
re
Unresolve
d co
nstrain
ts
boGra
NebeforTraGretcap
Mi– dam(caelesepthethe
Grabolog
A blanconInfcon
Ho(prapbudeinvcen
Ov
undary; resolved to conade II listed building.
eighbouring site remainsing ‘good quality’ in therm, although is concealeanker Woods Ancient Ween Infrastructure enhac; numerous TPOs arounplication has been subm
xed use site; strong objedelivery will result in an mount of housing proposatchment area); within tements of the site are prparate, to the north, howe current built form, intoe site.
ade 3 ALC; the site is cleund by roads, although gical continuation of the
brownfield site; potentiand regarded as being ‘gontinuation of high densifrastructure would be enntamination onsite.
ousing development on tredominantly retail/leisupropriate; loss of scrubbildings in close proximitveloped; previously partvestigations would have ntre traffic routes; resid
verall support for the site
S
Comme
nsider relationship with G
s for industrial use; loss o employment land studyed within the surroundinWoodland and Tranker Wncement opportunity; rnd the site; Slow worms mitted for redevelopmen
ection; regarded as beinemployment land gain, sed; Grade 3 ALC; loss ofhe urban area, thereforroposed adjoining existiwever, development woo the countryside; small
early divorced from the eif neighbouring sites wee built form; there are no
al noise impact from neiood quality’ in the emploty urban form would conhanced through onsite
this site would be incongure) along Memorial Aveby grassland area on they and within CA, therefot of the Victoria Hospitato be done; potential aential development her
e; A ‘conserve and reinf
Site Allocations
ntary
Gateford CA; consider th
of a good quality employ; site is largely detacheng woodland; importantWood Grassland local wilresolved access constrai(protected species) ident of the site (P.A. 69/11
ng ‘good quality’ in the ealthough the extent of tf arable agricultural landre no landscape categoring built‐up area, keepinould result in significant l area of archaeological
existing built form; as it ere developed this site wo constraints affecting t
ighbouring industrial unoyment land study; lies aomplement the existing open space provision; p
gruent with the larger be. A block of apartmentse edge of the town centrore requiring careful conal and therefore may be ir quality issues due to tre will result in a loss of
orce’ LCA Policy Zone; h
Selection Proces
2
he setting of nearby
oyment site regarded as ed from existing built t to minimise impact on dlife site; potential nts, subject to layout ntified; a planning 1/00012).
employment land study this is limited by the d; within SPZ3 isation; residential ng employment protrusion away from interest to the west of
stands, the site is would then become a he site.
its; loss of employment adjacent to the CA, built character; Green potential
buildings s may, however, be re; three Grade II listed nsideration if contaminated. Site the proximity to town retail opportunity.
however, development
ss
23
S
2
WO
Site
15
15
21
195,& W
37
56
Site Allocations S
4
ORKSOP SITES
e ref
Community Su
pport
neigh
bourin
g land uses
51
53
18
, 343 W8
71
61
Selection Proces
Compatib
ility with
neigh
bourin
glan
duses
Economic b
enefits
ss
Agricu
ltural La
nd Class
SPZ
Landsca
pe Characte
r
Built C
haracte
r
Green In
frastructu
re
Unresolve
d co
nstrain
ts
of gredeor
Wedeto alo
AnbemucoaexiregcomInfnemi
Webutrethe
MiregdePologdeare
Mathe
Dequ
this site would complemeen open space. Howevevelopment may presentincorporate open space
ell screened from industvelopment next to empthe Triangle; loss of graong site boundary.
opportunity site with sten significantly reducedust be protected – potenal mining legacy, giving isting built form of Shiregard to residential/emplmmunity/recreational dfrastructure enhancemeed to be addressed and tigation of the traffic im
ell screened from industilt‐up area to the north;ees along the roadside, le west.
xed use site; sites 195 agarded as being ‘good qvelopment will incur somlicy Zone; will result in logical direction of growthvelopment to the west aea of contamination.
ajority support; Grade 3 e north of the site – unre
velopment would resultality’; separated from th
Comme
ment the existing form oer, conversely, this areat opportunities for enhae in the site layout.
trial area at Shireoaks Trloyment uses; logical sitssland area, although if
trong public support ford due to a large part of tntial impacts are unknowunique opportunities oneoaks. It should, howeveloyment development, wdevelopment may be moent potential with develoinclude a travel plan an
mplications.
trial area at Shireoaks Tr; loss of woodland area, oss of trees on site wou
nd 343 now being promuality’ in the employmeme loss of employment;oss of Grade 3 arable fah and continuation of theand employment up to t
ALC; site is divorced froesolved as yet.
t in loss of existing emplhe main built form of th
ntary
of Rhodesia; will result in suffers from antisocial ncement. Development
riangle, although will plate, extension of the existdeveloped should seek
r redevelopment; potenhe site being a local wildwn; ‘create’ LCA Policy Zn the site; the site is cleaer, be noted that these vwhile consultation commore appropriate here; sigopment of the site; accend s106 or CIL contributi
riangle; logical site, extedevelopment should se
uld be of detriment to th
moted together; majorityent land study, therefore; within SPZ3 (catchmenrmland; although a signe existing built form – pthe A57; northeast corn
om the existing built form
loyment land, although e village, although woul
n loss of large informal behaviour therefore t should look to retain
ace residential ting built‐up area, up to retain mature trees
tial site capacity has dlife site, therefore Zone – as a result of arly divorced from the views are strictly with ments suggest a gnificant Green ess constraints would on to enable
ension of the existing eek to retain mature he public open space to
y community support; e mixed use nt area); ‘create’ LCA nificant sized site, it is a roposing residential ner is identified as an
m; access required to
not identified as ‘good ld redevelop a large
WO
Site
56
56
56
56
57
58
W
ORKSOP SITES
e ref
Community Su
pport
neigh
bourin
g land uses
66
67
68
69
70
87
W1
Compatib
ility with
neigh
bourin
glan
duses
Economic b
enefits
Agricu
ltural La
nd Class
SPZ
Landsca
pe Characte
r
Built C
haracte
r
Green In
frastructu
re
Unresolve
d co
nstrain
ts
brotheprouplinA Ssoubrocou
Sm
Fobroadj
FobroLanrai
Norednothaacc
Nored
Smconbudisinfwit
Malocrel
ownfield site; separatede south/east; redevelopovision and ease of acceto highway adoption ste. Visibility at the junctioSection 106 or CIL contriught; the west of the sitownfield runoff rate shountryside a lower densit
mall corner, infill plot, rel
rmer garage site betweeownfield site; it is unlikejacent recreation groun
rmer garage site betweeownfield site; Green Infrne is maintained; a P.A. sed by NCC Highways.
o opinions expressed; fodevelopment of a brownobject to a small develoat sufficient parking andcess and egress in a forw
o opinions expressed; fodevelopment of a brown
maller parcel of land adjansidered separately fromilt form of Shireoaks andscreet character of this sformal open space, natuthin Shireoaks CA.
ajority support; Grade 3 cality; within SPZ3 (catchates well to other emplo
S
Comme
d by the railway line to thment could enhance Gress to Chesterfield Canaltandard. However, widthon wish Shireoaks Commibution to enable mitigate lies in FZ3 therefore liould be maintained; givety development may be
lates well to the existing
en houses; relates well tely that an adequate accd.
en houses; relates well trastructure enhancemenfor 9 dwellings has been
rmer garage site betweenfield site; whole area idopment of one or two dd manoeuvring space canward direction.
rmer garage site betweenfield site.
acent to the Marina site,m the wider surroundingd currently screened by site would be inapproprrally regenerated grassl
ALC; ‘conserve and creahment area); local wildlioyment uses in the area
Site Allocations
ntary
he north and the canal aeen Infrastructure throul towpath; access road wh is constrained by bothmon is restricted by the ation of the traffic implicmiting the developable en that the site appearsmore appropriate.
g form.
to existing built form; recess could be achieved w
to existing built form; rent potential if informal an submitted, but there h
en houses; relates well tdentified as being of arcwellings provided that in be made available on
en houses; relates well t
, an existing dwelling ang site; the site is isolatedtrees. Development thaiate; development wouland habitat and some m
ate’ LCA – not as sensitivfe site designated to thea around the A57, which
Selection Proces
2
and cricket ground to ugh new open space would require bringing the canal and railway adjacent public house. cations is likely to be area; the existing s to extend in to the
edevelopment of a without land from the
edevelopment of a access to the Rayton have been concerns
to existing built form; haeological interest; t can be demonstrated site to allow vehicular
to existing built form;
nd the canal – to be d from the existing at would change the ld result in loss of mature trees; the site is
ve as other sites in the e north of the site; h themselves are
ss
25
S
2
WO
Site
W
Gener
Site Allocations S
6
ORKSOP SITES
e ref
Community Su
pport
neigh
bourin
g land uses
W13
ral Notes:
While some site
for Worksop, v
improvements
Once develope
Mixed use sitetherefore not b
Selection Proces
Compatib
ility with
neigh
bourin
glan
duses
Economic b
enefits
es require that sp
isibility to be prov
and traffic statem
d, greenfield sites
e 4 & W9 and embeen assessed aga
ss
Agricu
ltural La
nd Class
SPZ
pecific access‐rela
vided as standard
ment.
s must maintain g
mployment site Wainst the screenin
Landsca
pe Characte
r
Built C
haracte
r
ted issues are add
d, on site highway
greenfield runoff
W12 have been g criteria.
Green In
frastructu
re
Unresolve
d co
nstrain
ts
rel
StrSPZchaweexieas
dressed, all sites m
layout to standa
rates
withdrawn, by t
atively well screened/co
rong support; on the edgZ3 (catchment area); anaracter of this green corest, into Worksop (whichisting employment uses st of the site limits the d
must be take acco
rd, residential tra
he landowners, f
Comme
oncealed; access to the
ge of the urban area, thny development on the srridor (of high landscapeh is a distinct characterisin the area and may bedevelopable area to 1.9h
ount of the major
vel plan, planning
from the Site All
ntary
site off the A57 will nee
erefore no negative landsite should maintain thee value) following the rivstic of Worksop’s landsc regarded as a gateway ha.
r transport study w
g contributions, o
ocations process
ed to be resolved.
dscape impact; within function and open ver and canal east to cape); a continuation of site; flood risk to the
with traffic mode
ff‐site
s. These sites hav
l
ve
RET
Site
1
3
6
7
TFORD SITES
e ref
Community Su
pport
neigh
bourin
g land uses
1
3
6
7
Compatib
ility with
neigh
bourin
glan
duses
Economic b
enefits
Agricu
ltural La
nd Class
SPZ
Landsca
pe Characte
r
Built C
haracte
r
Green In
frastructu
re
Unresolve
d co
nstrain
ts
Strcreeximi60surFZ3sugoff
StrrelRedemaconimvispro
Mato sigaloideass
Str(wsitebe casrisandepro
rong objection; would reeate’ LCA; development isting built form – only sddle third of the site hamph speed zone and thrrounding junctions wou3 to the west (next to thggest that surface waterf rates must be maintain
rong objection; grade 3 Aates well to the existingtford South CA and devevelopment would potenajority of the site is withnsideration with views fportant feature of the Cibility to the left is probotected.
ajority objection; grade the existing built form inificant number of treeongside the canal; pockeentified as being either wsessment would be requ
rong objection; grade 3aestern side) may be moe, especially if sites 46/3retained; access – variose of any ransom strips; k assessment would be d relationship with the bvelopment in this area ioblematic road junction
S
Comme
esult in loss of some Graof this site alone wouldsuitable if neighbouring s been identified as an aere is no footpath alonguld need assessing; the mhe land drain that runs sr drainage scheme incluned.
ALC; within a ‘conserve’g built form it lies withinelopment would result intially incur loss of matuin a CA. Comments suggfrom London Road over CA; new development wlematic due to the hum
3 ALC; within a ‘conservn this area; developmens currently on the site, aets of fluvial flooding acrwithin flood zone 1 and uired that looked as floo
a ALC; within a ‘conservere in keeping with the e309 are also developed; ous potential access poinFZ across the middle ofrequired that looked as built form only the wests likely to require contris.
Site Allocations
ntary
ade 2 agricultural land; wd be inappropriate as it isite 52 were also develoarea of archaeological ing the site frontage. This majority of the site is wiouth to north). Commeding SUDs will be requir
’ LCA; although the west the London Road charain loss of ‘key views’ outure trees and hedgerowsgest that this site requirthe nursery towards Grould likely interfere witp of the bridge; trees w
ve’ LCA; the site represent would be likely to resalthough has potential tross the site and the nor2. EA comments suggesod risk from all sources.
e’ LCA; partial developmexisting built form than dthe public right of way nts. These would have tf the site. EA comments flood risk from all sourctern two fields are consiibutions to the improve
Selection Proces
2
within a ‘conserve and s separated from the oped; identified – nterest; Site is in a needs addressing; the ithin FZ1, but bound by nts from the EA red and greenfield run
tern part of the site acter area of the t of the CA; s; ; unresolved – es very careful ove Park being an h this view; access – ith the CA are
nts a logical extension ult in loss of a o enhance access rth of the site is st that a flood risk
ment of the site developing the entire across the site should o be looked into in suggest that a flood ces; in light of flood risk dered appropriate; ment of existing
ss
27
S
2
RET
Site
1
2
2
3
4
Site Allocations S
8
TFORD SITES
e ref
Community Su
pport
neigh
bourin
g land uses
10
24
27
37
40
Selection Proces
Compatib
ility with
neigh
bourin
glan
duses
Economic b
enefits
ss
Agricu
ltural La
nd Class
SPZ
Landsca
pe Characte
r
Built C
haracte
r
Green In
frastructu
re
Unresolve
d co
nstrain
ts
Mathecomdemaidebe depo
Oplanquwitredacchais tthe
MareafroDecoulowhe
Strthedepro
Str‘codesho
ajority support; may rese south; development ofmplement the existing bvelopment; identified –ay be contamination issuentified as being either wrequired that looked asvelopment will maintainssible and must attenua
pportunity site – to be cond, adjacent to the railwality’ employment land,thin a ‘conserve’ LCA; thdevelopment would alsocessibility of the Chesters been confirmed Blacksthe primary use proposee site within FZ3b; conta
ajority support; current ar is grade 3 ALC; withinom the built form and wvelopment must be senuntryside; unresolved –w density character arearitage assets on/adjacen
rong objection; grade 2 Ae north of Retford wouldvelopment in this area ioblematic road junction
rong objection; developmonserve and create’ LCA;velopment to both the nould be limited to avoid
Comme
ult in residential develof an existing (albeit low built form; significant opsite has been in employues which would have towithin FZ1 and 2. EA coms flood risk from all sourn the current brownfieldate surface water on site
onsidered alongside siteway line; existing industri, development for housihe site is divorced from to enhance a derelict brorfield Canal to the northstope Lane can be upgraed) in principle; resolvedamination, although not
P.A. for development of a ‘conserve’ LCA; curreithin the White Houses nsitive to the character owithin Retford South CAa and Fairy Grove Nursent to the site.
ALC; within a ‘conserve’d complement the built s likely to require contris.
ment would result in los; the site is a logical extenorth and west, althougprotruding beyond the
ntary
pment adjacent to existquality) employment sitpportunity for Green Infryment uses for some timo be addressed; Parts ofmments suggest a flood rces. The FRA should alsod runoff rate, providing ae utilising SUDs.
e 44; majority objection;ial uses to the south; altng would result in loss othe existing built form, hownfield site; redevelopmh and area of grassland taded, therefore no objecd drainage problems; unthing that cannot be rem
f the half of the site fronntly occupied by NurserCharacter Area of the Loof the area and retain keA. Comments suggest thry is central to the chara
’ LCA; extension along thform; opposite to a graibutions to the improve
ss of Grade 3a agriculturension to the built formgh expansion to the eastexisting built form and
ting industrial uses to te; redevelopment will rastructure me and therefore there f the site have been risk assessment would o demonstrate that the a 20% reduction where
; previously developed though not ‘good of an industrial site; however, ment could enhance to the west; access – it ction to housing (which nresolved – majority of mediated.
nting London Road; ries; site is divorced ondon Road CA. ey views out across the hat White Houses is a acter area; other
his existing ‘corridor’ to de II listed farmhouse; ment of existing
ral land; within a with existing tern edge of the site into the green corridor
RET
Site
4
4
46 &
TFORD SITES
e ref
Community Su
pport
neigh
bourin
g land uses
41
44
& 309
Compatib
ility with
neigh
bourin
glan
duses
Economic b
enefits
Agricu
ltural La
nd Class
SPZ
Landsca
pe Characte
r
Built C
haracte
r
Green In
frastructu
re
Unresolve
d co
nstrain
ts
to nocontopwitisstheuti
StrLCAproregsathigloc
Oplande‘godeLanresbiositefor
Stransursoupoideaccim
the south of Retford. If rth; site is only likely to ntribute to enhancemenpography of the easternthin the developable areues, however, any devee site will maintain the clising SUDs.
rong objection; would reA; the site is a logical exominent protrusion in togarded as a ‘gateway’ totisfactory details of layoghway) and two points ocated directly off a classi
pportunity site – to be cond, adjacent to the railwvelopment would resultood quality’ employmenvelopment to be reasonne, although higher densult in loss of a large areodiversity value should bes; agreement with Envir 8 dwellings; unresolved
rong objection; site is bed 3a ALC; within a ‘consrrounding, particularly ifuthern part of the site stential for enhancemenentified in FZ2 and here cess – The Drive is a privprovement of existing p
S
Comme
developed the site shoube accessible through nnt of surrounding PROWn edge of the site does nea; the western part of tlopment to the east of tcurrent greenfield runof
esult in loss of Grade 2 atension of the existing eo the countryside than oo the south of Retford/Out access, parking and sof access would be requified road
onsidered along with sitway line; existing industrit in loss of existing busint land; within a ‘conservnably related to the existsity development may bea of grassland, hedgerobe assessed, given the uironment Agency over dd – majority of the site i
eing promoted together erve’ LCA; the site genef developed in conjunctihould come forward; mt on site or of neighbouthe flood risk from locavate road; development problematic road junctio
Site Allocations
ntary
uld form a continuation neighbouring site 52; devW network; borders FZ3, ot necessarily lend itselfthe site no known surfacthe site will require a FRff rate and can attenuate
agricultural land; within estate, although would cother similar nearby siteOrdsall; access constraintservicing (note: Brecks Laired for the proposed de
te 24; majority objectionial/derelict land to the nness use on site, althougve’ LCA; the site has potting linear form along Gbe less complementary; ws and trees, which althnique conditions associdrainage has been gaines identified within FZ3b
with site 309; lies adjacerally relates well to the ion with 309. If developinimal Green Infrastructring wildlife site; the nol watercourses should a in this area is likely to cons.
Selection Proces
2
of the form to the velopment may although the f logical inclusion ce water drainage RA demonstrating that e surface water on site
a ‘conserve and create’ create a more es; the site should be ts resolved subject to ane is not an adopted evelopment levels;
n; previously developed north; residential gh not regarded as ential for new rove Lane/Blackstope development would hough of unknown ated with brownfield d previously, but only .
cent to a LWS; Grade 2 built form ed alone only the ture impact although orth of the site has been lso be considered; contribute to
ss
29
S
3
RET
Site
51 &
5
5
6
7
Site Allocations S
0
TFORD SITES
e ref
Community Su
pport
neigh
bourin
g land uses
& R7
52
58
69
70
Selection Proces
Compatib
ility with
neigh
bourin
glan
duses
Economic b
enefits
ss
Agricu
ltural La
nd Class
SPZ
Landsca
pe Characte
r
Built C
haracte
r
Green In
frastructu
re
Unresolve
d co
nstrain
ts
ProproopqureideSSShigpybe
Strcrehoforbematopwitmacla
Ovdelim
StrLWideboRenepoof
Ovbo
oposed as a mixed use sovided employment/houportunity sites in Retforality employment land; nforce’ LCA; the site prevelopment must considSI and wider Idle Valley gh voltage power lines clons that cross the site cset to either side, creat
rong objection; would reeate’ LCA; developing thwever site 40 would relyrm, although expansion yond the existing built fay contribute to enhancepography of the easternthin the developable areaintained and can attenussified road (Ollerton Ro
verall support; roadside gvelopment would comp
mited value.
rong objection; grade 3 AWS to the south – the siteentification of further feundary in this part of Retford and detract from tgative impacts on biodivtential to enhance accesthe site is appropriate, a
verall support; scrublandundaries and River Idle
Comme
site; strong public suppousing are suitably separard, although developmeGrade 2 ALC; SPZ3 – witesents a logical continuaer the relative sensitivitnature reserve; area of ross the site in two sepaconsultation with Centrating a buffer zone; site d
esult in loss of Grade 3ahe site would only be appy on access through thisto the eastern edge of tform and into the green ement of surrounding Pn edge of the site does nea; FRA required to demuate surface water on sioad).
grass verge; site lies witplement the existing form
ALC; within a ‘conserve’e itself has now been deatures of interest; the Cetford. Development bethe existing built characversity and loss of ridge ss alongside the canal; galthough this would furt
d with railway lines runnat the eastern boundary
ntary
ort; largely compatible wated; one of the few goont will not result in any thin source catchment; ation of the existing buily of the nearby Sutton aarchaeology identified iarate places. With regaral Networks suggest thadrainage options to be co
agricultural land; withinpropriate if site 40 weres site; forms a logical extthe site should be limitecorridor to the south of
PROW network; site bordot necessarily lend itself
monstrate greenfield runite utilising SUD; located
thin built up area, on a rm, although result in los
’ LCA; adjacent to Chesteesignated as a LWS by NChesterfield Canal formsyond here would extendter; development wouldand furrow on the site given that the western ether detract from the bu
ning along the southern y; sandwiched between
with neighbouring uses, od quality employment loss of existing good within a ‘conserve & t form off North Road; and Lound Gravel Pits n northwest corner; rd to the 11kV and 33kV t development should onfirmed.
n a ‘conserve and e also developed, tension to the built ed to avoid protruding f Retford; development ders FZ3, although the f logical inclusion noff rates will be d directly off a
esidential street; ss of a green space of
erfield Canal LWS and a GBRC following the s a clear eastern d the built‐up area of d be likely to result itself, although has edge is FZ only the east uilt form.
and western areas of protected
RET
Site
7
259
33
34
36
37
48
TFORD SITES
e ref
Community Su
pport
neigh
bourin
g land uses
71
& R2
36
42
64
70
88
Compatib
ility with
neigh
bourin
glan
duses
Economic b
enefits
Agricu
ltural La
nd Class
SPZ
Landsca
pe Characte
r
Built C
haracte
r
Green In
frastructu
re
Unresolve
d co
nstrain
ts
opdefro
to
Maa mredforWe
Miscrwit36int
Ovangrethr
MaredInfof indres
Strdeexigai
Strthefooon
Str
en space; the site is incovelopment would interrontage is not considered
meet the proposed leve
ajority support; area of dmixture of housing and edevelopment would notrm; grassland of unknowest Carr Road, meaning
xed use site; strong oppreened from residential thin source catchment; 4 is developed – in ordeerest; access to the site
verall support; corner/ind within the setting of teen area of scrubland anrough the planning appl
ajority support; currentldevelopment of brownfifrastructure; the site is warchaeological interest; dicates that the site shousolved through the plan
rong objection; grade 2 Aveloped (to provide accisting estate); southern ined through a single‐la
rong objection; grade 3 Ae existing built form; Grootways, requiring significthe site and across the
rong objection; grade 3 A
S
Comme
ongruent with the built rupt the openness of thed to be public adopted h
els of growth. derelict scrubland, adjacemployment land; site ist be out of character it wwn ecological value; no eoffsite works would be
position; potential emploareas; eastern half is Grsite is divorced from theer to access the site; the off Brecks Road or thro
fill plot within built‐up ahe conservation area; dnd trees, although unknoication process.
y used as a bus depot, aield land will enhance bowithin the CA, in close pr under the BDC SFRA thuld therefore be discounning application process
ALC; may only be suitabess) or only the northerpart of the site of archaned access (Brecks Road
ALC; within a ‘conserve’ove Coach Road is not ocant improvement; signwider area; PROW runn
ALC; urban fringe site, c
Site Allocations
ntary
form, given that it is relae green corridor; access ighway and will need br
cent to railway lines to ts detached from other bwould not necessarily coexisting access though prequired.
oyment uses must be corade 2 ALC, western halfe existing built form; onmiddle third is an area
ough neighbouring sites
area; within the historic evelopment of the site wown biodiversity value;
although within a largelyoth the built form in theroximity to a listed builde whole site is within FZnted, subject to sequents.
ble for development if sitrn portion of the site (aceological interest; accesd) which is unsuitable or
’ LCA; development hereof adequate width to proificant concern relating ning to the north of the s
onsidered part of the ur
Selection Proces
3
atively detached; road along the station ringing up to standard
the east and south and buildings, so while mplement the existing
potential access from
ompatible with/well f Grade 3 ALC; SPZ3 – ly appropriate if site of archaeological to be addressed.
core of the settlement will result in loss of access to be resolved
y residential area; e area and Green ding and within an area Z2. Current Policy tial test; access to be
te 41 were also cessed from the ss would have to be r through site 41.
e would complement ovide access and lacks to drainage problems site.
rban area – no LCA
ss
31
S
3
RET
Site
48
51
51
53
Site Allocations S
2
TFORD SITES
e ref
Community Su
pport
neigh
bourin
g land uses
89
11
12
33
Selection Proces
Compatib
ility with
neigh
bourin
glan
duses
Economic b
enefits
ss
Agricu
ltural La
nd Class
SPZ
Landsca
pe Characte
r
Built C
haracte
r
Green In
frastructu
re
Unresolve
d co
nstrain
ts
claeveprireq
StrtheurbwhGraof 0.5acc
StrtheeddeWaacr
Strapto listvisto
Strwoseponcon
ssification; site borders en if neighbouring site 4nciple subject to satisfaquire improvements to B
rong objection; the site ie north, with access via ban area – no LCA classihile the adjacent plot coade II Listed Building to 5 properties including e5m of clearance from wacess may be achieved fr
rong objection; grade 3 Ae existing built form, whge of Retford; resolved tails of layout access, paay carriageway and footross the wider area;
rong objection; grade 2 Apropriate were the adjamaintain hedgerows anted farmhouse; Concernibility splays when exitinthe improvement of exi
rong objection; grade 2 Aould be a logical continuparation from the groupsite is grade II listed; nonsideration must be give
Comme
open countryside and d489 also developed; resoctory details of layout aBracken Way carriagewa
is bound by a primary sca narrow lane; Grade 3 fication; the site is somemprises low density devthe west of the site; accexisting dwellings subjecall/trees/hedges on eithom land to the east.
ALC; within a ‘conserve’hile being bordered by twaccess constraints – no arking and servicing. Wotway. significant concern
ALC; within a ‘conserve’cent site 37 also develod mature trees at the exns over the site, as is no ng the site; developmenisting problematic road j
ALC; within a ‘conserve’ation of the built form ap of farm buildings to theo objections to the extenen to overall road capac
ntary
does not relate well to tolved access constraintsaccess, parking and serviay and footway.
chool to the south and rALC; urban fringe site, cewhat divorced from thevelopments of large houcess maybe suitable to sct to a minimum drivewaher side being achieved.
’ LCA; development herewo lanes which form logobjection is principle suould also require improvn relating to drainage pr
’ LCA; this site would onoped; if developed measxisting field margins; opfootway connection to nt in this area is likely to junctions.
’ LCA; developing the soat the end of Durham Gre north should be maintnsion of the cul‐de‐sac, city.
he existing built form, s – no objection is icing. Would also
recreation ground to considered part of the e main built form, uses with large gardens; serve up to a maximum ay width of 4.25m with Although potential
e would complement gical boundaries to the ubject to satisfactory vements to Bracken roblems on the site and
ly be considered ures should be taken pposite to a grade II Retford and over require contributions
uthern part of the site rove, although tained; the farmhouse although detailed
Gener
ral Comments:
Sites require vimprovements.
As of April 201(under 3.7 met
NCC Education primary school
Although gradeindicates that t‘Best and Mostinformation bemore strictly.
visibility to be pr.
13, only high‐sideres) must use the
department has s in Retford, in co
e 3 agricultural lathe majority of tht Versatile Agriculeing made availab
rovided as standa
ed HGVs (greater e main road out of
indicated that sconjunction with th
nd typically scoree grade 3 land totural Land’ and thle for these sites
ard, on site high
than 7.5 tonnes)f Retford.
chool provision is he options genera
es an amber ratin the north east anhe NPPF‘s recommthan is available f
way layout to st
) are allowed to
not regarded as ated by different c
g in the Screeningnd to the south wmendations, thesefor most other sit
tandard, resident
use Tiln lane to a
a constraint. Impcombinations of s
g Methodology crwest of the town ie sites are regardtes across the dist
S
tial travel plans,
avoid the low bri
roved school facisites coming forwa
riteria, more detas grade 3a. As suced as being such.trict, it is conside
Site Allocations
planning contrib
idge at Welham.
lities can be delivard for developm
ailed survey workch, in line with DE Therefore, in lighred appropriate t
Selection Proces
3
utions and off‐sit
Lower sided HGV
vered in all existinent.
k on land in RetforEFRA’s definition ht of more detaileo apply the criter
ss
33
te
Vs
ng
rd of ed ria
S
3
HAR
Site
18
18
18
18
18
18621
187
18W
Site Allocations S
4
RWORTH BIRCO
e ref
Community Su
pport
neigh
bourin
g land uses
80
81
82
84
85
6 & 11
East
87 est
Selection Proces
OTES SITES
Compatib
ility with
neigh
bourin
glan
duses
Economic b
enefits
ss
Agricu
ltural La
nd Class
SPZ
Landsca
pe Characte
r
Built C
haracte
r
Green In
frastructu
re
Unresolve
d co
nstrain
ts
Masetof
CoStytowcha
Maexihearcfro
Macrit
Coexiresthe
Comemathi
Babesiteto curtopdecrothe
Babe
ajority objection to this tting to the historic corearchaeological remains;
mmunity support; althoyrrup Road this type of dwards the A1 and wouldance of archaeological r
ajority objection to this isting, suburban estate odgerow coverage; provichaeological interest, thom being suitable for ho
ajority of the site has beteria.
mmunity support; locatisting built form; develosolved access constrainte neighbouring school.
mmunity support; deveedium‐high chance of arap and record of conditis site.
lanced public opinion ontween the character of te to the southeast woulthe east of Whitehouserrently provides to the bpography with a clear chvelopment spilling over op‐marks of field and poe site; resolved access co
lanced public opinion ontween the character of t
Comme
site; developing this sitee of the village and a num; loss of a greenfield site
ough potentially a logicadevelopment would perd not be in keeping with remains; access constrai
site; bound by Tickhill Roff Baulk Lane; large areding that the developmere are no other knownusing.
een identified as a LWS,
ted next to the school; dpment should seek to rets. Development of the s
lopment of the site wourchaeological remains. Bon; access dependent u
n the site; the size of thethe western and easternd be a significant protru Plantation (LWS) is likebuilt‐up area from the ehange in character. Despthe ridgeline would hav
ossible settlement remaionstraints.
n the site; the size of thethe western and eastern
ntary
e would infill a green wember of listed buildings;e with views out of the v
l extension of existing lipetuate a linear extensithe built form of the sents resolved.
Road to the west, a largeea of agricultural land went would not conflict wn constraints which wou
therefore is discounted
development of the site etain existing mature tresite may impact on the i
uld complement the exisBecause of Crop‐marks –pon Site 211 also being
e site means there is a cn parts of the site; the pusion away from the buily to negate the strong vast. The woodland markpite the ‘create’ landscave more of a prominent ins – likely to be significa
e site means there is a cn parts of the site; to th
edge that forms the ; medium‐high chance village.
near form along on to the southwest ttlement; medium‐high
e site adjoining the ith limited tree or with the area of ld prevent the site
under the SHLAA
would complement theees and hedgerows; mprovement plans for
sting built form; – likely to need strip brought forward with
clear distinction potential extent of the lt form; development visual screening it ks a change in the pe designation, landscape impact; ant archaeology across
clear distinction e west lies Plumbtree
HAR
Site
19
19
19
193
19
RWORTH BIRCO
e ref
Community Su
pport
neigh
bourin
g land uses
90
91
92
East
93
OTES SITES
Compatib
ility with
neigh
bourin
glan
duses
Economic b
enefits
Agricu
ltural La
nd Class
SPZ
Landsca
pe Characte
r
Built C
haracte
r
Green In
frastructu
re
Unresolve
d co
nstrain
ts
indemcomto cou
Baresaltcurcolcolno
BatheproDoupalopo
Baemupthemasapremwidat
Suhisthecon
Su
dustrial estate (employmmployment opportunitiemplement the existing cbe significant archaeolould be accessed from a s
lanced opinion; lies to tstrict future employmenhough set adjacent to thrrently provides a signifilliery/industrial estates; lliery industrial archaeolrth of the site has been
lanced public opinion; de countryside were the tominent on the ridgelineoversdale Wood is likely area from the southeas
ong the disused railway ssible settlement remai
lanced public opinion; limployment land in the Loareas, although does noe site forming part of a gaintained; would involvepling plantation) and sigmains. Close to the Desedth of 4.8m, poor visibilpresent, but potential to
pport for the site; two dstoric core, although deve existing built form; menstraints.
pport for the site; two d
S
Comme
ment land study identifies; extension on the fringcharacter; crop‐marks ofogy across the site; Highsingle entrance/exit at t
he north of colliery site nt expansion; significanthe colliery site will enhaicant green buffer betwlow‐medium chance of logy; majority of the siteidentified as a landfill si
distinctly separate from topography falls away, me when looking from theto negate the strong visst; potential loss of/harmline; a high chance of arns‐ likely to be significan
ies to the west of Plumbocal Plan, although did not relate particularly wegreen wedge running in e loss of a large expansegnificant lengths of hedgerted Medieval Village oity onto the junction wito use the adjacent land.
distinct character areas –velopment along the roaedium‐high chance of ar
distinct character areas –
Site Allocations
ntary
es Plumbtree as a good sges of the existing built‐f field and possible settlways indicate that no mthe southern‐most point
– development of south greenfield extension ofance the built character een existing residential f archaeological remainse has been identified as ite.
the existing built form ameaning that developme south and west; develsual screening it currentm to woodland, althougrchaeological remains. Cnt archaeology across th
btree industrial estate –not come forward; the sell to the existing built foto the centre of the tow of open green space, wgerow; medium‐high chaof Plumbtree; access via th Bawtry Road. Not sup.
– east and west; easternadside would be reasonarchaeological remains; re
– east and west; develop
Selection Proces
3
site), giving local up area would ement remains – likely
more than 150 homes t.
h/east of this site may f the residential area, of the locality; site areas and the s – possibility of pre‐being contaminated;
and protruding out into ent would be opment east of ly provides to the built‐h may enhance access Crop‐marks of field and he site.
previously allocated as ite lies between built‐orm to the west, with wn, which should be with trees (including ance of archaeological private drive with pported by Highways,
n area falls within the ably compatible with esolved access
pment on the western
ss
35
S
3
HAR
Site
W
19
20423
20
20
20
35
35
Site Allocations S
6
RWORTH BIRCO
e ref
Community Su
pport
neigh
bourin
g land uses
est
94
4 & 32
05
06
07
58
59
Selection Proces
OTES SITES
Compatib
ility with
neigh
bourin
glan
duses
Economic b
enefits
ss
Agricu
ltural La
nd Class
SPZ
Landsca
pe Characte
r
Built C
haracte
r
Green In
frastructu
re
Unresolve
d co
nstrain
ts
sidtheChthe
CleconarcRo
Ovdehiscoufro
Clenores
Clenowopewitres
Cleheroakeecon
Clenoremim
Cleno
de would affect the settie historic core of the villurch to the south of thee Listed Buildings nearby
ear objection to the site;nsistent with recent devchaeological remains; read to be extended.
verall support; although sign must be sensitive tostoric core; medium‐highuld be gained from BAS0om Bramble Road throug
ear support for this site; ise; development on thesidential character; reso
ear support for this site; ise; separated from exisould be incongruent withrpetuate a linear extensth the built form of the ssolved.
ear support for this site; re would be prominent ad would perpetuate a leping with the built formnstraints resolved.
ear support for this site; ise; distinctly separatedmains; access constraintprovements.
ear support for this site; ise; medium‐high chanc
Comme
ng of heritage assets anage; medium‐high chane site – design of any schy; resolved access const
; development would exvelopments along Bawtresolved access constrain
a logical extension of buo the setting of nearby lh chance of archaeologi0180 and BAS0232 (withgh previous applications
lies adjacent to A1M –e northern/eastern half olved access constraints.
lies adjacent to A1M –sting built form by a fieldh existing form; If only psion to the southwest tosettlement; high chance
railway line runs along extension in to the couninear extension to the sm of the settlement; hig
lies adjacent to A1M – from existing built‐up ats relating to visibility, la
lies adjacent to A1M –ce of archaeological rem
ntary
nd result in loss of open nce of archaeological remheme on the site would traints; TPOs to northea
xtend the built form beyry Road; medium‐high cnts, but would require th
uilt form would partiallylisted buildings and extecal remains; resolved achin same ownership). Acs 61/02/00022.
Environmental Health cof the site would comp
Environmental Health cd and the cemetery, devpartially developed alongowards the A1 and woule of archaeological rema
southern boundary; higntryside; If only partiallysouthwest towards the Agh chance of archaeolog
Environmental Health carea; medium chance ofayout, planning contribu
Environmental Health cmains; revised highways c
character surrounding mains; Grade II Listed have to be sensitive to st of the site.
yond in a manner hance of he footpath on Bawtry
y infill a green wedge; ending out in to the ccess constraints – ccess has been agreed
oncerns relating to lement existing
oncerns relating to veloping the entire site g the road would d not be in keeping ains; access constraints
gh density development y developed along the A1 and would not be in ical remains; access
oncerns relating to f archaeological utions and offsite
oncerns relating to constraints, relating to
HAR
Site
H
H
Gener
RWORTH BIRCO
e ref
Community Su
pport
neigh
bourin
g land uses
H4
H6
ral Comments
Grade 3 agricul
Site 188 has be
Once develope
Sites require vi
To the east of t
ridgeline would
To the west, ‘O
historic charact
OTES SITES
Compatib
ility with
neigh
bourin
glan
duses
Economic b
enefits
ltural land surrou
een removed as it
d, greenfield sites
sibility to be prov
the town there is
d significantly alte
Old Harworth’ has
ter
Agricu
ltural La
nd Class
SPZ
nding Harworth B
is no longer avail
s must maintain g
vided as standard,
a distinct change
er the character o
a distinct historic
Landsca
pe Characte
r
Built C
haracte
r
Bircotes
lable for housing
greenfield runoff
, on site highway
in topography as
f the surrounding
c core – the form Green In
frastructu
re
Unresolve
d co
nstrain
ts
jun
Clewitenextarecon
Cledetheacc
rates
layout to standar
s land drops away
g landscape, with
of which is desira
nction at Common Lane.
ear support for this site; th excellent A1 links andhancement opportunitietension into the countryea; loss of a significant anstraints, subject to acc
ear support for this site; velopment of this site; de nearby A1M junction acess issues being addres
rd, planning contr
towards the A61
the built form pro
able to retain and
S
Comme
.
employment land capad no negative impacts ones associated with deveyside this area representarea of agricultural land ess issues being address
within SPZ3; landscape divorced from the settleand other transport linkssed through a planning
ibutions and off‐s
4. Developing bey
otruding in to the
avoid further dev
Site Allocations
ntary
city study identifies thisn Harworth Bircotes; wilopment of this site; altts a logical extension of with some woodland; nsed through a planning a
enhancement opportunement itself, although has; no outstanding constrapplication.
site improvement
yond the woodlan
e countryside.
velopment that w
Selection Proces
3
s as a good quality site, thin SPZ3; landscape hough a significant the existing industrial o outstanding application.
nities associated with as excellent access to raints, subject to
ts
nd that covers the
would erode the
ss
37
e
S
3
TUXFO
Site re
114
115
117
119
121
122
123
Site Allocations S
8
ORD SITES
ef.
Community Su
pport
neigh
bourin
g land uses
4
7
9
1
2
Selection Proces
Compatib
ility with
neigh
bourin
glan
duses
Economic b
enefits
ss
Agricu
ltural La
nd Class
SPZ
Landsca
pe Characte
r
Built C
haracte
r
Green In
frastructu
re
Unresolve
d co
nstrain
ts
StroWitEldgre
Balon res
Supreshinunr
No devandpot
Balestminlimtrav
Maonllansitelikeboulay
Supimparcof s
ong community supportthin Mill Mount characton Street; new developeen space.
anced public opinion; addevelopment; grade 2 Aolvable access constrain
pport for the site; withinult in loss of key views oterlands; loss of open faresolved with EA, sugges
public opinion; within Mvelopment, fronting Eldod be of a high quality detential loss of some hedg
anced public opinion; laate; Grade 2/3 ALC (G2 nimal impact on built foited hedgerow coveragevel plan required.
ajority public support; soy comments received exd, development would re (Policy CS6) – potentiaely to complement existiundaries, however, not out, residential travel pl
pport for the site; overgpact on CA of introducinhaeology value; northersignificant number of tre
Comm
t; wasteland site; a gap ser area of Tuxford CA, cment is considered likel
djacent to A1 – EnvironmALC; divorced from mainnts – new footway, resid
n Lincoln Road characterout of CA; Loss of a lineaarmland, limited hedgersting only southern 2/3
Mill Mount character areon St; new developmentsign; development heregerows.
arge greenfield extensiocloser to built form, G3 rm as it is bordered by ae; resolvable access con
outhern border adjacentxpressed support; althoresult in loss of potential for a mixed use scheming built form; unknownpublicly accessible; resolan required.
rown, not in arable use;ng access onto Eldon St; rn edge within FZ3 – EA ees and hedgerows; reso
mentary
site contributing to the haracterised by low deny to harm the significan
mental Health raised con settlement area; loss odential travel plan requir
r area of Tuxford CA; dear street pattern, puncturow coverage; northern are suitable
ea of Tuxford CA, characts should complement te should comprise a cont
n; northern part close tofurther out); divorced fa railway line and road; straints – visibility, high
t to industrial estate; ovugh not regarded as ‘goal expansion opportunityme; extension of a modern biodiversity value witholvable access constraint
; within CA, density maydevelopment likely to hadvise no developmentolvable access constrain
open character of the Cnsity development, fronce of the CA; loss of nat
ncerns about noise impof significant hedgerowsred.
velopment here would uated with view across rpart of site within FZ3 –
cterised by low density the historic form and matinuation of linear form;
o railway line and industrom settlement with loss of open farmland, way layout, residential
vergrown wasteland; theood quality’ employmeny for existing Lodge Lanern housing estate wouldh mature hedgerows at ts – visibility, highway
y be a concern, as well aharm the landscape and t in this area; potential lnts – visibility, highway
A; ting tural
acts s;
rural –
ass ;
trial
e t e d be
s
oss
TUXFO
Site re
124
126
127
130
233
235
ORD SITES
ef.
Community Su
pport
neigh
bourin
g land uses
4
6
7
0
Compatib
ility with
neigh
bourin
glan
duses
Economic b
enefits
Agricu
ltural La
nd Class
SPZ
Landsca
pe Characte
r
Built C
haracte
r
Green In
frastructu
re
Unresolve
d co
nstrain
ts
lay
Baldenforgrepla
No chavalimphed
No locresrurFZ3
Objdevchadenbio
No Conlayproaccof a
No Tuxforlanresbei
out, residential travel pl
anced public opinion; wnsity development, fronm; new development is eenfield site with extensn required.
public opinion; railwayaracter area of Tuxford ue; potential to compleportant to maintain stdgerow along western b
public opinion; southweally listed buildings; Witult in loss of key views oal hinterlands; loss of op3 reduces the developab
jection to the site; adjacvelopment; near to locaaracterised by low densinsity would be a concernodiversity value; resolved
public opinion; adjacenservation Area, as idenout and high quality maovided that existing lineacess can be achieved wita hedgerow.
public opinion; railway xford CA; part of site of am depending on densitydscape and archaeologyidential infill/conversionng contaminated
S
Comm
lan required.
within Mill Mount characting Eldon St; local interconsidered likely to harive mature hedgerows;
y line runs along southeCA; developing this sitement or detract from trong linear woodland boundary; access from N
est corner of archaeologthin Lincoln Road characout of the CA; Loss of a lpen farmland, although ble area.
cent to A1 – Environmenl listed building; within Mty development, divorcen; site currently garden d access constraints.
ent to CA; developing ntified in the Appraisal, aaterials; potential loss oar form is maintained; Itth suitable visibility spla
line along southern bouarchaeological interest; y of development, althoy value; access from Newns (maybe 3 or 4 dwellin
Site Allocations
mentary
cter area of Tuxford CA, rest building on site; divrm the significance of thresolvable access const
ern boundary; Grade 2 Ate is likely to harm the built form depending oalong southern bound
Newcastle Street identifi
gical interest; developmcter area of Tuxford CA; inear street pattern, pulimited hedgerow cove
ntal Health raised conceMill Mount character ared from existing built foland/grazing – unlikely t
this site is likely to haalthough the site may bof trees and hedgerowst would have to be demoays due to the narrow f
undary; within Egmantopotential to complemeugh developing this sitewcastle Street would onngs); small parcel of land
Selection Proces
3
characterised by low vorced from existing builhe CA; loss of large raints –residential trave
ALC; within Egmanton Rlandscape and archaeoon density of developmdary and extensive maed as unsuitable.
ment should take accoundevelopment here wounctuated with view acrorage; northern edge wit
erns about noise impactsrea of Tuxford CA, orm, impact on existing lto be of significant
arm the significance ofbe suitable subject to de; potential logical extenonstrated that a satisfacfootway width and pres
n Road character area ont or detract from built e is likely to harm the nly be suitable for limitedd to the east identified a
ss
39
lt
el
Road ology ment; ature
t of uld oss thin
s on
low‐
f the sign, nsion ctory ence
of
d as
S
4
TUXFO
Site re
490
492
493
494
495
518
Gener
Site Allocations S
40
ORD SITES
ef.
Community Su
pport
neigh
bourin
g land uses
0
2
4
8
ral Comments:
Tuxford lies wit
Selection Proces
Compatib
ility with
neigh
bourin
glan
duses
Economic b
enefits
thin a ‘conserve a
ss
Agricu
ltural La
nd Class
SPZ
and reinforce’ land
Landsca
pe Characte
r
Built C
haracte
r
dscape Policy Zon
Green In
frastructu
re
Unresolve
d co
nstrain
ts
OveemLodalthTuxcouto e
Pubmaetc
ObjarcpunCA;trav
Objtheexi
Supexipotchalinesign
Objdespot
ne – Mid Nottingh
erall support; industrial ployment land, developdge Lane site (Policy CS6hough may be a logical exford; pylons cross the suld be provided and a buexisting access arrangemblic support; lies on edgey detract if allocated alo on a naturally regenera
jection to the site; gradehaeological interest; witnctuated by gaps and vie; development here wouvel plan required
jection to the site; gardee existing built form; allosting small grouping of b
pport for development; sting built form, existingtential loss of trees, hedaracterised by low densiear form along the roadsnificance of the CA; reso
jection to the site; gardesigned continuation of ttentially a continuation
hamshire Farmlan
Comm
estate to south and wespment would result in lo6) – potential for a mixedextension could accommsite; must be demonstraus service will be needements and potentially a
e of CA; naturally regenone but may work in conated site; road access ne
e II Listed building to thethin CA; existing built foews across the countrysuld result in loss of key v
en land; isolated site proocating only a small partbuildings; resolvable acc
adjacent to electricity sg new development maydgerows and grassland; Wty development; shouldside; higher density newolvable access constraint
en land; within Egmantohe linear form exhibitedof existing linear form
ds MN11
mentary
st; although not regardeoss of potential expansiod use scheme; large greemodate more developmeated that good pedestriad to serve the site. Imprfurther access from Ash
erated BF site; separatenjunction with 495; loss eeds upgrading
e south of the site (42 Liorm comprises linear groside; Within Lincoln Roaviews; resolvable access
otruding away from, thet of the site may enable cess constraints – reside
ubstation; rough grazingy conflict with low densiWithin Mill Mount charad only allocate part of thw development is considts – residential travel pl
on Road character area od on the adjacent row of
ed as ‘good quality’ on opportunity for existienfield extension whichent than is required in an and cycling connectivrovements will be needeh Vale Road will be requed from existing built forof dense trees, hedgero
incoln Road) and of oupings of farm buildingd character area of Tuxfs constraints – residentia
erefore incongruent withappropriate replication ential travel plan require
g land; divorced from ity, linear character; acter area of Tuxford CAhe site – a continuation odered likely to harm the an required
of Tuxford CA; a sensitivf houses may be suitable
ng
vity ed ired.
rm, ows
gs, ford al
h of ed
A, of
vely e;
Grade 2 agricul
Once develope
Sites require vi
Public feedback
important to no
ltural land surrou
d, greenfield sites
sibility to be prov
k on sites in Tuxfo
ote that only 16 r
nding Tuxford
s must maintain g
vided as standard,
ord was very limit
espondents offer
greenfield runoff
, on site highway
ted. Although site
red comments on
rates
layout to standar
s have been score
the general suita
rd, planning contr
ed in accordance
bility of sites in th
S
ibutions and off‐s
with the ‘commu
he town
Site Allocations
site improvement
nity support’ crite
Selection Proces
4
ts
erion it is
ss
41
S
4
BEC
Site
10
10
10
10
20
45
49
Site Allocations S
42
CKINGHAM SITES
e ref
Community Su
pport
neigh
bourin
g land uses
01
05
06
07
03
51
96
Selection Proces
S
Compatib
ility with
neigh
bourin
glan
duses
Economic b
enefits
ss
Agricu
ltural La
nd Class
SPZ
Landsca
pe Characte
r
Built C
haracte
r
Green In
frastructu
re
Unresolve
d co
nstrain
ts
MaExihoweThaccfac
Mabuof sitearcma
MasiglowStaforarcob
Ovlogme
Ovcomremtrabu
Ovforresfro
Ma
ajority community suppoisting employment uses uses to the north, this sestern side of the A631 dere is a Historical Envirocess constraints, althougcilities into the village w
ajority community suppoilt form and would be inLow Street – within the e 203 were it not for thechaeological remains. Thay have Medieval origins
ajority objection to site dnificantly from the existw density, loosely linear ation Road may be appror the village only the souchaeological remains. Thscure any earlier archae
verall support for develogical completion to the sedium chance of archaeo
verall support for develomplement the existing cmoval of modern farm baditional agricultural buiildings are marked on th
verall support for develorm, with linear extensionsult in loss of hedgerowsontage. ajority objection to site d
Comme
ort; brownfield site; commay otherwise generatite is divorced from the dual carriageway; mediuonment Record entry forgh the junction with Woill need looking at.
ort; considered separatencongruent with the exishistoric core of the sette two having very differihe buildings are markeds.
development; developmting form in the historic form along Low St/Statopriate; because of the uthern part should be cohere is a ridge and furroeology.
opment; the site is bounsouthern end of the morological remains.
opment; the site effectivcharacter of the historic buildings may enhance tldings grouping; mediumhe Chapman Map of 177
opment; this site would bns along the eastern ands and cultivated land; ac
development; adjacent
ntary
mpatible if the site is devte conflicts; despite the main built form, due toum‐high chance of archar the site recording eartood Lane would need as
ely from site 203, this sisting low density, linear tlement; the site could hing characteristics; med on the Chapman Map o
ment of the entire site wcore of the village, whicion Road. Developmentscale of the site and levonsidered; medium‐highw feature which may m
d by roads on all sides are recent developments
vely comprises an infill pcore if built at an approhe historic core, especiam‐high chance of archae74 and therefore may ha
be a logical extension ofd western boundaries; dccess – footway works re
to A631 dual carriagewa
veloped in its entirety. ribbon development of o being located on the aeological remains. hworks; resolved sessing and pedestrian
te is divorced from the character to the east
have been merged with ium‐high chance of of 1774 and therefore
would detract ch currently comprises t along the frontage of vel of growth proposed h chance of ean that this would
and has potential as a s in the village; low‐
lot which could opriate density; ally if designed as a eological remains. The ave Medieval origins. f the existing built development would equired at the
ay; this site is divorced
BEC
Site
49
Gener
CKINGHAM SITES
e ref
Community Su
pport
neigh
bourin
g land uses
97
ral Comments:
All agricultural
The village lies
Sites require vi
Once develope
S
Compatib
ility with
neigh
bourin
glan
duses
Economic b
enefits
land surrounding
within a ‘conserv
sibility to be prov
d, greenfield sites
Agricu
ltural La
nd Class
SPZ
g the village is Gra
ve’ landscape Polic
vided as standard,
s must maintain g
Landsca
pe Characte
r
Built C
haracte
r
ade 3.
cy Zone – Mid‐No
, on site highway
greenfield runoff
Green In
frastructu
re
Unresolve
d co
nstrain
ts
froanBe
Ovprotheenfro
ottinghamshire Fa
layout to standar
rates.
om existing built‐up aread cultivated land; the viecher Lane (effectively o
verall support for develoovides a logical extensioe site; Church Street is nable further developmeom the existing access.
armlands MN03
rd, planning contr
S
Comme
as within the village; devllage burial ground is adonly a track), to the east
opment; site would compon to the built form; an anot adopted therefore iment off this access road o
ibutions and off‐s
Site Allocations
ntary
velopment would result djacent to the site; accest.
prise redevelopment of area of archaeological inmprovement works wouor to allow an limited nu
site improvement
Selection Proces
4
in loss of hedgerows ss may be gained off
a farmstead; this site nterest is to the east of uld be required to umber of dwellings
ts.
ss
43
S
4
BLY
Site
17
21
21
26
36
51
Site Allocations S
44
YTH SITES
e ref
Community Su
pport
neigh
bourin
g land uses
78
13
14
66
69
17
Selection Proces
Compatib
ility with
neigh
bourin
glan
duses
Economic b
enefits
ss
Agricu
ltural La
nd Class
SPZ
Landsca
pe Characte
r
Built C
haracte
r
Green In
frastructu
re
Unresolve
d co
nstrain
ts
Stra ‘alolimarcMe
CocorapchaeledeCo
Ovthededudedemesou
OvZodedetheresrem
OvdeMibe
Ba
rong community supporreinforce’ landscape Polong the roadside would mited by flood risk; develchaeological remains. Sitedieval settlement, inclu
mmunity support; gradere of the settlement – ppropriate, but given thearacter of the village; mectricity pylons run diagovelopable area. Howevettage occupies this land
verall community suppore eastern edge of the sitvelopable by Environmee to green wedge that rveloped on the road frovelopment of this scale edium chance of archaeouthern part of the site; r
verall community objectine; the eastern edge of velopment immediatelyvelopment of this site we west; development of sult in loss of an area usmains; resolved access c
verall community supporvelopment would be in ll Meadow View, to the ing within FZs 2/3 and e
lanced public opinion; li
Comme
t; a potentially prominelicy Zone; lies adjacent tbe compatible with the lopment may result in lote has high potential foruding waterlogged rema
e 3 ALC; within a ‘conseartial development of the scale of the site develoedium‐high chance of aonally across the site, mer, this part of the site d.
rt; grade 3 ALC; within ate lies adjacent to the A1ental Health; the site is lruns between High St anontage may provide a logwould offer opportunityological remains; unresoresolved access constrai
ion; grade 3 ALC; withinthe site lies adjacent toy adjacent to the site is owould complement that the site would impact ned as an informal open constraints.
rt; grade 4 ALC; within akeeping with the way otwest; reduced developa
extends in to the garden
ies adjacent to the A1 ov
ntary
ent gateway site; currentto the village CA; only linexisting built form, whioss of mature trees; veryr archaeological remainsains.
rve’ landscape Policy Zohe northern section of topment in its entirety worchaeological remains; u
making the northeast coroes not front on to Spita
a ‘conserve and create’ l1 flyover, therefore not argely divorced from thnd the A1, to the north, hgical continuation of they for green infrastructurolved – large electricity ints.
n a ‘conserve and create’ the A1 flyover; while thof a linear form, along thon the other side of thenegatively upon a PROWspace; low‐medium cha
a ‘reinforce’ landscape Pther small developmentable area due to northes of neighbouring prope
verpass; grade 3 ALC; w
tly garden land; within near development le the east of the site is y high chance of s associated with
one; within the historic he site would be ould harm the unresolved – large rner the only al Road as Woodside
andscape Policy Zone; considered e rest of the village however, if partially e existing linear form; a re enhancement; low‐pylons run through the
’ landscape Policy he character of he roadside, e recreation ground, to W across the site and ance of archaeological
Policy Zone; ts have built up along rn edge of the site erties.
ithin a ‘conserve and
BLY
Site
58
59
Gener
YTH SITES
e ref
Community Su
pport
neigh
bourin
g land uses
89
90
ral Comments:
Sites require vi
Site 482 has be
Once develope
Environmental located further
Compatib
ility with
neigh
bourin
glan
duses
Economic b
enefits
sibility to be prov
een removed as th
d, greenfield sites
Health raised stror away from the fl
Agricu
ltural La
nd Class
SPZ
vided as standard,
he entire site is w
s must maintain g
ong concerns aboyover.
Landsca
pe Characte
r
Built C
haracte
r
, on site highway
ithin FZ3.
greenfield runoff
out development
Green In
frastructu
re
Unresolve
d co
nstrain
ts
cresiteroaThListheaccthe
OvPobuadj2/3
MaPocrewoof theno
layout to standar
rates.
sites located imm
eate’ landscape Policy Zoe this would create a sizadside inappropriate, ase A1 bridge clearly markted Building to the norte site frontage, will requcess from Retford Road,e site.
verall community supporlicy Zone; development ilt up along Mill Meadowjoining site (369); reduc3 and extends in to the g
ajority support; site lies licy Zone; given that theeate a gap which would ould be incongruent withhigher density building e site boundary; Grade Ifurther development ar
rd, planning contr
mediately adjacent
S
Comme
one; given that the A1 wzeable gap which would s it would be incongruenks the boundary of higheh (Mill Farmhouse) of thuire improving. A right tu, and the 30mph speed l
rt; lies adjacent to the Awould be in keeping wiw View, to the west; theed developable area dugardens of neighbouring
adjacent to the A1 flyove A1 would prohibit devemake even linear develoh the built form to the eareas in Blyth; developmI Listed Building to the eround Mill Farm
ibutions and off‐s
t to the A1. As suc
Site Allocations
ntary
would prohibit developmmake even linear develnt with the built form oper density building areashe site; access – the footurn lane may be requirelimit will require extend
A1; grade 4 ALC; within ath the way other small de site would have to be ae to northern edge of thg properties.
ver; grade 4 ALC; within elopment to the west ofopment along the roadseast. The A1 bridge clearment will result in loss oeast of the site; Conserv
site improvement
ch, there is a pref
Selection Proces
4
ment to the west of the opment along the pposite, to the north. s in Blyth; Grade II tway into Blyth, across ed to provide safe ing to a point north of
a ‘reinforce’ landscape developments have accessed through the he site being within FZs
a ‘reinforce’ landscape f the site this would side inappropriate, as it rly marks the boundary f mature trees along vation preference for
ts.
ference for sites
ss
45
S
4
CUC
Site
30
39
39
Gener
Site Allocations S
46
CKNEY SITES
e ref
Community Su
pport
neigh
bourin
g land uses
03
98
99
ral Comments:
Sites require vi
Once develope
The village lies
Selection Proces
Compatib
ility with
neigh
bourin
glan
duses
Economic b
enefits
sibility to be prov
d, greenfield sites
within a ‘conserv
ss
Agricu
ltural La
nd Class
SPZ
vided as standard,
s must maintain g
ve’ landscape Polic
Landsca
pe Characte
r
Built C
haracte
r
, on site highway
greenfield runoff
cy Zone – Sherwo
Green In
frastructu
re
Unresolve
d co
nstrain
ts
CothewoLisarefroconpla
Coapto resad
Cograwitthe
layout to standar
rates.
ood SH29
mmunity objection; alloe impact of developing tould result in loss of an ated Building to the soutea of archaeological inteontage; the EA advise thansidered to allow for essace.
mmunity support; gradepropriate, although beinthe south and southwessolved access constraintequate visibly.
mmunity support; gradeain opposite (south,) aloth the surrounding builte boundary; Grade II Lis
rd, planning contr
Comme
otment site – no ALC; Cothis historic open space;allotments site on the edh of the site; land to theerest; Footway improvemat an easement from thsential maintenance and
e 3 ALC; very low densitng located within the CAst; entire site is within at – some of the site front
e 2 ALC; sensitive, low dong the roadside sectiont form; development shosted Buildings to the we
ibutions and off‐s
ntary
onservation have expres; although currently not dge of the village recreae south of the site has bments are likely to be nee nearby River Poulter wd to allow natural river p
y development on the sA and in the setting of Gn identified area of archtage would need to be d
density development, man of the site would be likould ensure retention ofst of the site; located on
site improvement
sed strong concerns of in use, development
ation ground; Grade II een identified as an ecessary across the site watercourse should be processes to take
site may be rade II Listed Buildings haeological interest; dedicated to provide
aintaining the urban ely to be compatible f existing trees along n the edge of the CA.
ts.
EAS
Site
10
10
11
11
11
ST MARKHAM SI
e ref
Community Su
pport
neigh
bourin
g land uses
08
09
10
11
12
ITES
Compatib
ility with
neigh
bourin
glan
duses
Economic b
enefits
Agricu
ltural La
nd Class
SPZ
Landsca
pe Characte
r
Built C
haracte
r
Green In
frastructu
re
Unresolve
d co
nstrain
ts
Ovexi(alremthethebe
Clesomadjchawo
CleGracrocon
Baadjof anis froafooint
Ovadjwoforroacloaccwhad
verall support; site is curisting built form on Beckbeit not publicly accessimains; adjacent to the ce north, although this she road has been developrequired as least 2m wi
ear support; grade 2 ALCmewhat separate from ojacent site (110) is also dance of archaeological rould need to be provided
ear support; although grade 2 land; the site relatossroads to the west, lownservation area; ; footw
lanced opinion; the eastjoins the railway line; githis site, we have concey development even jusfeasible; development wadside hedgerows and motway would need to beo existing network.
verall objection; the eastjoins the railway line; deould be incongruent withrm which follows a lineaadside – higher densitiesoser to the historic core cess to the site is over ahich would need bringingoptable standard; footw
S
Comme
rrently an orchard; devekland Hill; however, devble) area of green spaceonservation area; resolvhould not be a constrainped; likely to be an individe along Beckland Hill.
C; while the site is adjaceother areas of residentiadeveloped; may incur loremains; adjacent to thed to join into existing ne
reenfield, agricultural butes well to the existing dw‐medium chance of arcway would need to be pr
tern edge of the site ven the dimensions erns over whether st along Lincoln Road will result in loss of mature trees; e provided to join
tern edge of the site eveloping this site h the existing built ar pattern along the s are only evident of the village; n un‐adopted road g up to an way would need
Site Allocations
ntary
lopment of the site wouvelopment will incur losse; low‐medium chance oved ‐ site slopes steeply nt on development, as thvidual access on to Beck
ent to a group of farm bal development. Only aposs of trees and hedgeroe conservation area; a sloetwork.
uildings on site mean it cdevelopment on the fouchaeological remains; adovided to join into exist
Given the constraints osite 111 and the subseq112 it is felt that these forward together and tamount of developmenRoad.
Selection Proces
4
uld complement the s of a visually significant of archaeological from south down to he site on other side of land Hill. Footway will
buildings, it is ppropriate if the ows; low‐medium oped site; footway
cannot be classed as ur corners of the djacent to the ing network.
f the dimensions of quent effects on site sites should only come hen only a limited nt fronting Lincoln
ss
47
S
4
EAS
Site
14
14
14
14
14
15
Site Allocations S
48
ST MARKHAM SI
e ref
Community Su
pport
neigh
bourin
g land uses
41
42
43
45
46
50
Selection Proces
ITES
Compatib
ility with
neigh
bourin
glan
duses
Economic b
enefits
ss
Agricu
ltural La
nd Class
SPZ
Landsca
pe Characte
r
Built C
haracte
r
Green In
frastructu
re
Unresolve
d co
nstrain
ts
pro
OvregCAwelosis sarewitconPla
ClethiwitThpowid
Supoproprogiv
Clerelnesite
Suforadj
Ovextalopri
oviding to join into exist
verall support; the undevgarded as high grade agrA, therefore requiring caell to the surrounding dess some mature trees, hesuggested that the buildea consent to be demolith the character of the gntain Medieval settlemeanning permission has b
ear support; only linear ds would be a significant th the existing built forme mature trees follow botential for other archaeodening to 2m along the
pport for the site; site liint of the built form aloovide access for a limiteovided that it can be demven the proximity to the
ear support; brownfield ates well to the existingighbouring factory site; e is within the village CA
pport for the site; garderm to the north and eastjacent to the CA; a footw
verall objection; northertension in to the countryong country tracks and nvate roads and would n
Comme
ting network.
veloped land on the sitericultural land; while thereful consideration of thevelopment – particularedgerows and roadside dings surrounding the doshed. Development arogroup; medium‐high chaent remains; footway woeen granted for residen
development along the protrusion in to the rur
m north of High St; medioundaries of early encloology in here; adjacent tsite frontage.
es immediately adjacenng High St; the site lies wd development of up tomonstrated that sufficiebend.
site; development will mg built form and should cpotential for green infraA.
en land; further developt of the site; developmeway must be provided to
n part of the site borderyside, away from the manot main thoroughfares;eed to be made up to a
ntary
e is not cultivated theree western half of the sithe impact of design, thely that to the north; devverges; grade II Listed povecote would not be grund the buildings wouldance of archaeological reould need widening to ttial conversion of the ou
road frontage should beral fringe of the village aium‐high chance of archosure of the open field sto the conservation area
t to the A57; a logical cowithin the village CA; it mo 5 dwelling shared froment visibility can be achie
mean an existing busineconsider the future redeastructure enhancemen
ment of this site will coment may incur loss of somo link to the existing net
rs the A57; this site wouain body of developmen; access – Top Cart Gapsn adoptable standard.
fore cannot strictly be e lies with the village site generally relates velopment will result in pigeoncote on site – it ranted conservation d have to be in‐keeping emains. Likely to the north of the site; utbuildings.
e supported – beyond nd be incongruent haeological remains. ystem‐ there is the a; footway would need
ontinuation/finishing may be possible to
m a private drive eved at the site access
ss must relocate; evelopment of the nt; eastern half of the
mplement the built me tree cover; site is twork;
uld form a significant nt within the village, s and Old Moorgate are
EAS
Site
15
48
49
50
50
52
52
ST MARKHAM SI
e ref
Community Su
pport
neigh
bourin
g land uses
52
86
91
03
08
22
23
ITES
Compatib
ility with
neigh
bourin
glan
duses
Economic b
enefits
Agricu
ltural La
nd Class
SPZ
Landsca
pe Characte
r
Built C
haracte
r
Green In
frastructu
re
Unresolve
d co
nstrain
ts
Ovroasitechasurdearcwo
Ovconpoidefro
Ovconpowo
Ovareresim
Macomsitewhim
Ovbrito defrowil
Ma
verall support; the only padside – this would come offers key views in to taracter of the area – therrounding land and the uvelopment process, howchaeological remains, would need providing to jo
verall objection; only thengruent with existing busitively to the characterentified as an area of arcontage and access will re
verall support; only the pngruent with existing busitively to the characterorks required.
verall objection; Site lies ea and would remain so sult in loss of mature heprovements required to
ajority support; the site mplement the existing be is currently an open sphole site has been identiportant open space with
verall support; the site isdge a gap between twothe countryside that arevelopment would resultom Great Lane this will rll be required on the dev
ajority support; the site
S
Comme
portion of the site appromplement the built form;the CA and contains largese should be retained; undulations on the site wever this may conflict with a likelihood of contaoin into existing networ
e portion of site frontinguilt form; unresolved – tr of the CA (identified in chaeological interest; a 2equire providing to highw
portion of site fronting tuilt form; unresolved – tr of the CA (identified in
adjacent to the A57; theven if the frontage of dgerows; adjacent to tho bring up to adoption st
is enclosed within the bbuilt form which, in the cpace (although not publfied as an area of archahin the CA.
s relatively separate fromo westward reaching ‘arme included within the CAt in loss of hedgerows anequire widening from thvelopment frontage wit
is relatively separate fro
Site Allocations
ntary
opriate for development; the site lies adjacent toge mature trees that conthe site is currently raiswould have to be levellewith the medium‐high cining Medieval settlemek.
g the road should be allohe open fields to the sothe draft CA Appraisal);2.0m footway will be reway adoption standard.
the road should be alloche open fields to the sothe draft CA Appraisal);
e site is divorced from tsite 142 were developehe conservation; access otandard.
built‐up area of the villagcontext of the village is icly accessible) and woueological interest; unres
m the core of the villagems’. Development wouldA, therefore harming thend roadside verges; shohe point of access to High appropriate crossing p
om the core of the villag
Selection Proces
4
t would be along the o the village CA; the ntribute to the ed from the ed as part of the hance of ent remains; footway
ocated to remain outh contribute ; whole site has been quired across the site
ated to remain outh contribute ; resolved – footway
the existing built‐up d; development would off un‐made track,
ge; development would relatively compact; the uld be lost if developed; solved – the site is an
e and would effectively d enclose views out in e character of the CA; uld access be proposed gh Street and a footway points.
ge and would
ss
49
S
5
EAS
Site
52
52
52
Gener
Site Allocations S
0
ST MARKHAM SI
e ref
Community Su
pport
neigh
bourin
g land uses
24
25
26
ral Comments:
The village lies
Grade 2 agricul
Selection Proces
ITES
Compatib
ility with
neigh
bourin
glan
duses
Economic b
enefits
within a ‘conserv
ltural land surrou
ss
Agricu
ltural La
nd Class
SPZ
ve and reinforce’ l
nding the village
Landsca
pe Characte
r
Built C
haracte
r
andscape Policy Z
Green In
frastructu
re
Unresolve
d co
nstrain
ts
effvieof Higproa f
OvtheadjachLan
Ovopresdeovthanothihigpe
Mawithethecon
Zone – Mid‐Nottin
fectively bridge a gap beews out in to the countrythe CA; development wgh Street is not approprioposed from Great Laneootway will be required
verall support; this site ise site will impact negativjacent to the CA; it wouhieved, which may be rene. verall support; the site isportunity for ribbon devsidential development pvelopment would resulterall appearance/characat the dimensions of thet ideally located in highws be proposed to serve ghway adoption standardestrian access such tha
ajority support; this site thin the CA; the site wasdgerows and so its retene site; Mark Lane would nurbation to the west; s
nghamshire Farm
Comme
etween two westward reyside that are included would result in loss of hediate due to the proximite this will require wideni on the development fro
s completely divorced frvely on the current bridld have to be demonstraeliant of site BAS0522 co
s situated opposite the Pvelopment, along the ropeters out towards this at in loss of a significant ccter of the area and the e site would only allow fway safety terms being in excess of 5 dwellings rd would be required. It at it is away from this ju
is completely divorced s included within the CAntion would be preferabrequire widening includstrong Conservation con
lands MN11
ntary
eaching ‘arms’. Developwithin the CA, thereforedgerows and roadside vty of the Great Lane juncing from the point of acontage with appropriate
rom the existing built foleway/footpath access tated that an appropriateoming forward and impr
Primary School; while thoadside, as is common tharea along the northern concentration of trees thsetting of the adjacent for small dwellings with located directly adjacenincluding existing uses amay then be necessary nction with Askham Roa
from the existing built fA for its landscape settinble; a local wildlife site liding the provision of a foncerns about developme
ment would enclose e harming the character verges; access from ction. Should access be cess to High Street and e crossing points. rm; providing access to to the site; site lies e access can be rovements to Great
he site represents an hroughout the village, edge of High Street; hat contribute to the CA; there is concern limited garden space; nt the school. Should a road constructed to to relocate the school ad.
form; whole site is g, trees and ies to the southeast of ootway to the existing ent.
The majority ofsites, unless oth
Once develope
Sites require vi
Site 111 shouldneighbouring s
f the built‐up areaherwise stated
d, greenfield sites
sibility to be prov
d be discounted asite 112
a is within an iden
s must maintain g
vided as standard,
s a standalone sit
ntified area of arc
greenfield runoff
, on site highway
te due to the limit
haeological intere
rates
layout to standar
tations of the site
est, with low‐med
rd, planning contr
dimensions. It sh
S
dium chance of ar
ibutions and off‐s
hould only be cons
Site Allocations
rchaeological rem
site improvement
sidered in conjun
Selection Proces
5
mains across most
ts
ction with
ss
51
S
5
ELK
Site
24
24
24
24
24
Gener
Site Allocations S
2
ESLEY SITES
e ref
Community Su
pport
neigh
bourin
g land uses
44
46
47
48
49
ral Comments:
Grade 3 agricul
Selection Proces
Compatib
ility with
neigh
bourin
glan
duses
Economic b
enefits
ltural land surrou
ss
Agricu
ltural La
nd Class
SPZ
nding the village.
Landsca
pe Characte
r
Built C
haracte
r
Green In
frastructu
re
Unresolve
d co
nstrain
ts
Mawethe
Malantheaccmepaheeaof fro
Balinareinfproof
Maforratthe
Maexpa ‘cextin
ajority community suppoell to the existing built che village it is felt that it w
ajority community suppondscape Policy Zone; whe northern or southern‐cess and potential impacedium‐high chance of arsture closes that represedgerows and a typical larlier archaeological sitesthe fields, with the eartom north to south.
lanced public opinion; tkage between the east aea of the village with no formal open space, deveovision of a more formaa Planning Application 1
ajority community supporms a logical option for ether than development oere are potential implica
ajority community suppopressed strong concernsconserve and create’ lantension away from the crelation to the proposed
Comme
ort; within a ‘conserve’ haracter of the surroundwould not be appropriat
ort; adjacent to the villahile the site may appear most parts of the site arcts; presents obvious corchaeological remains; thent the early enclosure ayout that has landscapes or features. There is gohworks recorded on the
his site relates well to thand west sides of the vilclear views to open cou
elopment of the site to mlised green space in a ce18/11/00004.
ort; within a ‘conserve aextension of the linear bof the whole area whichations for the north of th
ort; the site lies adjacens about noise and pollutndscape Policy Zone; thecore of the built‐up aread A1 improvements.
ntary
landscape Policy Zone; wding area and lies withinte to develop more than
age Primary School; withto be a logical extensionre realistic for developmonnections to neighbourhis block of land is formof open fields, with wele value. In addition, fieldood surviving ridge and e HER; a Public footpath
he existing built form anllage; the site is encloseuntryside; while the sitemeet the housing targetentral location; the site
and create’ landscape Pobuilt form to the north ah would be an inapproprhe site with the propose
nt to the A1 – Environmetion affecting residentiae site represents a potena; there are potential im
while the site relates n the historic core of n two properties here.
hin a ‘conserve’ n to the built form only ment in terms of both ring residential areas; ed by a number of l‐established ds like this can obscure furrow in at least two runs through the site
nd provides a logical d within the built‐up is currently an figure could result in is currently the subject
olicy Zone; the site and south of the site, riately large extension; ed A1 improvements.
ental Health have l development; within ntially significant plications for the site
Once develope
Sites require vi
A low‐medium
d, greenfield sites
sibility to be prov
chance of archae
s must maintain g
vided as standard,
eological remains
greenfield runoff
, on site highway
on most sites
rates
layout to standarrd, planning contr
S
ibutions and off‐s
Site Allocations
site improvement
Selection Proces
5
ts
ss
53
S
5
EVE
Site
29
34
40
40
40
40
40
Site Allocations S
4
ERTON SITES
e ref
Community Su
pport
neigh
bourin
g land uses
96
45
00
01
05
06
07
Selection Proces
Compatib
ility with
neigh
bourin
glan
duses
Economic b
enefits
ss
Agricu
ltural La
nd Class
SPZ
Landsca
pe Characte
r
Built C
haracte
r
Green In
frastructu
re
Unresolve
d co
nstrain
ts
Maideonfeaidesat
Ovextexiaccser
OvSluobFo
OvthesouobFovill
Ovchaintextis w
Matooanwitsatfro
Ba
ajority support; site lies entified as making a posa limited scale, retaininatures of interest in the entified as an area of arctisfactory details of layo
verall support; although tend beyond the cemeteisting linear form opposcess – no objection is prrvicing.
verall objection; developuice Lane, in keeping witjection is principle subjeotway works across the
verall objection; the site e village, either in a lineauth); southwest corner ojection is principle subjeotway works across the lage CA, therefore of gre
verall objection; northeraracter area appraisal hroduce residential charatensive development wowithin an identified area
ajority support; northerno large to be consideredd out of the CA, immedithin an identified area otisfactory details of layoontage will be required;
lanced opinion; site lies
Comme
immediately adjacent toitive contribution to theng as much open space aCA; located near to locachaeological interest; acut access, parking and s
the built form along theery (to the north of the ite; development of therinciple subject to satisfa
pment should only be a cth the existing characterect to satisfactory detailsite frontage will be req
makes a logical extensioar form along the westeof the site is within an idect to satisfactory detailsite frontage will be reqeater sensitivity.
n edge of the site lies imighlights concern at lossacter to an area predomould excessively protruda of archaeological inter
n edge of the site lies imd an infill plot, while deviately adjacent to the sitof archaeological interesut access, parking and ssite lies within the Gain
immediately adjacent t
ntary
o the A631; the current e character of the CA. seas possible, would not hal interest buildings; whoccess – no objection in pservicing.
e western edge of Mattesite), development heree site would result in lossactory details of layout a
continuation of the existr; small loss of hedgerows of layout access, parkiquired.
on to the existing built fern boundary or as a cul‐dentified area of archaes of layout access, parkiquired; the area to the s
mmediately adjacent to ts of openness along this minantly of agricultural cde in to the countryside;rest.
mmediately adjacent to tvelopment would result te; land north and northst; access – no objectionservicing; footway workssborough Road characte
to the A631; the site lies
open space is ensitive development owever undermine the ole site has been principle subject to
ersey Road does not e would reflect the s of grassland/trees; access, parking and
ting linear form along ws if developed; No ing and servicing.
form to the north of ‐de‐sac (as to the ological interest; no ing and servicing. south is within the
the A631; the CA stretch and would
character. More ; land north of the site
the A631; the site is in loss of views in to heast of the site is is principle subject to s across the site er area of the CA.
s within the village CA
EVE
Site
40
40
45
47
48
ERTON SITES
e ref
Community Su
pport
neigh
bourin
g land uses
08
09
53
77
84
Compatib
ility with
neigh
bourin
glan
duses
Economic b
enefits
Agricu
ltural La
nd Class
SPZ
Landsca
pe Characte
r
Built C
haracte
r
Green In
frastructu
re
Unresolve
d co
nstrain
ts
anGasitebu
Ovis nrelthefieroaan
Banothelay
Ovchain altCh
BachahowoII Lordto
Ovtheexivisreqthe
d fields such as this are insborough Road charace; Grade II Listed Buildinildings; access constrain
verall community supporno indication that this emates well and would be e east of Croft Way should margin so as to avoidadside verge; no objectid servicing. Footway wo
lanced opinion; site lies rth‐eastern boundary toe existing built form to tyout access, parking and
verall support; the currearacter of the CA. compaddition to site 296; acchough NCC have raised apel Lane.
lanced opinion; site is searacter area of the CA; awever, enhance the chaould introduce residentiaListed Farmhouse to the der to achieve appropriabe widened to a minimu
verall objection; northere village CA; developmeisting built form away fribility at the existing accquire removing to createe provision of a footway
S
Comme
regarded as contributincter area – strong concengs to the east (Hall Farmnts – resolved.
rt; site lies adjacent to tmits significant odour giin keeping with the exisuld be limited up to the further extension into ton is principle subject toorks across the site front
opposite to the sewerao the village and developthe west; no objection isd servicing. Footway wor
nt open space is identifilete loss of the site woucess arrangements have concerns regarding how
et back from the A631 aa development replacingaracter area, instead of bal character to an area p north of the site; accesate visibility splay at anyum of 2.0m.
n edge of the site lies imnt of the entire site wourom the core of the villagcess is restricted by the e appropriate visibility sy across the site frontage
Site Allocations
ntary
g positively to the overaerns raised over the impm House) of the site, plu
he sewerage pumping siven the proximity of othsting built form, althougpoint of the fence definthe countryside; will reso satisfactory details of tage will be required.
ge pumping station; Roping this site would be ls principle subject to satrks across the site fronta
ied as making a positive uld harm this character, been agreed as part of
w satisfactory visibility co
and lies within the Gainsg the existing modern fabuilding in the open spapredominantly of agricus – the frontage will reqy proposed accesses and
mmediately adjacent to tuld involve a significant ge and loss of the open adjacent hedgerows. Thsplays at any new junctioe and to tie into with ex
Selection Proces
5
all character of the pact of developing the us locally listed
tation, although there her existing dwellings; h any development to ning the neighbouring sult in loss of a small layout access, parking
e Lane forms a logical ikely to complement tisfactory details of age will be required.
contribution to the especially if developed a previous application, ould be achieved from
sborough Road arm buildings may, ace/gap sites which ltural character; Grade quire setting back in d to allow the footway
the A631 and is within extension of the character of this area; his will therefore on/access and to allow isting arrangements.
ss
55
S
5
Gener
Site Allocations S
6
ral Comments:
The village lies
Grade 3 agricul
Once develope
Sites require vi
The Conservatithe area
The greatest co
Selection Proces
within a ‘conserv
ltural land surrou
d, greenfield sites
sibility to be prov
on Area Appraisa
oncentration of se
ss
ve and reinforce’ l
nding the village
s must maintain g
vided as standard,
l Gainsborough R
ervice provision in
andscape Policy Z
greenfield runoff
, on site highway
Road Character Ar
n the village lies to
Zone – Idle Lowla
rates
layout to standar
rea analysis indica
o the north of the
nds IL04
rd, planning contr
ates that loss of ‘g
e A631
ibutions and off‐s
gap sites’ would b
site improvement
e of detriment to
ts
the character of
GAM
Site
41
41
41
53
57
MSTON SITES
e ref
Community Su
pport
neigh
bourin
g land uses
10
12
13
34
77
Compatib
ility with
neigh
bourin
glan
duses
Economic b
enefits
Agricu
ltural La
nd Class
SPZ
Landsca
pe Characte
r
Built C
haracte
r
Green In
frastructu
re
Unresolve
d co
nstrain
ts
OpPoarebeextsiteconredMasen
OvRidforchareg
Noanthewitto
Nosurdeof thicontraLoo
Deit lchaof the
pportunity site; strong colicy Zone; given that a laeas may be considered fing the principal buildintensive tree coverage ale and existing open spacnstraints – relating to acduced due to flood risk, ajority of site is occupiednsitive reuse of building
verall support for develodge & Furrow; linear devrm, although developmearacter; the site is in an garding visibility and acc
o overall majority in favod is identified as Ridge &e existing built form, althth the existing characterbe addressed regarding
o community opinion exprrounded by mature trevelopment should retainthe site and sites withins area and the setting onstrained. Further deveaffic intensive uses or sigoking at a maximum of 5
velopment of the site hies within the village CAaracter of this area; sitearchaeological interest; e centre of the village.
S
Comme
ommunity support for rearge portion of this site favourably; lies within thg on site requiring approng the frontage; develce; the site is an area of ccess, parking provision while EA require that brd by a Large Grade II com is a conservation priorit
opment; Grade 2 ALC; sitvelopment along the roaent further back on the sarea of archaeological icess off a 40mph road.
our/against developmen& Furrow; linear develophough development furr; the site is in an area og visibility and access off
pressed; site currently oes. Low density developn the trees (subject to Tn the CA, Development oof the nearby listed buildlopment is only likely tognificant improvements 5 dwellings.
as community support; A, therefore the impact o forms part of the settin development will howe
Site Allocations
ntary
edevelopment; within ais brownfield land, redehe village CA and with thopriate development toopment should seek to archaeological interestand layout; developmerownfield runoff rates amplex of buildings that wty for this site.
te lies within the village adside may complementsite would be incongruenterest; access constrai
nt; grade 2 ALC; site lies pment along the roadsidrther back on the site woof archaeological interesf a 40mph road.
occupied by agricultural pment would complemeTPOs) on site; grade I listof this site would undermding to the east; access ao be acceptable should itbe proposed to the acc
while this site appears tof development would ung of the grade II listed Gever result in loss of a gr
Selection Proces
5
‘conserve’ landscape evelopment of these he grade II listed Lodge o complement; retain mature trees on ; standard access nt area to the west re maintained. was a former school,
CA and is identified as t the existing built ent with the existing nts – to be addressed
within the village CA de may complement ould be incongruent t; access constraints –
buildings and ent the built form; ted Church to the east mine the character of arrangements are very t replace existing less ess arrangements.
to be a logical infill plot undermine the Gamston Manor; area reen open space within
ss
57
S
5
Gener
Site Allocations S
8
ral Comments:
Sites require vi
Once develope
The village lies
All potential sitthe area and in
Selection Proces
sibility to be prov
d, greenfield sites
within a ‘conserv
tes are within the ndividual heritage
ss
vided as standard,
s must maintain g
ve’ landscape Polic
Gamston Conserassets.
, on site highway
greenfield runoff
cy Zone – Sherwo
rvation Area and i
layout to standar
rates
ood SH55
t is considered th
rd, planning contr
at their developm
ibutions and off‐s
ment would negat
site improvement
tively impact the s
ts
special interest off
MA
Site
29
42
42
42
47
55
ATTERSEY SITES
e ref
Community Su
pport
neigh
bourin
g land uses
95
23
24
28
79
57
Compatib
ility with
neigh
bourin
glan
duses
Economic b
enefits
Agricu
ltural La
nd Class
SPZ
Landsca
pe Characte
r
Built C
haracte
r
Green In
frastructu
re
Unresolve
d co
nstrain
ts
Ovdepaprothiexi
Machadetheof lim
Notheto LisHoBuprosho
Strbudechaexipa
NocomaccMa
Oblarrun
verall support; within a ‘velopment would be anrt of the village; developovide a significant gap/ss side of Thorpe Road. Aisting to the south‐east.
ajority objection; it wouannel and an area of knovelopable area; within ae site along the roadsidecharacter with the relat
mited by flood risk to the
o public opinion; within ae village CA; only one dwthe east of the site is idted Buildings to the norouse) of the site. Concerildings; visibility is potenoposed access position; ould be avoided.
rong support; within a ‘rilt form of Mattersey – pvelopment of the northaracter; access to the sitisting 30mph limit; a footh to the north.
o public opinion; within ampletely divorced from cess – footway will be reattersey. It is noted that
bjection to developmentgely separate from the mnning along Abbey Road
S
Comme
conserve and reinforce’ incongruent extension pment would result in loscreening to the cemeteA footway would be req
ld not be appropriate toown flood risk, despite aa ‘reinforce’ landscape Pe would extend the builttively compact form of te north of the site.
a ‘conserve and reinforcwelling would be appropentified as an area of arrtheast (Church hall and ns over developing this ntially an issue and carebound by FZ3 to the no
reinforce’ landscape Polparticularly the more mern part of the site whicte likely to be from Retfotway will be required a
a ‘conserve and reinforcthe existing built form, equired across the site ft the site does not conne
t; within a ‘conserve andmain built‐up area of Md. Development would im
Site Allocations
ntary
landscape Policy Zone; of the relatively compaoss of roadside verges anry to the northwest; no uired across the site fro
o locate development soareas within FZ2 being ePolicy Zone; even just det form significantly and ihe main part of the villa
ce’ landscape Policy Zonpriate, in keeping with thrchaeological interest; ucottages) and to the sosite due to the close proful consideration must borth. EA suggest that dev
icy Zone; the site relatesodern housing. There isch would be in keeping word Road, which is currecross the site frontage l
ce’ landscape Policy Zonprotruding significantly frontage to connect to eect to the conurbation.
d reinforce’ landscape Pattersey, with only loosmpact negatively upon b
Selection Proces
5
even linear ct form of the main nd hedgerows that existing footway on ntage linking to the
o close to the river excluded from the eveloping the south of in a manner that is out age; developable area
e; site lies adjacent to he existing form; land nresolved – grade II utheast (Mattersey oximity to the Listed be given to the velopment near FZ3
s well to the existing a preference for with the existing ently outside the inking to the existing
e; the site is into the countryside; xisting facilities in
olicy Zone.; the site is e ribbon development both the character of
ss
59
S
6
MA
Site
58
Gener
Site Allocations S
60
ATTERSEY SITES
e ref
Community Su
pport
neigh
bourin
g land uses
88
ral Comments:
All land around
Once develope
Sites require vi
The village form
Selection Proces
Compatib
ility with
neigh
bourin
glan
duses
Economic b
enefits
d Mattersey is Gra
d, greenfield sites
sibility to be prov
m is largely focuse
ss
Agricu
ltural La
nd Class
SPZ
ade 3 agricultural
s must maintain g
vided as standard,
ed around four ro
Landsca
pe Characte
r
Built C
haracte
r
land
greenfield runoff
, on site highway
oads (Main St, Job
Green In
frastructu
re
Unresolve
d co
nstrain
ts
theresgrostaun
OvCAincchacar
rates
layout to standar
Lane, Abbey Roa
e CA and the wider villagsult in loss of hedgerowsound creates a significanandard to accommodateless the road improvem
verall support; within a ‘A and developing to the rcongruent with the existaracter of the CA, althoureful consideration must
rd, planning contr
d and Retford Ro
Comme
ge, protruding significans and cultivated land, altnt enhancement opporte significant developmenments were made.
conserve and reinforce’rear of existing propertiting linear form. Concernugh careful conversion ot be given to the propos
ibutions and off‐s
ad). Linear extens
ntary
ntly into the countrysidethough its position nextunity; Abbey Road is nont. It would only be poss
landscape Policy Zone; es to the west of Main Sn that developing this siof existing buildings woused access position.
site improvement
sion away from th
e; development would t to the recreation t of a sufficient sible for one dwelling
lies within the village St would be te would harm the uld be welcomed;
ts
his is not desirablee
MIS
Site
38
48
50
50
50
SSON SITES
e ref
Community Su
pport
neigh
bourin
g land uses
83
80
04
05
06
Compatib
ility with
neigh
bourin
glan
duses
Economic b
enefits
Agricu
ltural La
nd Class
SPZ
Landsca
pe Characte
r
Built C
haracte
r
Green In
frastructu
re
Unresolve
d co
nstrain
ts
Bafrothea p
Micomwilof ‘coremwhof buexiwiltrapa
Basiteforupsite
Ovalosigdethearc
OvbuLiswidfor
lanced public opinion; gom the existing built forme eastern boundary; unrpedestrian footway.
xed use, brownfield sitempatibility of existing inll be key to determiningsome existing employmonserve and restore’ Polmoving/mitigating detrahile the site is somewhata large BF site nonethelilt character; the site is isting Green Infrastructull be required around thaffic impact of the develorcel of land on the north
lanced public opinion; ge), filling in the gaps betrm, development of the area between Gibdyke e; development would r
verall support for develoong the roadside to the wnificant extension into tvelopment would resulte southwest of the site; chaeological interest; To
verall objection to develoilt‐up area; developmented building to the east dening); site would haver this site.
S
Comme
grade 3 ALC; set to the rem; low‐medium chance resolved access constrai
e; strong support for redndustrial uses with neigh future compatibility; w
ment land, the site is not;icy Zone, encouraging reacting features – the exist detached from the villaess will complement anmore extensive than jusure value represents a sie development frontageopment must be assesseh eastern boundary is an
grade 3 ALC; while lineartween existing propertieentire site would be incand West Street; there result in loss of hedgero
opment; grade 3 ALC; onwest of the site would bthe countryside and almt in loss of hedgerows alland to the southwest oop Road would have to b
opment; grade 3 ALC; sint would result in loss ofof the site (Vicarage); Te to be shown to not be
Site Allocations
ntary
ear of a farmyard, the siof archaeological remaints – narrow track need
development; while it is hbouring residential usehile mixed use developm; within SPZ3 (catchmenestoration of features insting uses on site may bage core, sensitively desd indeed enhance the ast the current developedignificant enhancemente. Should the proposal eed by way of Transport n area of known contam
r development along thees, would largely complecongruent with the charis a preference for the sws along the roadside; a
nly a limited number of hbe appropriate. Beyond tmost double the size of thlong the roadside; gradeof the site is identified asbe improved (including w
te is completely isolatedf roadside verges and heTop Road would have to within FZ2, as there are
Selection Proces
6
ite is clearly divorced ns; PROW runs along ding improvements and
not clear as to the , the layout of the site ment will result in loss nt area); within a n poor condition and be regarded as such; signed redevelopment esthetic value of the d area which with no opportunity; footways exceed 70 dwellings the Assessment; a small
mination.
e roadside (east of the ement the existing built racter of the main built‐southern part of the access issues resolved.
houses in linear form, this would represent a he village; e II listed building to s an area of widening).
d from the rest of the edgerows; grade II be improved (including e conflicting flood maps
ss
61
S
6
Gener
Site Allocations S
62
ral Comments:
Given the high
Access to all siaddressed as p
Once develope
The village lies
The built form desirable
Selection Proces
sensitivity of the
tes will be subjecer NCC standard,
d, greenfield sites
within a ‘conserv
of Misson is large
ss
landscape, any de
ct to provision ofproviding residen
s must maintain g
ve and restore’ lan
ely focused aroun
evelopments mus
f satisfactory detantial travel plan, p
greenfield runoff
ndscape Policy Zo
nd four roads (W
st incorporate sui
ails of layout, accplanning contribut
rates
ne – Idle Lowland
est Street, Gibdyk
table screening/o
cess, parking, turtions, off‐site imp
ds IL02
ke, Top Road and
other mitigation m
ning facilities andprovements and t
d High Street). Lin
measures
d servicing. Visibiraffic assessment
near extension aw
lity issues must bt where necessary
way from this is no
be y
ot
NET
Site
25
25
25
25
54
Gener
THER LANGWITH
e ref
Community Su
pport
neigh
bourin
g land uses
51
52
56
57
40
ral Comments:
Agricultural lan
The village lies
H SITES
Compatib
ility with
neigh
bourin
glan
duses
Economic b
enefits
nd surrounding th
within a ‘conserv
Agricu
ltural La
nd Class
SPZ
e village is Grade
ve and reinforce’ l
Landsca
pe Characte
r
Built C
haracte
r 3.
andscape Policy Z
Green In
frastructu
re
Unresolve
d co
nstrain
ts
Batheaccthe
Noscaof resfro
OvdeBuunwidit wfor
Badechapo
Obbe thelistopadall
Zone – Magnesian
lanced public opinion; ce existing built form; devcess constraints – subjece District boundary requ
o public opinion; backlanale and out of character scrubby grassland; site lsolved – low levels of coont of the site would nee
verall objection to the sitvelopment would resultilding lies to the south olikely that an adequate dth and restricted visibiwould need to be demonrward visibility from the
lanced public opinion; cvelopment would resultaracter of the area; currtential access through e
bjection to the site; currean over‐intensification ere are numerous maturted building; Welfitt Groportunities, and poor viditional dwelling on thisusers.
n Limestone Ridge
S
Comme
currently in use as a comvelopment would resultct to details of potentialuires consultation with n
nd development at the rwith the existing linear lies within the village CAontaminants that will need to be demolished to a
te; site forms a logical et only in loss of hedgeroof the site; the southernaccess could be achievelity. There may be potennstrated that an access bend.
currently garden land; tht in loss of numerous marently there is no access existing residential acces
ently garden land; moreof the site and be out ore trees with TPOs on sitove is a narrow private rsibility at the junction. Ts plot subject to the prov
e ML14
Site Allocations
ntary
mmunity farm; site formst only in loss of hedgerowl development size; beinneighbouring county.
rear of existing propertieform; development willA and to the rear of a loced remediated; the exisallow access.
xtension to the existing ws and cultivated land; end of the site is withined from Queen’s Walk dntial for access from Cocpoint can be positioned
he site is isolated from tature trees, whose canoon to an adopted highwss (in Bolsover District).
e than one or two dwellif character with the existe that must be retainedoad without footways liThe highway authority mvision of a formal turnin
Selection Proces
6
s a logical extension to ws and cultivated land; ng located so close to
es, of an incongruent l incur loss of an area cal interest building; sting building to the
built form; a Grade II Listed n the village CA; It is ue to lack of available ckshutt Lane. However, d with sufficient
he existing built form; opy contributes to the way, although there is
ngs on this site would sting form of the area; d; adjacent to a grade II imited passing may consider an ng facility available to
ss
63
S
6
Site Allocations S
64
Once develope
Sites require vi
Selection Proces
d, greenfield sites
sibility to be prov
ss
s must maintain g
vided as standard,
greenfield runoff
, on site highway
rates.
layout to standarrd, planning contributions and off‐ssite improvementts.
NOR
Site
16
16
16
20
26
50
55
RTH LEVERTON
e ref
Community Su
pport
neigh
bourin
g land uses
62
64
65
00
62
01
51
SITES
Compatib
ility with
neigh
bourin
glan
duses
Economic b
enefits
Agricu
ltural La
nd Class
SPZ
Landsca
pe Characte
r
Built C
haracte
r
Green In
frastructu
re
Unresolve
d co
nstrain
ts
Noroaof
Strdivhefoo
Strfortheis isite
Nolosnochainfintun
NoadjMawhof
NothethecovhalistJunreq
No
o public opinion; developadside would detract froroadside hedgerows an
rong community supporvorced from the existingdgerows and trees that otway close to the level
rong community supporrm a logical extension the north; development wdentified as an area of ae; footway close to the l
o public opinion; currentss of a source of local emimpact on agricultural laracter; while there is nfrastructure enhancemeerest; a footway will be derground fuel storage
o public opinion; while djacent (west), the neighain Street retaining manhole area is identified asthe site. o public opinion; site is loe eastern side of Sturtone rear. This is effectivelyverage in North Levertove a negative impact onted church; careful consnction spacing could be quired if an access is to b
o public opinion; partial d
S
Comme
pment other than a contom the character of this d mature trees; footpat
t; site lies adjacent to thg built form; developmenare a prominent featurecrossing need widening
t; site lies adjacent to thhat would consolidate thwould result in loss of hearchaeological interest; level crossing need wide
tly accommodates the vmployment /service provland; development hereo greenery currently onnt; the whole site has b required across the sitetanks would be decomm
evelopment of this site bouring site is not necesny open areas with views an area of archaeologic
ocated next to the villagn Road is characterised by a backland developmenn loss of any of the matn the green infrastructurideration must be givenan issue. The provision be located beyond the e
development of the nor
Site Allocations
ntary
tinuation of the ribbon d part of the village; deveh along roadside require
he railway line and level nt would result in loss oe of the southern entrang to 2.0m.
he railway line; the site rhe modern estate (aroundgerow habitats; a SmaGrade II Listed Building ening to 2.0m.
illage garage; developmvision; redevelopment oe would complement the site, its size may limit peen identified as an aree Frontage; contaminatimissioned and removed
would relate well to thessarily characteristic of ts out across the surrouncal interest; grade II Liste
ge Primary School; existiby a loose linear patternnt site; given that there ure tree canopy on and re of the village; close prn to the location of the pof a footway along Sturtexisting surgery access.
rthern part of the site w
Selection Proces
6
development along the elopment will incur loss es widening.
crossing; the site is f significant mature nce in to the village;
relates well and would nd Southfields Rise) to ll area north of the site to the south of the
ment would result in of a brownfield site has e existing built potential for green a of archaeological on – existing .
e recent development the wider area, with nding countryside.; the ed Building to the west
ng development along n, with open fields to is relatively low tree around this site would roximity to grade I proposed access. ton Road is likely to be
ould suitable for
ss
65
S
6
NOR
Site
58
Gener
Site Allocations S
66
RTH LEVERTON
e ref
Community Su
pport
neigh
bourin
g land uses
86
ral Comments:
All agricultural
The village lies Once developeSites require viEast of the crosthe road. These
Selection Proces
SITES
Compatib
ility with
neigh
bourin
glan
duses
Economic b
enefits
land surrounding
within a ‘conservd, greenfield sitessibility to be provssroads in the ville developments d
ss
Agricu
ltural La
nd Class
SPZ
g the village is Gra
ve’ landscape Polics must maintain gvided as standard,age, along the sodo not give a cont
Landsca
pe Characte
r
Built C
haracte
r
ade 3.
cy Zone – Mid‐Nogreenfield runoff , on site highway outh side of Main inuous built‐up fr
Green In
frastructu
re
Unresolve
d co
nstrain
ts
deformaforproHode
SuDeLisarrwidvisarr
ottinghamshire Farates. layout to standarStreet, the chararontage.
velopment, and as suchrm, with the dimensionsay result in loss of maturr emerging from the accoximity to the bend. Theowever, there may be somonstrated that this wo
pport for development; velopment to the southted Buildings to the easrangements being desigde footway across the sibility is achievable at thrangements.
armlands MN05
rd, planning contrcter broadly com
Comme
further development ws of the site limiting optire trees on site; grade IIess is restricted due to terefore additional develome scope to replace exould be a lesser traffic ge
the northern part of thh would detract from thet and north of the site; nned to highway adoptioite frontage and the likehe junction. It may also b
ibutions and off‐sprises farmsteads
ntary
would be incongruent wions for potential site lay Listed Building to the ethe location of the adjacopment is not considereisting uses on the site suenerator.
e site is already develope existing built (residentno objection in principleon standard. This will neeely loss of hedgerow to ebe necessary to close ex
site improvements, perpendicular t
ith the existing built yout; development ast of the site; visibility cent property and its ed appropriate. ubject to it being
ped along the roadside. tial) character; grade II e subject to access ed to include a 2.0m ensure appropriate xisting site access
ts. to/gable end facinng
NOR
Site
23
23
23
23
46
RTH AND SOUTH
e ref
Community Su
pport
neigh
bourin
g land uses
36
37
38
39
64
H WHEATLEY SIT
Compatib
ility with
neigh
bourin
glan
duses
Economic b
enefits
TES
Agricu
ltural La
nd Class
SPZ
Landsca
pe Characte
r
Built C
haracte
r
Green In
frastructu
re
Unresolve
d co
nstrain
ts
StrsitecomWe
A csigaltexichaan
BasurheHodePaHowo
Bavillbe deideconsite
Ovwhroatheheideaccsig
rong community suppore, following the existingmplement the overall chestern half of the site is
clear majority support dnificant extension of thehough a continuation ofisting form to the west (aracter of the area; Top adoptable standard.
lanced public opinion; wrrounding it, the northedgerow/trees to the weowever, it is felt that thetract from the charactersture Lane is adopted inowever, the lane is not oould be required from th
lanced public opinion; dlage, protruding away frappropriate to developnsity development wouentified as an area of arcnservation concerns ovee. verall objection; the northile development of the adside (south and west)e existing character of thdgerows. These should entified as an area of arcceptable. The other potenificantly upgrading to c
S
Comme
t; it would only be approg linear form to the westharacter; site developmeidentified as an area of
evelopment; developmee village that would be if linear development of (along with site 236), aloPasture Lane is adopted
while the southern half orn half is divorced from est marks a definitive ene lack of continuity woulr of the area, even if then part so the rest would owned by the applicant ohe owner.
developing the entire sitrom the main concentrap the northern section ofld impact negatively upochaeological interest; in er the loss of landscape
thern edge of the site is site would be a departu. This intensification of dhis part of the village; debe maintained where pochaeological interest; unential accesses from Eascreate a road to highwa
Site Allocations
ntary
opriate to develop the st, along Top Pasture Lanent would result in loss archaeological interest.
ent of the entire site woncongruent with the exthe southern part of thong Top Pasture Lane wd in part so the rest wou
of the site relates betterthe built form and the bd to the ribbon developd mean that developmee site to the north were need bringing up to an aor the county council an
e would be a significanttion of the built form –f the site, fronting Low Son the character of the close proximity to localsetting of the CA, includ
adjacent to the A620, aure from the existing linedevelopment may be reevelopment may result ossible; South western cnlikely that access to thestfield or Top Pasture Lay adoption standard int
Selection Proces
6
southern part of the e which would of hedgerows; .
ould result in a isting built form, e site following the ould complement the uld need bringing up to
r to the built form boundary pment pattern. ent of the site would also developed; adoptable standard. nd therefore approval
t extension of the it may therefore only St/Retford Road; high CA; whole site is listed buildings; strong ding the trees on the
although well screened; ear form along the egarded as harmful to in loss of trees and corner of the site is e A620 will be ane would require o the site. This is likely
ss
67
S
6
NOR
Site
Gener
Site Allocations S
68
RTH AND SOUTH
e ref
Community Su
pport
neigh
bourin
g land uses
ral Comments:
All agricultural
The village lies
Sites require vi
Once develope
The majority of
The general cha
Selection Proces
H WHEATLEY SIT
Compatib
ility with
neigh
bourin
glan
duses
Economic b
enefits
land surrounding
within a ‘conserv
sibility to be prov
d, greenfield sites
f comments on sit
aracter of the bui
ss
TES
Agricu
ltural La
nd Class
SPZ
g the village is Gra
ve’ landscape Polic
vided as standard,
s must maintain g
te 236 indicated t
lt form in the villa
Landsca
pe Characte
r
Built C
haracte
r
ade 3
cy Zone – Mid‐No
, on site highway
greenfield runoff
that it should be e
age is of residenti
Green In
frastructu
re
Unresolve
d co
nstrain
ts
to consite
ottinghamshire Fa
layout to standar
rates
expanded to inclu
ial development a
require land outside thennecting with existing ine and the site has access
armlands MN03/M
rd, planning contr
de the field to the
along the roadside
Comme
e proposed site area whnfrastructure and adequs to all utilities.
MN05
ibutions and off‐s
e west
e, with strong per
ntary
ich would need to incluuate visibility splays; a Se
site improvement
rmeability throug
de 2.0m footways ewer runs through the
ts
hout
RAM
Site
22
23
23
48
Gener
MPTON SITES
e ref
Community Su
pport
neigh
bourin
g land uses
28
30
31
83
ral Comments:
Once develope
Sites require vi
All agricultural
The village lies
Compatib
ility with
neigh
bourin
glan
duses
Economic b
enefits
d, greenfield sites
sibility to be prov
land surrounding
within a ‘conserv
Agricu
ltural La
nd Class
SPZ
s must maintain g
vided as standard,
g the village is Gra
ve and reinforce’ l
Landsca
pe Characte
r
Built C
haracte
r
greenfield runoff
, on site highway
ade 3.
andscape Policy Z
Green In
frastructu
re
Unresolve
d co
nstrain
ts
Strdepaanne
Magrotheprode
Cosizlininc
CodeanStrnoinc
rates.
layout to standar
Zone – Trent Was
rong community supporvelopment along Treswert of the site is less desird hedgerows; access – rtwork; consideration mu
ajority objection to deveown‐out hedgerow forme south of this boundaryominence of the village veloped as a play area;
mmunity support; the seable gap between it anear form along the roadcur loss of roadside trees
mmunity support; no imsignated heritage assetsd any development on treet is not of sufficient sobjection to a developm
crease in vehicular traffi
rd, planning contr
hlands TW21
S
Comme
t; this site represents a ell Road and would comrable; development is likrequires provision of fooust be given to potentia
elopment; the field margms a clear boundary to thy would detract from theacross the wider landsc
ite is somewhat divorcend the nearest dwellingsd frontage would detracts and hedgerows.
mpact on agricultural lans; the area has been idethis site would have to rtandard to accommodament that replaces the fc.
ibutions and off‐s
Site Allocations
ntary
logical continuation of tmplement the built form,kely to result in loss of sotways along site frontagl flood risk from the loc
gin to the north, comprihe built form of the villae existing built characteape; part of this site has
ed from the rest of the bs to the north. Developmt from the built characte
nd; buildings on site are ntified as part of the hisrespect the historic layoute additional traffic. Howfarm use provided there
site improvement
Selection Proces
6
the existing residential , although the eastern some roadside verges ge to link into existing al drain;
sing mature trees in a age. Development to r and increase the s recently been
built form due to a ment here, even in a er; development would
considered to be non‐storic core of the village ut; access – Torksey wever, there would be e would not be an
ts.
ss
69
S
7
STU
Site
45
45
45
45
45
45
46
46
46
Site Allocations S
70
URTON‐LE‐STEEP
e ref
Community Su
pport
neigh
bourin
g land uses
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
Selection Proces
PLE SITES
Compatib
ility with
neigh
bourin
glan
duses
Economic b
enefits
ss
Agricu
ltural La
nd Class
SPZ
Landsca
pe Characte
r
Built C
haracte
r
Green In
frastructu
re
Unresolve
d co
nstrain
ts
NoeassouBu
Noprowoide
Opcoman
NofrogroBu
Nodesouagint
Noareintimthe
Opwo
Maexilin
Madebu
o public opinion on devestern roadside boundariuthern part of the site isilding to the south (ref:
o public opinion on deveoperties to the south anould erode the open chaentified as an area of arc
pinion in favour of develmplement the linear buarea of archaeological i
o public opinion on deveonting Freeman’s Lane wowth to the north wouldilding to the southeast.
o public opinion on devetract from the overall buuth side of the Lane. Thericultural character; souerest; Grade II Listed Bu
o public opinion on deveeas within the village; laerest; Grade II Listed Buprovements would be ree size of the entire site;
pinion in favour of develould complement the ex
ajority support; limited disting built form; a traffie with DMRB can be ach
ajority support; the soutvelopment on either sidilt from along Cross Stre
Comme
elopment of the site; onlies would be appropriats identified as an area of5/126) of the site.
elopment of the site; witnd the west, whilst beingaracter of the northern echaeological interest; Gr
oping the site; Developmilt from along Cross Streinterest; Grade II Listed
elopment of the site; infiwould complement the ed create a significant pro
elopment of the site; devuilt character as there ise land between Freemath eastern part of the siuilding to the south; imp
elopment of the site; sitend to the northeast siteuilding to the north; Spriequired along the fronta
oping the site; limited dxisting built form; point o
development along the c assessment will be reqhieved
thern section of the sitede. Development of the eet; Grade II Listed Build
ntary
ly development along thte/in keeping with the exf archaeological interest
th such a significant distg located on a prominenend of the village; majorrade II Listed Building to
ment of the front of thiseet; land to the south ofBuilding to the southea
ill development along thexisting built character, otrusion into the country
velopment fronting Frees no other residential den’s Lane and Springs Lanite is identified as an areprovements to Freemans
e is largely detached froe is identified as an area ings Lane is adopted in page to achieve the visibi
development along the rof access to be carefully
roadside frontage woulquired to determine if th
forms part of a stretch front this site would coding to the northeast cor
he southern and xisting character; t; Grade II Listed
ance between nt corner, development rity of the site is o the northeast.
s site would f the site is identified as st;
he southern boundary, although further yside; Grade II Listed
eman’s Lane would evelopment on the ne is of an open ea of archaeological s Lane will be required.
m other residential of archaeological part but single width, ility for a development
roadside frontage y considered.
d complement the he visibility sprays in
of Cross Road with no mplement the linear rner (ref: 5/124) of the
STU
Site
Gener
URTON‐LE‐STEEP
e ref
Community Su
pport
neigh
bourin
g land uses
ral Comments:
All agricultural
Sites require viIt will have to b
The village lies
The built charatarget for the v
PLE SITES
Compatib
ility with
neigh
bourin
glan
duses
Economic b
enefits
land surrounding
sibility to be provbe demonstrated
within a ‘conserv
cter of the villagevillage there is a p
Agricu
ltural La
nd Class
SPZ
g the village is Gra
vided as standard,that sites will ma
ve’ landscape Polic
e is solely comprisresumption in fav
Landsca
pe Characte
r
Built C
haracte
r
ade 3.
, on site highway intain the current
cy Zone – Mid‐No
sed of traditional vour of maintainin
Green In
frastructu
re
Unresolve
d co
nstrain
ts
site
layout to standart greenfield runof
ottinghamshire Fa
linear developmeng this built form
e. Public right of Way ru
rd, planning contrff rates and can at
armlands MN05
ents along the alo.
S
Comme
uns diagonally across the
ibutions and off‐sttenuate surface w
ong the roadside.
Site Allocations
ntary
e site.
site improvementwater on site utili
Given the relativ
Selection Proces
7
ts. sing SUDS.
vely modest growt
ss
71
th
S
7
WA
Site
28
28
29
29
34
35
36
Site Allocations S
72
ALKERINGHAM S
e ref
Community Su
pport
neigh
bourin
g land uses
80
86
93
94
49
53
66
Selection Proces
SITES
Compatib
ility with
neigh
bourin
glan
duses
Economic b
enefits
ss
Agricu
ltural La
nd Class
SPZ
Landsca
pe Characte
r
Built C
haracte
r
Green In
frastructu
re
Unresolve
d co
nstrain
ts
OvlogDereslospo
Ovchuhevillthewidint
Ovfewtheof
Ovsurdra
Nositeval
Nothechucon
OvtheRochathearc
verall support for the sitegical continuation of thevelopment of a similar fsult in loss of the maturess of more native speciessitive contribution to th
verall support for the siteurch and Old Vicarage dre, even at low densitieslage; development woule site. This grouping of tder area; the northern terest; in close proximity
verall support for the sitew other built structures e north and east and wothe site is identified as a
verall support for the siterrounding on most sidesains are located along th
o public opinion on the se is currently overgrownlue. Development of the
o public opinion on the se built form; TPOs to theurch, vicarage and manonnection to the village; t
verall objection to this sie site, form a strong souad. Development beyonaracter of this part of the north of the site; land chaeological interest; Gr
Comme
e; although backland dee cul‐de‐sac developmenform would complemene trees on the site. Whils would have a negativee character of the locali
e; this site does not relaelineating the southerns, would significantly altld result in loss of maturtrees is especially promithird of the site has beeny to listed buildings (not
e; this site isolated fromnearby. The site is bounould create an incongruean area of archaeologica
e; relates well to the exis, with clusters of less trhe southern and eastern
site; a logical continuation with mature trees ande site will result in loss o
site; within a ‘conserve’ e north; site is in close por house); there does nothe site is reliant on 286
te; Birdcroft Lane and thuthern boundary to the vnd here, even at low denhe village; local listed buto the north of the site rade II Listed Building (re
ntary
evelopment, this site givnt to the east, along Nornt the existing built forme the removal of Poplare impact through loss of ity where there is very li
ate well to the existing b boundary of the villageter the built character ofre trees and hedgerowsnent, given the low treen identified as an area otably the church, vicarag
m other built‐up areas wind by fields to the southent extension to the villaal interest.
isting built form, with exraditional housing to botn boundaries;
on of the existing linear grown‐out hedgerows of this.
landscape Policy Zone; sproximity to listed buildiot appear to be the poss6 also coming forward.
he row of mature trees village on the eastern sinsities, would significantilding (heritage asset) hhas been identified as aef: 6/101) to the northe
es opportunity for a rth Moor Drive. m; development would rs would be acceptable, a canopy that makes a imited tree coverage.
built form, with the e. Development beyond f this part of the . TPOs to north/west of e coverage across the of archaeological ge and manor house).
ithin the village, with and west and roads to age; land to the south
xisting development th the north and south;
form to the north; the – unknown biodiversity
site is divorced from ngs (notably the sibility of a footway
along it, to the north of de of Beckingham tly alter the built as been identified to an area of ast of the site.
WA
Site
36
43
43
44
44
46
54
ALKERINGHAM S
e ref
Community Su
pport
neigh
bourin
g land uses
68
37
38
42
45
68
47
SITES
Compatib
ility with
neigh
bourin
glan
duses
Economic b
enefits
Agricu
ltural La
nd Class
SPZ
Landsca
pe Characte
r
Built C
haracte
r
Green In
frastructu
re
Unresolve
d co
nstrain
ts
Coansewaccreq
Sumaexa
Baalothiap
Ovwein
Machabu
Codearesiteof
Strcomma
Cositema
nservation advise carefud its impact on the listedwer runs through the sitcess constraint – kerb haquired to the existing fo
pport for the site; whileay be appropriate infill bacerbate this existing, u
lanced opinion on develong North Moor Road, ard) may protrude signifipropriate.
verall community supporestern third of the site rea linear form along the r
ajority objection to the saracter of existing develilt form; land to the sou
mmunity objection; thevelopment, even in a linea; development would e is identified as an areaFZ2 to the south.
rong support; limited demplement the existing bay compromise the open
mmunity support for the is currently garden lanature trees; Birdcroft Lan
S
Comme
ul consideration of desigd buildings (notably the te and drain runs along tas been lowered to allowotway to the north of th
linear development alobetween existing develondesirable characteristi
lopment of this site; genlthough developing the icantly into the countrys
rt; the village Primary Scelates well to existing deroadside to the east wo
site; developing this sitelopment on the eastern thwest of the site is ide
e existing built form is prnear form, on the south result in loss of hedgeroa of archaeological inter
evelopment of this site inbuilt form, although morn character of the area t
is site; relates well to thnd and would result in lone is unlikely to be of an
Site Allocations
ntary
gn, layout and massing o church, vicarage and mthe southern boundary w access to the site; poshe site.
ong the portion of the sitpment to the north andc of the village.
nerally relates well to thsite in its entirety (espeside. A small linear deve
chool lies to the southwevelopment along High Suld be a logical continua
e would detract from theside of the village, yet fntified as an area of arc
redominantly to the norside will detract the opeows along the roadside; rest; developable area co
n the eastern half may bre extensive building acto the west.
he existing bungalows onoss of a traditional orchan adequate standard to
Selection Proces
7
of the development manor house); main of the site; resolved ssible improvements
te fronting the road d south, it may just
he existing built form ecially the northern elopment may be
est of the site; the St, while development ation of this character
e predominantly linear fail to consolidate the haeological interest.
th of Station Road; en character of this land to the west of the onstrained by an area
be appropriate and may ross the whole site
n Birdcroft Lane; the ard and numerous serve this site.
ss
73
S
7
Gener
Site Allocations S
74
ral Comments:
All agricultural
Sites subject to
Sites require vi
Resolvable accprovide a footw
Once develope
The village predSouth Moor Roconsolidate the
Selection Proces
land surrounding
o provision of satis
sibility to be prov
ess constraints –way across the sit
d, greenfield sites
dominantly followoad and also aroune built form, rathe
ss
g the village is Gra
sfactory layout, a
vided as standard,
– given the rural e frontage
s must maintain g
ws a linear form and the historic coer than extend it f
ade 3
ccess, parking, tu
, on site highway
nature of the lan
greenfield runoff
long the road, witre, to the north ofurther
rning facilities an
layout to standar
nes around Walke
rates
th the exception oof the church. Bec
d servicing
rd, planning contr
eringham it is no
of two higher denause developmen
ibutions and off‐s
oted that many o
nsity concentrationt is widely spread
site improvement
f the available si
ons between Nortd across the villag
ts
tes would need t
h Moor Road andge it is desirable to
to
d o
Appe
The fo
combi
scenar
individ
Please
endix3:Dev
ollowing Develop
inations of sites h
rios also provided
dual sites.
e note the scenari
velopmentSc
ment Scenarios i
helped to identify
d a set of alternat
ios should not be
cenarios
identify various c
the best group o
ive growth strate
read in isolation
combinations of s
f site that as a wh
egies for the main
but should be vie
sites within the m
hole can deliver t
settlements that
ewed as part of th
main settlements
he housing and e
t could be apprais
e wider site selec
S
s of Worksop Ret
mployment grow
sed through the S
ction process set o
Site Allocations
tford and Harwor
wth target for each
ustainability Appr
out in this docum
Selection Proces
7
rth Bircotes. Thes
h settlement. thes
raisal alongside th
ent.
ss
75
se
se
he
S
7
Wor
Overall
Past com
Projecte
Delivera
Under c
Plus 20%
Emp
Overall
Past com
Delivera
Under c
RSC grow
Overall
Past com
Projecte
Delivera
Under c
Plus 20%
RSC grow
Req
Site with
reduced
potentia
Site Allocations S
76
rksop Develo
Housing Capa
requirement 19
mpletions 16
ed completions 1
able sites 50
onstruction 5
Sub total 12
% choice 25
Total 15
ployment land Capa
requirement 48
mpletions 0.
able sites 0.
onstruction 0.
Total 46
wth redistributed
Housing Capa
requirement 19
mpletions 16
ed completions 1
able sites 50
onstruction 5
Sub total 12
% choice 25
Sub total 15
wth 9
Total 16
quirement for Worksop
h red numbers show a
d target compared to the
ally achievable capacity
Selection Proces
opment Sce
acity Site ref Housi
993 8 65
60 9 250
17 11 8
08 14 22
54 15 3
254 23 3
51 26 41
505 28/W6 381
30 141
acity 35 700
.00 38 107
16 39/W10 270
00 45 61
96 60 14
.88 75 10
90 133
151 34
153 51
acity 195/343
/W8
180
993 218 37
60 371 38
17 561 56
08 566 2
54 567 8
254 568 2
51 569 3
505 570 2
95 587 14
600 W1
W13
Total 263
Capacity of al
e
y
ss
enarios
ing Emp
land
Site ref Ho
0
1 5 28/W6
1
0
7
0 5.5
3
151
0 15 195/W8
561
566
568
569
570
25
1.9
6 52 Total
Scenario
favourable
scree
ll sites
ousing Emp
land
Site ref
8
9
23
26
381 5 28/W6
30
35
39/W10
45
60
75
90
34 151
180 15 195/W8
218
371
56 561
2 566
567
2 568
3 569
2 570
W1
W13
660 20 Total
Scen
favoura
sc
o 1 (Most
sites from
ning)
Housing Emp
land
Site
65 8
250 9
3 23
41 26
381 5 28/W
141 30
700
270 5.5
61 45
14 60
10 75
133 90
34 15
180 14.7 195/
37 21
38 37
56 56
2
8
2
3
2
25 W
1.9 W1
2431 52.1 Tot
Fav
scree
nario 2 (All
able sites from
creening)
e ref Housing Emp
land
S
8 65
9 250
3 3
6 41
W6 381 5 2
0 70
5 61
0 14
5 10
0 66
51 34
/W8 180 15 1
18 37
71 38
61 28
W1 25
13 1.9
tal 1278 47
(E
Scenario 3a (All
vourable sites from
ening without least
popular sites)
Site ref Housing Emp
land
8 65
9 250
28/W6 381 5
30 70
35 700
90 66
195/W8 180 15
561 28
W1 25
W13 1.9
Total 1740 47
Scenario 3b
Employment target led
Option A)
Site ref Housing Em
lan
8 65
9 250
30 70
35 700
39/W10 270 5.
90 66
195/W8 180 1
561 28
W1 2
W13 1.
Total 1629 4
Scenario 3c
(Employment target l
Option B)
mp
nd
Site ref Housing
9 250
28/W6 330
30 88
35 670
.5
90 87
5 195/W8 175
5 W1
.9
7 Total 1600
Scenario 4 (Prefe
scenario)ed
g Emp
land
6.5
15
25
47
erred
Retf
Overall
Past com
Projecte
Delivera
Under co
Plus 20%
Emp
Overall
Past com
Delivera
Under co
Site with
reduced
potentia
Re
ford Develop
Housing Capac
requirement 1574
mpletions 355
d completions 106
ble sites 770
onstruction 44
Sub total 299
% choice 60
Total 359
ployment land Capac
requirement 19.00
mpletions 0.83
ble sites 0.75
onstruction 0.82
Total 16.60
h red numbers show a
target compared to the
l ly achievable capacity
quirement for Retford
pment Scen
ity Site ref Housing
4 1 233
3 267
6 6 26
0 7 290
10 63
24 10
27 75
37 222
40 143
ity 41 223
0 44 15
3 46&309 179
5 51/R7 175
2 52 236
0 58 8
69 77
70 20
71 10
259/R2 642
336 12
342 0
364 290
370 96
488 58
489 49
511 158
512 77
533 16
Total 3670
Capacity of all sit
arios
Emp
land
Site
ref
Housing E
la
15.7
58 8
3
336 12
18.7 Total 20
tes
Scenario 1 (Mos
favourable site
from screening
Emp
and
Site ref Housing E
l
51/R7 175 1
58 8
71 10
336 12
0 Total 205 1
st
es
g)
Scenario 2 (All
favourable sites fr
screening)
Emp
and
Site ref Housing
1 233
6 26
7 290
10 63
37 222
40 143
41 223
46&309 179
15.7 51/R7 175
52 236
58 8
71 10
336 12
364 290
370 96
511 158
512 77
533 16
15.7 Total 2457
Scenario 3 (A
favourable and ne
sites from scree
rom
g Emp
land
Site
ref
Housing
6 26
10 63
0
15.7 51/R7 175
58 8
71 10
336 12
15.7 Total 294
All
eutral
ning)
Scenario 4a (
Favourable a
neutral sites f
screening with
least popular s
S
Emp
land
Site ref Housin
7 290
37 222
46&309 179
15.7 51/R7 175
533 16
15.7 Total 882
(All
and
from
hout
sites)
Scenario 4b (G
focused on Nor
Site Allocations
ng Emp
land
Site ref Hous
40 14
15.7 51/R7 17
52 23
15.7 Total 55
Scenario 4c
focused on So
Growth
rtheast)
Selection Proces
7
sing Emp
land
Site ref Hou
43 40 1
5 15.7 51/R7 1
6 52 6
4 15.7 Total 3
Scenario 5
Opt
(Growth
outhwest)
ss
77
using Emp
land
116
175 15.7
68
359 15.7
(Preferred
ion)
S
7
Harw
Site Allocations S
78
worth Bircot
Hous
Overall requir
Past completio
Projected com
Deliverable sit
Under constru
Sub to
Plus 20% choic
Tota
Employme
Overall requir
Past completio
Deliverable sit
Under constru
Tota
RSC growth re
Hous
Overall requir
Past completio
Projected com
Deliverable sit
Under constru
Sub to
Plus 20% choic
Sub to
RSC growth
Tota
Annual housi
Hous
Overall requir
Number of pla
Annual req
Requirem
Selection Proces
tes Develop
ing Capacity
ement 1560
ons 4
pletions 0
tes 270
ction 3
otal 1283 1
ce 257
al 1540
ent land Capacity
ement 37.00
ons 0.10
tes 0.00
ction 0.42
al 36.48 2
edistributed
ing Capacity
ement 1560
ons 4
pletions 0
tes 270
ction 3
otal 1283
ce 257
otal 1540
48
al 1587
ing targets
ing Capacity
ement 1587
n period 14
uirement 113
S
S
S
H
t
ment for Harworth
ss
pment Scena
Site ref Housing Emp
land
180 45
181 8
182 551
184 0
185 23
186 & 211 11
187 east 500
187 west 328
188 0
190 232
191 293
192 168
193 26
194 192
204 & 232 28
205 75
206 12
207 13
358 21
359 20
H4 69
H6 21
Sub‐Total 2546 90
Coll iery
Phase 2
855
Total 3401 90
Site 184 is now a Local Wil
Site 188 ‐ Majority of the si
Sites with red numbers sho
Harworth Coll iery Phase 2
ime frame of the developm
Capacity of all sites
arios
Site ref Housing Em
lan
181 8
186 & 211 13
Sub‐Total 21 0
Colliery
Phase 2
855
Total 876 0
dlife Site and should not b
ite has been granted plann
ow an altered target compa
already has planning perm
ment plan and must be fact
Scenario 1 (Most
favourable sites from
screening)
mp
nd
Site ref Housing
181 8
182 551
185 23
186 & 211 13
190 232
194 192
H4
H6
0 Sub‐Total 1019
Coll iery
Phase 2
855
0 Total 1874
be developed ‐ The sites po
ning permission for food re
ared to the potentially achi
mission and is not a poten
ored into the housing deliv
Scenario 2 (All favour
sites from screenin
Emp
land
Site ref Housi
181 8
182 550
185 23
186 & 211 13
187 west 328
190 232
194 192
204 & 232 28
206 12
207 13
69 H4
21 H6
90 Sub‐Total 139
Coll iery
Phase 2
855
90 Total 225
otential capacity is reduced
etail. Is no longer availabl
ievable capacity
tial site allocation. Howev
very scenarios and traject
rable
ng)
Scenario 3 (All fav
and neutral site
screening
ing Emp
land
0
8 187 w
2
2
8
2
69
21
99 90
Minu
5 Co
54 90
Scen
o
d to 0.
e for housing developmen
ver delivery of housing on
tory considerations where
SEE TA
BLE OF TRAJECTO
RY CONSIDERATIONS FO
R HARWORTH
BIRCOTES
vourable
es from
g)
Site ref Housin
182 550
186 & 211 13
west (Contingency) 150
190 232
192 104
194 245
H4
H6
Sub‐Total 1294
us Contingency site 1144
oll iery Phase 2 443
Total 1587
nario 4 (Preferred Scenario
on trajectory consideration
t. Sites potential capacity
the site will take place dur
possible.
ng Emp
land
69
21
4 90
4
7 90
o based
ns)
set to 0.
ring the
Hou
sing Traject
Site ref H
181
182
185
186 & 211
187 west
190
194
204 & 232
206
207
Sub Total
Colliery Phase 2
Total
Sites with red num
Scenario 3 (All favo
and neutral sites
screening)
tory Conside
Housing Site ref
8
550 182
23
13 186 & 211
328
232
192
192 194
28
12
13
1399 Sub Total
855
2254 Total
bers show an altered
ourable
s from 0‐5 y
erations for
Housing Site
120 18
1 13
19
104
150 19
387 Sub T
Coll
387 Tot
d target compared to
years 6
Harwoth Bir
ref Housing
82 200
90 125
94 95
Total 420
iery 175
tal 595
the potentially achie
6‐10 years
Assessm
rcotes
Site ref Housin
182 230
190 107
Sub Total 337
Colliery 268
Total 605
evable capacity
11‐14 years
ment of Housing Deliv
ng Site ref H
182
186 & 211
190
192
194
Sub Total
Coll iery
Total
15 yea
verability Over 5 Yea
S
Housing
0 Site
0 Site
0 Site
0 Site
0 Site
0
412 Site develo
412
ars or more (after pla
ar Tranches
Site Allocations
Note
Complete
Complete
Complete
Complete
Complete
opment continues
an period)
Selection Proces
7
Total for
Plan period
(0‐14 years)
Housing
550
13
232
104
245
1144
443
1587
ss
79
8
Sit
0
Appen
O
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
te Allocation
ndix4:T
Objective
To ensure thathousing stock meets the houneeds of Basse
To improve heand reduce heainequalities
To provide betopportunities frecreation andpeople to valueenjoy the Bassetlaw's cuheritage
To improve community safreduce crime athe fear of crim
To promote socohesion and support the development ocommunity facacross the Dist
To protect the natural environment, increase biodiversity levand enhance multifunctionagreen infrastruacross the Dist
To protect andenhance the historic built environment acultural heritagassets in Basse
ns Selection
heSusta
the
sing etlaw
Will of ho
Will
Will
alth alth
Will
Will serv
Will physrecr
ter for for e and
ltural
Will
Will spac
Will part
fety, and me
Will
Will
Will envi
cial
of cilities rict
Will satisserv
Will com
vels
l ucture rict
Will biodprot
Will
Will desiinte
Will cove
Will enha
Will envichan
nd ge etlaw
Will and
Will and
Will enhaland
n Process
inability
Decision m
it increase the ousing for all so
it reduce home
it reduce the n
it reduce health
it facilitate or imvices?
it increase the sical activity aneational service
it provide new
it improve the ce?
it help people ticipation in cult
it provide safer
it reduce crime
it contribute toronment?
it improve accesfaction with covices?
it encourage enmunity activitie
it help protect diversity and in tected species?
it help protect
it increase, maignated for theirest?
it maintain ander and managem
it protect or coancement of th
it enhance the ronment to thenge?
it protect and eheritage assets
it protect and etheir setting?
it protect or coancement of todscape characte
yApprais
aking criteri
range and affoocial groups?
elessness?
umber of unfit
h inequalities?
mprove access
opportunities fd accessibility oes and facilities
open space?
quality of exist
to increase thetural activities?
r communities?
e and the fear o
o a safe secure
ess to, and residommunity facili
ngagement in es?
and improve particular avoi
?
and improve h
intain and enhair nature conse
d enhance woodment?
ontribute to thehe landscape ch
resilience of the impacts of cli
enhance existins?
enhance heritag
ontribute to theownscape and her?
alFrame
ia
rdability
homes?
A
to health
for of s?
ing open
ir ?
?
of crime?
built
dent’s ties and
d harm to
abitats?
ance sites rvation
dland
e haracter?
he natural mate
W
ng cultural
ge assets
e historic
ework
In
Affordable hou
House prices; h
Homelessness
Housing compl
Housing tenure
LA stock declar
Sheltered acco
Life expectancy
New/enhanced
Open spaces maward standar
New and enhan
Number of Mus
Crimes – by cat
Community cen
Gains/losses of
Leisure centres
Libraries/mobil
Local/National population)
Local wildlife simanagement p
SSSIs (% in favo
Woodland area
Number of Listegrades)/numbe(all grades)
Number of SchMonuments/nrisk
Number of RegGardens/numb
Number of conpercentage at
Percentage of c
ndicators
using (no. of un
housing afforda
etions (type an
e
red non decent
mmodation
y at birth
d health facilitie
managed to greerd
nced open spac
seum/heritage
tegory and tota
ntres
f community fa
s
le library stops
nature reserve
ites (Biological plans
ourable conditio
as/new woodla
ed Buildings (aer and percent
eduled number and per
gistered Parks aber and percen
nservation arearisk
conservation ar
its)
ability
nd size)
es
en flag
ce (ha)
attractions
al
cilities
es (ha/1000
SINCs) with
on)
nd (ha)
ll age at risk
rcentage at
and tage at risk
s and
reas with
O
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Objective
To protect andmanage prudethe natural resources of thdistrict includinwater, air qualsoils and miner
To minimise wand increase thuse and recycliwaste material
To minimise enusage and to develop the district's renewenergy resourcreducing dependency onnon‐renewablesources
To make efficieuse of the existtransport infrastructure, reduce the neetravel by car, improve accessibility toand services foand to ensure tall journeys areundertaken bymost sustainabmode available
To create high quality employopportunities
ntly
he ng ity, rals
Will
Will reso
Will flood
Will
Will mat
Will desitech
Will deve
Will
aste he re‐ing of ls
Will
Will recy
Will the wre‐u
Will recy(incl
nergy
wable ce,
n e
Will build
Will rene
Will of hthe epotecarb
ent ting
help ed to
jobs or all that e the ble e
Will tran
Will thatenvi
Will by etran
yment Will
jobs
Will
Will
Decision m
it improve wate
it protect and cources (includin
new developmding?
it improve air q
it lead to reducerials?
it promote the gn, materials ahniques?
it minimise theelopment?
it maintain and
it reduce house
it increase wasycling?
it assist or facilwaste hierarchyse, recover, rec
it assist in maxiycled and seconuding aggregat
it improve enerdings?
it support the gewable energy?
it encourage neigh quality whicenvironment anential for the UKbon economy?
it utilise and ensport infrastruc
it help to devel minimises the ronment?
it reduce journncouraging altesport?
it improve the ?
it reduce unem
it increase aver
aking criteri
er quality?
conserve waterng groundwater
ent increase th
quality?
ced consumptio
use of sustainand construction
e loss of soils to
d enhance soil q
ehold waste?
te recovery and
itate compliancy (i.e. reduce ficycle, landfill)?
imising the usendary materials tes)?
rgy efficiency o
generation and?
ew developmench minimises imnd maximises tK to move towa
nhance existingcture?
lop a transport impact on the
eys undertakenernative modes
diversity and q
mployment?
rage income lev
Site
ia
r r)?
he risk of
on of raw
able n
quality?
A
d
ce with rst, then
e of
T A
of new
use of
nt to be mpacts on the ards a low
g
network
n by car s of
A
uality of
vels?
V
e Allocation
In
up‐to‐date cha
Greenfield land
Carbon dioxidecapita per annu
Households in f
No. of employmhousing develo
Amount of poteuses (ha) situat
Density of dwe
Developments
Planning applicadvice of EA
Biological/chemcanals and fres
Production of psecondary/recy
Total amount o
Amount of resiproduced
Capacity of newfacilities as alte
% household wfilled, recycled
Energy consumsources (MW)
Energy use (gas
Renewable enetype (MW)
Accessibility to employment sicentres, open s
Development othat assists car
New major nonwith travel pla
People using catravel to work
Benefit claiman
VAT business reregistrations, d
Businesses per
Employment ra
Number of jobs
New floor spac
Shops, vacant s
Unemployment
ns Selection
ndicators
aracter appraisa
d lost (ha)
e emissions (tonum)
flood zones 2 &
ment developmoped on PDL
entially contamted within SPZs
ellings
incorporating S
cations granted
mistry levels in shwater bodies
primary and ycled aggregate
of waste produc
idual household
w waste managernatives to lan
waste composte, used to recov
med from renew
s/electricity) by
ergy capacity in
education siteites, health carspace, shoppin
of transport infr use reduction
n‐residential dens
ar and non‐car
nts
egistration ratede‐registrations
1000 populatio
ate
s
ce
shops
t rate
Process
8
als
nnes per
& 3
ments and
minating land s
SUDS
contrary to
rivers, s
es
ced (tonnes)
d waste
gement ndfill
ed, land ver energy
wable
y end user
nstalled by
s, e, leisure g centres
rastructure
evelopment
modes of
e, s
on
81
8
Sit
2
O
13.
14.
te Allocation
Objective
To develop a stculture of learnenterprise andinnovation
To provide thephysical conditfor a modern economic strucincluding infrastructure tsupport the usnew technolog
ns Selection
trong ning,
Will
Will sect
tions
cture,
to e of gies
Will requ
Will avai
n Process
Decision m
it increase leve
it create jobs inors?
it provide land uired by busine
it improve the lable?
aking criteri
els of qualificati
n high knowled
and buildings osses?
diversity of job
ia
on?
ge
W
of a type
bs
In
15 year olds acGrade A* ‐ C
19 year olds quequivalent
21 year olds quequivalent
Working age po
Completed busfloorspace
Land developed
Employment la
Employment la
Profile of emplo
ndicators
chieving 5 or mo
ualified to NVQ
ualified to NVQ
opulation quali
siness developm
d for employm
and lost
and allocated
oyment by sect
ore GCSEs at
level 2 or
level 3 or
fications
ment
ent
tor
Appe
Note:
infras
WOR
WOR
Site R
4 & W
8
9
11
14
15
23
endix5:Iden
sites were asse
structure require
RKSOP
KSOP SITES
ef Preferred SDiscounte
W9 Withdraw
ScreeniAssessmen
Scenar
Preferred
ScreeniAssessm
ScreeniAssessm
ScreeniAssessm
Screening Sc
ntifyingPref
essed using the S
ements.
Site or ed By
wn By landowner
ng nt and io
Com
Site
Ove
Site
Pos
ng ent
Bui
ng ent
Bui
Lan
Gre
ng ent
Eco
Bui
cenario Site
ferredSitesa
Screening Metho
Reason
r – no longer avail
mmunity Support
erall Support for t
e related well to e
sitioned well to m
lt Character
lt Character
ndscape Characte
een Infrastructure
onomic Effect
lt Character
e Delivery
andDiscoun
odology, Develo
able for consider
Finameeshow
the site;
existing built form
make use of local t
Devreprcana
r
e
Dev
DevWo
Res
Dev
WoSan
Smadevdev
ntingSitesSu
pment Scenario
ation for site alloc
al Screening Scenaet overall growthwing it to be less
m of neighbouring
ransport infrastru
velopment east resenting an incoal into Worksop.
velopment would
veloping the site rksop;
ult in loss of trees
velopment would
uld be out of chdy Lane
all site already welopment potentelopment if alloca
ummary
os, Sustainability
cation
ario resulted in a h target. This sitfavourable than s
modern estate;
ucture.
of Stubbing Langruent protrusio
be out of charact
would interrupt
s and shrub land;
result in loss of a
aracter with the
within Developmetial), but no deveated.
S
Appraisal and c
Comments
choice between 3te had a slight osites 30 and 90.
ane would not on into the green
ter with the existi
the green corri
adjacent to Sand
small local emplo
existing linear fo
ent Boundary (soeloper interest sh
Site Allocations
considerations o
3 smaller sites witobjection from p
complement thcorridor which fo
ng linear form of
dor (of high land
hill Lake local wild
oyment site
orm of residentia
o Allocation wouhown – question
Selection Proces
8
f necessary
th only 2 needed tpublic consultatio
he existing formollows the river an
Sandy Lane;
dscape value) int
dlife site.
al properties alon
uld not change ilikelihood of site
ss
83
to on
m, nd
to
ng
its e’s
S
8
WOR
Site R
26
28 &W6
30
35
38
Site Allocations S
84
KSOP SITES
ef Preferred SDiscounte
Screening Sc
& Preferred
Preferred
Preferred
ScreeniAssessm
Selection Proces
Site or ed By
cenario Ret
Wo
Site
Ove
Nex
A g
Com
The
Site
Ove
Ma
Ma
Siteenh
Opp
We
Site
Sitepoo
Senfrinand
Wo
Lies
Offjun
The
ng ent
Eco
ss
Reason
tain separation beorksop and Shireo
erall support for t
xt to an area of go
ateway site that i
mplements existin
e employment asp
erall support for t
y complement th
y facilitate enhan
e currently suffershance the overall
portunity and des
ell positioned to m
e is a logical extenor design/relation
nsitive design counges – Owday Wod GI improvement
oodland to the no
s within walking d
f‐site highway impction capacity pro
e scale (and curre
onomic Benefits
etween oaks
Siteresisett
the site;
ood quality emplo
is well positioned
ng built form of th
pect of the schem
the site;
he built character;
ncement of the ne
s from significant safety of the neig
sire for the prima
make use of the lo
nsion to the existinship with the sur
ld provide a Greeod & Rough Piecets;
rth provides a log
distance of existin
provements will boblems could be e
nt capacity issues
Lossemp
Not
located betweedents, it is contlements. Develop
oyment area;
to deliver econom
he estate on the s
me will bring great
;
eighbouring Local
levels of anti‐socghbouring area;
ry school to expa
ocal transport infr
ng built form, takrrounding country
en Infrastructure ee local wildlife site
gical and definitive
ng public transpor
be required due toexacerbated.
s in the locality) o
s of a good quployment land stu
te: planning comm
en Worksop andnsidered importapment of this site
mic development
south side of Gate
ter diversity and o
Nature Reserve;
ial behaviour. Red
nd (in size and the
astructure
king into account tyside – a continua
enhancement oppes and the scale o
e boundary to the
rt routes (with pot
o the scale and loc
f the developmen
uality employmeudy;
mittee issued a re
Comments
d Shireoaks and ant to maintain would undermine
t benefits;
eford Road;
opportunity to an
development will
e number of pupi
the existing road ation would comp
portunity, relatingof the developmen
e town;
tential for extens
cation of this site,
nt justifies the inc
nt site regarded
esolution to gran
in recognising a separation b
e this aim.
existing employm
restrict opportun
ls);
network and the lement the existin
g to existing nodent could provide f
ion, given the size
, without which e
clusion of an onsit
d as being ‘goo
t a residential de
concerns of locbetween the tw
ment focused are
nities for this and
existing estate’s ng form;
s on the northernfurther open spac
e of the proposal)
existing known
te primary school.
od quality’ in th
evelopment on th
cal wo
a.
n ce
);
.
he
his
WOR
Site R
39 &W10
45
60
75
90
151
153
KSOP SITES
ef Preferred SDiscounte
& 0
Screening Sc
Screening Sc
ScreeniAssessm
ScreeniAssessm
Preferred
Screening Sc
ScreeniAssessm
Site or ed By
cenario
Com
FocDevCor
cenario Ret
Wo
ng ent
Eco
ng ent
Bui
Site
Ove
Dev
Siteenh
Opp
Exis
cenario Ret
Wo
ng ent
Bui
Gre
Site
Con
Reason
mmunity Support
cus new Employmvelopment along rridor
tain separation beorksop and Shireo
onomic Benefits
lt Character
erall support for t
velopment of this
e currently suffershance the overall
portunity and des
sting bus stops ar
tain separation beorksop and Shireo
lt Character
een Infrastructure
e Delivery
nsultation respon
site yea
ment A57
Stro
Notnewease
etween oaks
Siteresisett
Loss
Hou(prebe a
the site;
s site would comp
s from significant safety of the neig
sire for the prima
re located immed
etween oaks
Siteresisett
e
ses
The
The
Theissu
Con
subject to a legar supply.
ong public objecti
ttinghamshire Cow employment dee any potential im
located betweedents, it is contlements. Develop
s of employment
using developmeedominantly retaia suitable allocatio
plement the existi
levels of anti‐socghbouring area;
ry school to expa
iately adjacent to
located betweedents, it is contlements. Develop
site is clearly div
majority of the s
re are concerns aes regarding the
nsultation comme
al agreement (P.A
on
unty Council as tevelopment to bempacts on the tow
en Worksop andnsidered importapment of this site
land regarded as
nt on this site il/leisure) along Mon.
ng form of Rhode
ial behaviour. Red
nd (in size and the
the site
en Worksop andnsidered importapment of this site
orced from the ex
ite is a Local Wild
about the deliverprevious remedia
nts suggest a com
S
Comments
A. 69/11/00012).
the Highways Aue focused along thwn’s road network
d Shireoaks and ant to maintain would undermine
being ‘good quali
would be inconMemorial Avenue
esia;
development will
e number of pupi
d Shireoaks and ant to maintain would undermine
xisting built form
dlife Site;
rability of the siteation on the site.
mmunity/recreatio
Site Allocations
Has been includ
uthority expressedhe A57 corridor ak from business/in
in recognising a separation b
e this aim.
ity’ in the employ
ngruent with the and it was felt t
restrict opportun
ls);
in recognising a separation b
e this aim.
of Shireoaks;
e, due to contract
onal development
Selection Proces
8
ed within the fiv
d a preference foaround Worksop tndustrial users.
concerns of locbetween the tw
yment land study.
e larger buildingthat this would no
nities for this and
concerns of locbetween the tw
tual and claw bac
t may be more
ss
85
e‐
or to
cal wo
gs ot
cal wo
ck
S
8
WOR
Site R
218
195,343 &W8
371
561
566
567
568
Site Allocations S
86
KSOP SITES
ef Preferred SDiscounte
Screening Sc
, & Preferred
Screening Sc
ScreeniAssessm
ScreeniScenar
ScreeniScenar
ScreeniScenar
Selection Proces
Site or ed By
cenario Ret
Wo
Site
Ma
Reg
Wit
Althres
The
Site
Theem
Thereq
cenario Ret
Wo
ng ent
Site
ng io
Site
ng io
Site
ng io
Site
ss
Reason
tain separation beorksop and Shireo
jority community
garded as being ‘g
thin a ‘create’ LCA
hough a significanidential developm
e site lies within w
e lies within close
e employment aspployment area;
e nature and the lquired.
tain separation beorksop and Shireo
e Delivery
e Delivery
e Delivery
e Delivery
app
etween oaks
Siteresisett
y support;
good quality’ in th
A Policy Zone;
nt sized site, it is ament to the west a
walking distance o
proximity to exis
pect of the schem
ocation of the sit
etween oaks
Siteresisett
Smadevdev
Smadevdev
Smadev
Smadev
propriate here due
located betweedents, it is contlements. Develop
he employment la
a logical directionand employment
of key services in S
sting bus stops an
me will bring great
e would mean th
located betweedents, it is contlements. Develop
all site already welopment potentelopment if alloca
all site already welopment potentelopment if alloca
all site already welopment potent
all site already welopment potent
e to the environm
en Worksop andnsidered importapment of this site
and study;
of growth and coup to the A57;
Shireoaks;
d Shireoaks railwa
ter diversity of job
at improvements/
en Worksop andnsidered importapment of this site
within Developmetial), but no deveated.
within Developmetial), but no deveated.
within Developmeial), but recently r
within Developmetial), but no deve
Comments
mental constraints
d Shireoaks and ant to maintain would undermine
ontinuation of the
ay station;
bs and is in close p
/new access off t
d Shireoaks and ant to maintain would undermine
ent Boundary (soeloper interest sh
ent Boundary (soeloper interest sh
ent Boundary (sorefused planning
ent Boundary (soeloper interest sh
s on the site;
in recognising a separation b
e this aim.
e existing built for
proximity to the S
he A57 roundabo
in recognising a separation b
e this aim.
o Allocation wouhown – question
o Allocation wouhown – question
o Allocation woupermission.
o Allocation wouhown – question
concerns of locbetween the tw
rm – proposing
Shireoaks Triangle
out would be
concerns of locbetween the tw
uld not change ilikelihood of site
uld not change ilikelihood of site
uld not change i
uld not change ilikelihood of site
cal wo
e
cal wo
its e’s
its e’s
its
its e’s
WOR
Site R
569
570
587
W1
W12
W13
Work
The fo
KSOP SITES
ef Preferred SDiscounte
ScreeniScenar
ScreeniScenar
ScreeniAssessm
Preferred
2 Withdraw
3 Screeni
Assessment
ksop Sites Summ
ollowing key con
A very large a
development,
the amount of
Site or ed By
ng io
Site
ng io
Site
ng ent
Bui
Con
Site
Ma
Wit
Wit
Relscre
The
Em
wn by landowner
ng and SA
Floo
mary
nsiderations form
area of land to
, was withdrawn
f land available
Reason
e Delivery
e Delivery
lt Character
nsultation respon
jority support;
thin a ‘conserve a
thin Groundwater
ates well to othereened/concealed
e site lies within 4
ployment develo
r – no longer avail
od Risk
med the selectio
the east of Wo
n from considera
to allocate for n
dev
Smadevdev
Smadevdev
ses
The
Conapp
and create’ LCA –
r Source Protectio
r employment use;
400m of existing p
pment will increa
able for consider
Landpref
on of the preferr
orksop (Sites 4/
ation by its prom
new developmen
elopment if alloca
all site already welopment potentelopment if alloca
all site already welopment potentelopment if alloca
site is clearly div
nsultation commepropriate here.
not as sensitive a
on Zone 3 (SPZ3) (
es in the area aro
public transport ro
ase the range and
ation for site alloc
d is at risk of flooferable as sites lo
red sites:
/W9 and W12),
moters following
nt in Worksop;
ated.
within Developmetial), but no deveated.
within Developmetial), but no deveated.
orced from the ex
ents suggest a co
s other sites in th
(catchment area);
und the A57, whi
outes and stoppin
diversity of jobs a
cation
oding from the Rivcated in FZ1 as se
which had bee
g the Issues and
S
Comments
ent Boundary (soeloper interest sh
ent Boundary (soeloper interest sh
xisting built form
ommunity/recrea
he locality;
;
ch themselves are
ng points;
available in Work
ver Ryton to the et out in Core Stra
en proposed for
d Options consul
Site Allocations
o Allocation wouhown – question
o Allocation wouhown – question
of Shireoaks.
ational developm
e relatively well
sop
south (FZ2). Site ategy Policy DM12
r both housing
ltation. This sign
Selection Proces
8
uld not change ilikelihood of site
uld not change ilikelihood of site
ment may be mo
not as sequential2.
and employmen
nificantly reduce
ss
87
its e’s
its e’s
re
lly
nt
ed
S
8
Site Allocations S
88
Nottinghamsh
the A57 corrid
The increased
therefore, to f
Recognising th
ensure that gr
The equal ass
development
Small sites th
that their de
discounted fo
Selection Proces
hire County Cou
dor around Wor
d population th
find a site capab
he concerns of S
rowth does not
sessments achie
in Rhodesia led
at are already w
livery is uncerta
r additional reas
ss
ncil as the Highw
ksop to ease any
at will result fr
ble of accommod
Shireoaks reside
result in the two
eved by sites 8,
to the preferen
within the existi
ain (as they ha
sons as set out i
ways Authority
y potential impa
rom the housin
dating a new pri
ents, who were c
o settlements m
30 and 90 in th
ce for sites 30 a
ng developmen
ave not come fo
n the table abov
expressed a pre
acts on the town
g allocations w
imary school;
concerned to ret
erging complete
he screening pro
nd 90.
nt boundary of W
orward before
ve. These are sit
eference for new
n’s road network
will require more
tain the separat
ely;
ocess. The oppo
Worksop have b
now for reside
es: 15, 23, 60, 7
w employment d
k from business/
e school places
tion distance bet
osition to site 8
been discounted
ntial developm
5, 561, 566, 567
development to
/industrial users
s in the town. I
tween Worksop
and the strong
d mainly under t
ent), although
7, 568, 569 and 5
be focused alon
;
t was necessar
and Shireoaks t
support for ne
the consideratio
some have bee
570.
ng
ry,
to
w
on
en
RETF
RETFO
Site R
1
3
6
7
10
FORD
ORD SITES
ef Preferred SDiscounte
ScreeniAssessm
ScreeniAssessm
ScreeniAssessm
ScreeniAssessm
ScreeniAssessm
Site or ed By
ng ent
Com
Agr
Bui
Unr
ng ent
Com
Lan
Unr
ng ent
Com
Lan
Unr
ng ent
Com
Agr
Lan
Unr
ng ent
Eco
Unr
Reason
mmunity Support
ricultural land Cla
lt Character
resolved Constrai
mmunity Support
ndscape Characte
resolved Constrai
mmunity Support
ndscape Characte
resolved Constrai
mmunity Support
ricultural land Cla
ndscape Characte
resolved Constrai
onomic Effect
resolved Constrai
ss
nts
Stro
Wo
Devbuil
The
r
nts
Stro
Wit
Lieswou
Unrthe
r
nts
Maj
Wit
Poclocarisk
ss
r
nts
Stro
Wo
Wit
Midsite,out
Con
nts
Dev
Sitecon
ong public objecti
uld result in loss o
velopment of this t form;
majority of the s
ong public objecti
hin a ‘conserve’ L
s within the Londuld result in loss o
resolved issue regbridge;
jority public objec
hin a ‘conserve’ L
kets of fluvial floated in FZ1 as set assessment wou
ong public objecti
uld result in loss o
hin a ‘conserve’ L
ddle of the site is , and this part of in Core Strategy
ncerns over existin
velopment of an e
has been in tamination issues
on;
of Grade 2 agricul
site alone would
ite is within FZ1, b
on;
Landscape Charac
don Road charactof ‘key views’ out
garding access, vis
ction;
Landscape Charac
oding across the out in Core Stratld be required tha
on;
of Grade 3a agricu
Landscape Charac
within a flood zothe site is not as Policy DM12 ;
ng problematic ro
existing (albeit low
employment uses which would hav
S
Comments
ltural land (best a
be inappropriate
but bound by FZ3
ter Area;
ter area of the Rof the CA;
sibility to the left
ter Area;
site FZ2. Site nottegy Policy DM12at looked as flood
ultural land (best
ter Area;
one (FZ2) which resequentially pref
oad junctions (imp
w quality) employ
es for some timve to be addresse
Site Allocations
nd most versatile
e as it is separate
3 to the west;
Retford South CA
t is problematic d
t as sequentially . EA comments sd risk from all sour
and most versatil
estricts the develferable as sites lo
provements will b
ment site;
me and therefoed.
Selection Proces
8
e);
d from the existin
and developme
due to the hump
preferable as siteuggest that a floorces
le);
lopable area of thocated in FZ1 as s
e required).
re there may b
ss
89
ng
nt
of
es od
he et
be
S
9
RETFO
Site R
24
27
37
40
41
Site Allocations S
90
ORD SITES
ef Preferred SDiscounte
ScreeniAssessm
ScreeniAssessm
ScreeniAssessm
Preferred
ScreeniAssessm
Selection Proces
Site or ed By
ng ent
Com
Eco
Lan
Bui
Unr
ng ent
Lan
Bui
Unr
ng ent
Com
Agr
Lan
Unr
Site
TheBas
The
Opp
Lan
Is lo
Site
ng ent
Com
Agr
Bui
ss
Reason
mmunity Support
onomic Effect
ndscape Characte
lt Character
resolved Constrai
ndscape Characte
lt Character
resolved Constrai
mmunity Support
ricultural land Cla
ndscape Characte
resolved Constrai
e land is in a lesssetlaw Landscape
e site forms a logi
portunity for nea
nd is located away
ocated 0.8km from
e is located near t
mmunity Support
ricultural Land Cla
lt Character
r
nt
Maj
Althloss
Wit
The
Unras s
r
nt
Plan
Wit
Site
WitsensOth
ss
r
nts
Stro
Wo
Wit
Loca
Con
ss sensitive Landse Character Asses
cal extension to t
rby primary schoo
y from flood zone
m a Local Centre;
to main bus route
ass
Stro
Wo
Dev
jority public objec
hough not ‘good s of an industrial s
hin a ‘conserve’ L
site is divorced f
resolved constrainites located in FZ
nning permission
hin a ‘conserve’ L
is divorced from
hin the White Hositive to the chaer heritage assets
ong public objecti
uld result in loss o
hin a ‘conserve’ L
ated opposite a G
ncerns over existin
scape Character ssment;
the existing built f
ol to expand;
s and no know su
and
es.
ong public objecti
uld result in loss o
velopment would
ction;
quality’ employmsite;
Landscape Charac
rom the existing b
nt, majority of the1 as set out in Cor
granted for devel
Landscape Charac
the built form
ouses Character Aracter of the ares on/adjacent to t
on;
of Grade 2 agricul
Landscape Charac
Grade II listed farm
ng problematic ro
Area than other
form of Ordsall;
urface water drain
on;
of Grade 2 agricul
create a more pr
Comments
ment land, develo
ter Area;
built form,
e site within FZ3bre Strategy Policy
lopment of the ha
ter Area;
Area of the Londoea and retain keythe site.
ltural land (best a
ter Area;
m house;
oad junctions (imp
potential sites a
nage issues;
ltural land;
rominent protrusi
opment for housi
b. Site not as sequy DM12.
alf of the site fron
on Road CA. Devy views out acros
nd most versatile
provements will b
around Retford a
on into the count
ing would result
uentially preferab
nting London Road
velopment must bss the countrysid
e);
e required).
as identified in th
tryside than simil
in
ble
d;
be e.
he
ar
RETFO
Site R
44
46 &309
51/R7
52
58
ORD SITES
ef Preferred SDiscounte
ScreeniAssessm
& ScreeniAssessm
7 Preferred
Preferred
Screening Sc
Site or ed By
ng ent
Com
Eco
Agr
Unr
ng ent
Com
Agr
Lan
Unr
Site
Stro
Lar
A g
The
Opp
Site
TheBas
The
Opp
Lan
Is lo
Site
enarios Bui
Reason
mmunity Support
onomic Effect
ricultural Land Cla
resolved Constrai
mmunity Support
ricultural land Cla
ndscape Characte
resolved Constrai
ong public suppor
gely compatible w
ood quality emplo
e site presents a lo
portunity for nea
e land is in a lesssetlaw Landscape
e site is located di
portunity for nea
nd is located away
ocated 0.8km from
e is located near t
lt Character
nea
ass
nts
Opp
Maj
Resrega
Wit
Unrpref
ss
r
nts
Stro
Wo
Wit
Norpref
‘The
Con
rt;
with neighbouring
oyment opportun
ogical continuatio
rby infant and pri
s sensitive Landse Character Asses
irectly off a classif
rby primary schoo
y from flood zone
m a Local Centre;
to main bus route
Site
rby sites.
portunity site – to
jority public objec
idential developmarded as ‘good qu
hin a ‘conserve’ L
resolved – majorferable as sites lo
ong public objecti
uld result in loss o
hin a ‘conserve’ L
rth of the site isferable as sites lo
e Drive’ is a privat
ncerns over existin
g uses;
nity site in Retford
on of the existing
imary schools to e
scape Character Assment;
fied road (Ollerto
ol to expand;
s and no know su
and
es.
lies within built
o be considered al
ction;
ment would resultuality’ employmen
Landscape Charac
rity of the site cated in FZ1 as se
on;
of Grade 2 and 3a
Landscape Charac
s identified withicated in FZ1 as se
te road any access
ng problematic ro
d, of which there
built form off Nor
expand.
Area than other
n Road);
urface water drain
up area, however
S
Comments
ong with site 24;
t in loss of existinnt land;
ter Area;
is identified withet out in Core Stra
a agricultural land
ter Area;
n FZ2. This part et out in Core Stra
s form this road is
oad junctions (imp
is limited choice;
rth Road;
potential sites a
nage issues;
r considering the
Site Allocations
g business use on
hin FZ3b. Site nategy Policy DM12
(best and most v
of the site is nategy Policy DM12
s unresolved;
provements will b
round Retford, a
potential develo
Selection Proces
9
n site, although no
ot as sequential2.
versatile);
not as sequential2;
e required).
as identified in th
pment of the larg
ss
91
ot
lly
lly
he
ge
S
9
RETFO
Site R
69
70
71
259/R
336
Site Allocations S
92
ORD SITES
ef Preferred SDiscounte
ScreeniAssessm
ScreeniAssessm
ScreeniAssessm
R2 ScreeniAssessm
ScreeniScenar
Selection Proces
Site or ed By
ng ent
Com
Agr
Bui
Gre
Unr
ng ent
Nei
Bui
Gre
Unr
ng ent
Bui
Unr
ng ent
Com
Agr
Bui
Unr
ng io
Site
ss
Reason
mmunity Support
ricultural Land Cla
lt Character
een Infrastructure
resolved Constrai
ighbouring Land u
lt Character
een Infrastructure
resolved Constrai
lt Character
resolved Constrai
mmunity Support
ricultural Land Cla
lt Character
resolved Constrai
e Delivery
scalbetwthe
ass
e
nt
Stro
Wit
TheDevexis
Adjadesi
Theloca
uses
e
nt
Sanincowel
Dev
Acce
nt
Sitecha
No e
ass
nts
Stro
East
Siteorde
Mid
SmadevPerm
e mixed use siteween the existingarea.
ong public objecti
hin a ‘conserve’ L
Chesterfield Cvelopment beyondsting built charact
acent to Chesteignated this site a
western edge isated in FZ1 as set
dwiched betweenongruent with thel to neighbouring
velopment would
ess road along th
is detached fromracter it would no
existing access fro
ong public objecti
tern half is Grade
is divorced fromer to access the s
ddle of the site ide
all site already welopment potentmission granted f
to the north, thg estate and the n
on;
Landscape Charac
anal forms a cd here would exteer;
rfield Canal LWSas a LWS in its ow
s within a Flood out in Core Strate
n areas of protecte built form, givenland uses;
interrupt the ope
e station frontage
m other buildings, ot necessarily com
om West Carr Roa
on;
2 agricultural lan
the existing builtite;
entified as being o
within Developmetial), but no deveor flats – question
Comments
he retention of thnew site would be
ter Areal
clear eastern boend the built‐up a
S and a LWS ton right;
Zone 2. Site not egy Policy DM12.
ted open space, ran that it is relative
enness of the gree
e is not considere
so while redevelomplement the exis
ad, meaning offsit
nd;
t form, only appr
of archaeological
ent Boundary (soeloper interest snable deliverabilit
his site as an ame beneficial to the
oundary in this area of Retford an
o the south and
as sequentially
ailway line and Rively detached and d
en corridor;
d to be public ado
opment would nosting form;
te works would be
ropriate if site 364
interest.
o Allocation wouhown despite haty of the site alloc
menity space buffe built character
part of Retfornd detract from th
d NGBRC has als
preferable as site
ver Idle; the site idoes not relate
opted highway.
ot be out of
e required.
4 is developed –
uld not change iaving had Plannincated.
er of
rd. he
so
es
is
in
its ng
RETFO
Site R
342
364
370
488
489
511
512
ORD SITES
ef Preferred SDiscounte
ScreeniAssessm
ScreeniAssessm
ScreeniAssessm
ScreeniAssessm
ScreeniAssessm
ScreeniAssessm
ScreeniAssessm
Site or ed By
ng ent
Floo
ng ent
Com
Agr
Unr
ng ent
Com
Lan
Unr
ng ent
Com
Bui
ng ent
Com
Nei
ng ent
Com
Lan
Unr
ng ent
Com
Agr
Reason
oding
mmunity Support
ricultural Land Cla
resolved Constrai
mmunity Support
ndscape Characte
resolved Constrai
mmunity Support
lt Character
mmunity Support
ighbouring Land u
mmunity Support
ndscape Characte
resolved Constrai
mmunity Support
ricultural Land Cla
WhodiscStra
Con
ass
nts
Stro
Wo
May
Acceuns
Sou
r
nt
Stro
Wit
Grorequ
Signwid
Stro
Siteneig
uses
Stro
Thewith
r
nt
Stro
Wit
Signwid
ass
Stro
Wo
ole site is withincounted as site is ategy Policy DM12
nservation area – w
ong public objecti
uld result in loss o
y only be suitable
ess would have uitable or throug
thern part of the
ong public objecti
hin a ‘conserve’ L
ve Coach Road uiring significant i
nificant concern rer area.
ong public objecti
borders open coghbouring site 489
ong public objecti
site is bound byh access via a narr
ong public objecti
hin a ‘conserve’ L
nificant concern rer area.
ong public objecti
uld result in loss o
n FZ2. Current Pnot as sequential2;
which may impac
on;
of Grade 2 agricul
for development
to be gained thh site 41;
site identified as
on;
Landscape Charac
is not of adequimprovement;
elating to water s
on;
ountryside and do9 was also develo
on;
y a primary schoorow lane and the
on;
Landscape Charac
elating to water s
on;
of Grade 2 agricul
S
Comments
Policy indicates tly preferable as s
ct on the deliverab
ltural land;
t if site 41 is also d
hrough a single‐la
being of archaeo
ter Area;
uate width to pr
surface drainage
oes not relate weoped.
ol to the south asite is somewhat
ter Area;
surface drainage
ltural land (best a
Site Allocations
that the site shites located in FZ1
bility of the schem
developed (to pro
ane access (Brec
logical interest.
rovide access an
problems on the
ell to the existing
nd recreation grodivorced from th
problems on the
nd most versatile
Selection Proces
9
ould therefore b1 as set out in Co
me.
ovide access);
cks Road) which
nd lacks footway
site and across th
built form, even
ound to the northe main built form
site and across th
e);
ss
93
be re
is
ys,
he
if
h, m.
he
S
9
RETFO
Site R
533
Retfo
The o
identi
town.
13 As id
Site Allocations S
94
ORD SITES
ef Preferred SDiscounte
ScreeniAssessm
ord Sites Summa
only clear Preferr
ifying those sites
. As such, the fo
The need to d
losses of emp
identified as t
Identified roa
Significant co
issues;
Wherever pos
Avoiding the u
Strong public
dentified in the Bass
Selection Proces
Site or ed By
Lan
Unr
ng ent
Com
Agr
Lan
Unr
ary
red Site was the
s with less infras
llowing key cons
deliver the best
ployment land a
he most comme
d capacity issue
nstraints identif
ssible avoid alloc
unnecessary loss
objection to mo
setlaw Employmen
ss
Reason
ndscape Characte
resolved Constrai
mmunity Support
ricultural Land Cla
ndscape Characte
resolved Constrai
mixed use site
structure issues
siderations form
commercially v
and ensure the
ercially attractive
s in Retford, inc
fied on land to
cating land whic
s of employmen
ost greenfield ex
t Land Capacity Stu
r
nt
Wit
Opp
Con
Con
ass
r
nt
Stro
Wo
Wit
Nea
(51/R7). The rem
or less impact o
med the selection
viable employme
town continues
e site);
luding the main
the southeast
ch is known to be
nt land within the
xtensions to the
udy 2011.
hin a ‘conserve’ L
posite a Grade II li
ncerns over pedes
ncerns over existin
ong public objecti
uld result in loss o
hin a ‘conserve’ L
arby Farmhouse is
maining sites all
on agricultural la
n of the preferre
ent land in Retf
s to provide a ra
roundabout, Or
and south of th
e the best and m
e town;
town, and;
Landscape Charac
isted farmhouse;
strian access to th
ng problematic ro
on;
of Grade 2 agricul
Landscape Charac
s a Grade II listed
had various issu
and class or land
ed sites:
ord, of which th
ange and choice
rdsall roundabou
he town as they
most viable agric
Comments
ter Area;
e site – no footpa
oad junctions (imp
ltural land (best a
ter Area;
building;
ues to address, s
dscape character
here is limited c
e of employmen
ut and the Tiln L
y suffer from si
cultural land;
aths along road.
provements will b
nd most versatile
so the site select
r yet still deliver
choice13, in orde
nt opportunities
Lane/Moorgate j
ignificant land d
e required).
e);
tion focus was
benefits to the
er to address pa
s (site 51/R7 wa
junction;
drainage/floodin
st
as
ng
Insufficient sit
been discount
development)
tes available wit
ted mainly unde
), although some
thin the town bo
er the considera
e have been disc
oundary. Small s
ation that their d
counted for add
sites that are alr
delivery is uncer
itional reasons a
eady within the
rtain (as they ha
as set out in the
S
existing develo
ave not come fo
table above. Th
Site Allocations
pment boundar
rward before no
hese are sites: 58
Selection Proces
9
ry of Retford hav
ow for residenti
8, 71 and 336.
ss
95
ve
al
S
9
HAR
HARW
Site R
180
181
182
184
185
186 &211
187 East
187 West
Site Allocations S
96
RWORTHBIRC
WORTH BIRCOTE
ef Preferred SDiscounte
ScreeniAssessm
ScreeniAssessm
Preferred
Site has n
& Preferred
t ScreeniAssessm
t Preferred(continge
Selection Proces
COTES
ES SITES
Site or ed By
ng ent
Com
Bui
ng ent
Bui
Site
A lo
Wil
Sizea n
Pot
Sen
now been identifi
Bet
Site
Com
Dev
Loc
Eas
ng ent
Bui
Lan
Site ncy)
Dev
Off
ss
Reason
mmunity Support
lt Character
lt Character
ogical extension t
ll complement the
e of the site givesew primary schoo
tential for link roa
nsitive developme
ied as a Local Wild
tter sites identifie
mmunity support
velopment of the
cated near to key
se of access to nea
lt Character
ndscape Characte
velopment of the
fers ease of access
Stro
Devand
Witarealinebuil
o the existing sub
e existing built ch
s potential to delivol)
ad to the adjoining
ent has potential t
dlife Site – no lon
ed Devscho
site would comp
services in the to
arby PROW
r
Thefrom
Woohere
site would comp
s to existing PROW
ong community ob
velopment here w a number of liste
h the exception oa has a distinctlyar extension to tt form of the sett
burban built form
aracter
ver wider benefit
g site, improving
to enhance the ur
nger available for c
velopment of theool.
lement and conso
wn
potential extentm the existing bui
odland to the soue would have adv
lement the existin
W running along i
bjection to develo
would infill a greeed buildings
of a small numbery suburban charahe southwest towtlement.
to the south
ts to the existing c
accessibility/perm
rban rural fringe a
consideration for
site would impa
olidate the existin
t of the site to thlt form
uth demarcates averse effects on th
ng built form
ts western bound
Comments
opment of this sit
en wedge that for
r of buildings arouacter. Developmewards the A1 and
community (i.e. o
meability of the to
and townscape/la
site allocation
act on the improv
ng built form
he southeast wou
a clear boundary he landscape char
dary
e
rms the setting of
und the church in ent of this site wd would not be in
open space provis
own
andscape characte
vement plans for
uld be a significan
to the town andracter of the wide
f historic Harwort
‘Old Harworth’ thwould perpetuate n keeping with th
sion and potential
er
r the neighbourin
nt protrusion awa
extending beyoner area
th
he a
he
lly
ng
ay
nd
HARW
Site R
190
191
192
193 East
193 West
194
204 &
WORTH BIRCOTE
ef Preferred SDiscounte
Preferred
ScreeniAssessm
Preferred
t ScreeniAssessm
t ScreeniAssessm
Preferred
& Screeni
ES SITES
Site or ed By
Dev
Dev
Althove
Pos
Site
Althbro
Fac
Pos
Giv
ng ent
Bui
Lan
Site
Dev
Wit
Pos
Dev
ng ent
Bui
ng ent
Bui
Site
A lo
Wil
Sizea n
Pot
Sen
ng Bet
Reason
velopment would
velopment will re
hough infilling a erall townscape
sitioned well to m
hough regenerateownfield site
cilitates ease of a
sitioned well to m
ves ease of access
lt Character
ndscape Characte
velopment will re
thin walking dista
sitioned well to m
velopment provid
lt Character
lt Character
ogical extension t
ll complement the
e of the site givesew primary schoo
tential for link roa
nsitive developme
tter sites identifie
consolidate the b
duce the site’s vu
green wedge the
make use of local t
ed the site is a fo
ccess to existing s
make use of local t
to existing and fo
r
Divo
Adveast
duce the site’s vu
nce of schools an
make use of local t
des opportunity to
Lies
Deva nu
o the existing sub
e existing built ch
s potential to delivol)
ad to the adjoining
ent has potential t
ed Bett
built‐up area arou
ulnerability to ant
e landscape chara
ransport infrastru
ormer colliery spo
services in the tow
ransport infrastru
orthcoming emplo
orced from the ex
verse effects on lat
ulnerability to ant
nd leisure centre
ransport infrastru
o address localise
s within the settin
velopment here wumber of listed bu
burban built form
aracter
ver wider benefit
g site, improving
to enhance the ur
ter sites identified
und the existing c
isocial behaviour
acter is of little m
ucture.
oil tip. Removal o
wn and will conne
ucture
oyment opportun
xisting built form
andscape and visu
isocial behaviour
ucture.
d flooding issues
g historic Harwor
would infill a greenuildings
to the south
ts to the existing c
accessibility/perm
rban rural fringe a
d that do not have
S
Comments
ommunity and as
merit and approp
of spoil and deco
ect with permitted
nities
ual character, ext
rth and high chanc
n wedge that form
community (i.e. o
meability of the to
and townscape/la
e the same level o
Site Allocations
ssociated facilities
riate landscaping
ontamination will
d redevelopment
tending beyond t
ce of archaeology
ms the setting hist
open space provis
own
andscape characte
of impact on histo
Selection Proces
9
s
g may enhance th
effectively leave
of the colliery
he ridgeline to th
y on site
toric Harworth an
sion and potential
er
oric Harworth;
ss
97
he
a
he
nd
lly
S
9
HARW
Site R
232
205
206
207
358
359
H4
H6
Site Allocations S
98
WORTH BIRCOTE
ef Preferred SDiscounte
Assessm
ScreeniAssessm
ScreeniAssessm
ScreeniAssessm
ScreeniAssessm
ScreeniAssessm
Preferred
Preferred
Selection Proces
ES SITES
Site or ed By
ent Bui
ng ent
Com
ng ent
Bui
Com
ng ent
Bet
Bui
ng ent
Bui
Com
ng ent
Bui
Com
Site
Am
PosM1
The
The
Site
Am
PosM1
The
The
ss
Reason
lt Character
mpatibility
lt Character
mpatibility
tter sites identifie
lt Character
lt Character
mpatibility
lt Character
mpatibility
menity/recreation
sitioned well to m18 & M1)
e scale of employm
ere is potential fo
menity/recreation
sitioned well to m18 & M1)
e scale of employm
ere is potential fo
DevHarw
Adja
Divoperpkee
Adja
ed Devcouexteform
Divo
Adja
Divo
Adja
space to be provi
make use of local t
ment growth will
r employer links w
space to be provi
make use of local t
ment growth will
r employer links w
velopment here wworth and a num
acent to A1 – con
orced from the epetuate a linear ping with the bui
acent to A1 – con
velopment of sitentryside. If onlyension to the soum of the settleme
orced from the ex
acent to A1 – con
orced from the ex
acent to A1 – con
ided as part of lan
transport infrastr
bring a great num
with local schools
ided as part of lan
transport infrastr
bring a great num
with local schools
would partially inber of listed build
cerns from Enviro
existing built formextension to thelt form of the sett
cerns from Enviro
e would create ay partially develouthwest towards nt.
xisting built form
cerns from Enviro
xisting built form
cerns from Enviro
ndscaping around
ructure (including
mber and range of
and colleges
ndscaping around
ructure (including
mber and range of
and colleges
Comments
nfill a green weddings
onmental Health (
m. If only partialle southwest towtlement.
onmental Health (
a prominent extoped along the the A1 and wou
onmental Health (
onmental Health (
employment site
the A1 with ease
f jobs to the area
employment site
the A1 with ease
f jobs to the area
dge that forms t
(noise)
y developed alonwards the A1 and
(noise)
tension of the broad would peld not be in keep
(noise)
(noise)
es
e of links to Robin
es
e of links to Robin
the setting histor
ng the road woud would not be
uilt form into therpetuate a lineping with the bu
n Hood Airport, th
n Hood Airport, th
ric
ld in
he ar ilt
he
he
Harw
The fo
14 This
worth and Bircote
ollowing key con
The increased
capable of acc
A number of L
the requireme
north and wes
Land formerly
a 15‐year tim
houses14 will
target as set o
The built form
development
When approa
Local Wildlife
of the country
The proximity
west;
Developing so
Sites located a
Harworth Birc
Harworth, ma
includes 118 house
es Sites Summa
nsiderations hav
d population th
commodating a
Local Wildlife Si
ents of adopted
st of the second
y used by the Ha
e limit within w
be delivered by
out in the adopte
m of Old Harwo
that would nega
ching Harworth
Site). Developm
yside to the east
y of the A1 corr
ome sites on the
around the exist
cotes is located c
aking it some of
es from Phase 1 and
ry
ve helped to form
at will result fr
new primary sch
tes exist across
d Core Strategy
ary school;
arworth Colliery
which the reserv
y 2028 (the time
ed Core Strategy
orth (to the Wes
atively impact u
Bircotes from t
ment that would
t of the town;
idor also raises
e edge of the exi
ting core of Harw
close to the A1.
the best potent
d a further 443 hou
m the selection o
om the housing
hool. There will
the town and f
Policy DM9. Ad
has outline plan
ved matters can
e horizon for th
y;
st of the town),
pon its characte
he East the built
extend the tow
noise issues for
sting suburban a
worth Bircotes w
The proximity o
tial employment
uses from Phase 2.
of the preferred
g allocations wi
also be a need t
future developm
dditionally, there
nning permission
n be submitted,
his plan), and th
, including the o
er;
t form of the tow
wn beyond this ri
r any residentia
area reduces the
will be more like
of this major roa
t land in the dist
d sites:
ll require more
to fund the expa
ment should not
e is valuable gre
n for 996 dwellin
before develop
herefore will cou
open area to th
wn is significant
idgeline would d
l sites that wou
eir vulnerability
ly to complemen
ad provides a str
trict. Taking adva
S
e school places
ansion of the sec
damage their e
een infrastructu
ngs. This permiss
pment of the sit
unt towards the
e north of this
ly screened by a
detrimentally im
ld result from t
to antisocial be
nt the existing s
rong logistical b
antage of this lo
Site Allocations
in the town an
condary school;
cological import
ure in the town
sion was granted
e begins. It is e
e delivery of the
part of the tow
a tree covered ri
mpact on the ope
he expansion of
haviour;
uburban charac
enefit to the lan
ocational strengt
Selection Proces
9
nd requires a sit
tance in line wit
especially to th
d in 2011 and ha
xpected that 56
e housing growt
wn, is sensitive t
idgeline (part of
en rural characte
f the town to th
ter; and
nd to the south o
th and needing t
ss
99
te
th
he
as
61
th
to
f a
er
he
of
to
S
10
Site Allocations S
00
deliver suffici
considered to
Selection Proces
ient developme
be viable and d
ss
ent growth to b
desirable for the
bring it forward
benefit of Harw
d, the significan
worth Bircotes an
nt over‐allocatio
nd the wider Dis
on of land abov
strict.
ve the original growth target is
TUXF
TUXFO
Site R
114
115
117
119
121
122
123
124
126
FORD
ORD SITES
ef Preferred SDiscounte
ScreeniAssessm
ScreeniAssessm
ScreeniAssessm
ScreeniAssessm
ScreeniAssessm
Preferred
ScreeniAssessm
ScreeniAssessm
Screeni
Site or ed By
ng ent
Bui
ng ent
Com
Agr
ng ent
Bui
Agr
Unr
ng ent
Bui
ng ent
Agr
Bui
Site
Stro
A locom
Size
Loc
Lan
ng ent
Bui
Floo
ng ent
Agr
Bui
ng Agr
Reason
lt Character
mpatibility
ricultural Land
lt Character
ricultural Land
resolved Constrai
lt Character
ricultural Land
lt Character
ong public suppor
ogical extension ommunity and the
e of the site gives
cated within walki
nd is not used for
lt Character
od Risk
ricultural Land
lt Character
ricultural Land
GapConthe
Adja
Wo
nt
Devpatt
Wo
Nor
Gapnew
Part
Divo
rt;
of the existing subemployment uses
potential to deliv
ing distance of all
agriculture – has
Conden
The
Wo
Divosign
Wo
p site contributingnservation Area (CCA.
acent to A1 – con
uld result in loss o
velopment here wtern of the existin
uld result in loss o
rthern part of the
p site contributingw development is
t of the site is Gra
orced from existin
burban built form s to the south;
ver wider benefits
l key services in T
the appearance o
nservation concersity of developme
northern edge of
uld result in loss o
orced from existinnificance of the CA
uld result in loss o
g to the open charCA), new developm
cerns from Enviro
of Grade 2 agricul
would result in lossng built form;
of Grade 2 agricul
site in Flood Zone
g to the open charconsidered likely
ade 2 agricultural
ng built form of Tu
to the north and
s to the existing co
uxford;
of wasteland.
ns over the loss oent;
f the site lies with
of Grade 2 agricul
ng built form; newA.
of Grade 2 agricul
S
Comments
racter of the Mill ment is considere
onmental Health (
ltural land (best a
s of key views out
ltural land (best a
e 3 (FZ3).
racter of the Mill to harm the signi
land (best and mo
uxford.
would provide a
ommunity (i.e. op
of landscape settin
hin FZ3.
ltural land (best a
w development is
ltural land (best a
Site Allocations
Mount character ed likely to harm t
(noise);
nd most versatile
t of CA and conflic
nd most versatile
Mount character ificance of the CA
ost versatile);
link between the
pen space provisio
ng of the CA, espe
nd most versatile
considered likely
nd most versatile
Selection Proces
10
area of the he significance of
e).
ct with the linear
e);
area of the CA, A.
existing
on);
ecially incongruen
e);
to harm the
e);
ss
01
f
nt
S
10
TUXFO
Site R
127
130
233
235
490
492
493
Site Allocations S
02
ORD SITES
ef Preferred SDiscounte
Assessm
ScreeniAssessm
ScreeniAssessm
SustainabApprais
ScreeniAssessm
Preferred
ScreeniAssessm
ScreeniAssessm
Selection Proces
Site or ed By
ent Lan
ng ent
Bui
Agr
Floo
ng ent
Com
Com
Bui
bility sal
Bet
ng ent
Agr
Lan
Bui
Unr
Site
Ove
A lo
Sizeto t
Loc
Off
ng ent
Bui
Unr
ng ent
Com
Bui
ss
Reason
ndscape Characte
lt Character
ricultural Land
od Risk
mmunity Support
mpatibility
lt Character
tter sites identifie
ricultural Land
ndscape Characte
lt Character
resolved Constrai
erall community s
ogical extension o
e of the site gives the school);
cated within walki
fers positive links
lt Character
resolved Constrai
mmunity Support
lt Character
r Dev
Devpatt
Wo
The
Stro
Adja
Condev
ed A nu122rela
r
nt
Wo
Dev
Sma
support;
of the existing sub
potential to deliv
ing distance of all
with the neighbo
nt
Divo
Roa
Stro
Gra
Wit
Dev
veloping this site i
velopment here wtern of the existin
uld result in loss o
northern edge of
ong public objecti
acent to A1 – con
ntributes to the opelopment is cons
umber of Tuxford and 490 are regaative size.
uld result in loss o
veloping this site i
all parcel of land i
burban built form
ver wider benefits
l key services in T
uring site.
orced from existin
ad needs upgradin
ong community ob
de II Listed buildi
hin Lincoln Road
velopment here w
s likely to harm th
would result in lossng built form;
of Grade 2 agricul
f the site lies with
on;
cerns from Enviro
pen character of tidered likely to ha
sites exhibit simiarded as having m
of Grade 2 agricul
s likely to harm th
n the east of the
to the north, awa
s to the existing co
uxford;
ng built form, wou
ng.
bjection;
ng to south of site
character area of
would result in loss
Comments
he landscape and
s of key views out
ltural land (best a
hin FZ3.
onmental Health (
the Mill Mount charm the significan
ilar positive featumore extensive be
ltural land (best a
he landscape and
sites identified as
ay from the sensit
ommunity (i.e. op
uld only work if de
e;
Tuxford CA;
s of key views out
archaeology valu
t of CA and conflic
nd most versatile
(noise);
haracter area of thnce of the CA
res and limitationnefits as a direct
nd most versatile
archaeology valu
s contaminated.
tive historic centr
pen space provisio
eveloped with adj
t of CA and conflic
ue of the area.
ct with the linear
e);
he CA, new
ns, although sites result of their
e);
ue of the area;
re of Tuxford;
on and extension
jacent site;
ct with the linear
TUXFO
Site R
494
495
518
Tuxfo
The fo
ORD SITES
ef Preferred SDiscounte
ScreeniAssessm
ScreeniAssessm
ScreeniAssessm
ord Sites Summa
ollowing key con
Recognising th
Population gro
The existence
Development
in to the coun
A significant
versatile agric
available;
Advice from t
A1 corridor, o
Due to their s
Site or ed By
ng ent
Com
Bui
ng ent
Bui
ng ent
Com
Bet
ary
nsiderations info
he negative imp
owth in Tuxford
of flood risk iss
of sites that are
ntryside.
amount of the
cultural land wh
he Council’s Env
on grounds noise
ize, the favoured
Reason
mmunity Support
lt Character
lt Character
mmunity Support
tter sites identifie
ormed the select
act the potentia
will trigger the
ues on certain s
e divorced from
agricultural lan
ere, in line with
vironmental Hea
e having an adve
d sites are capab
patt
Stro
Divo
Gapnew
Divo
ed
Com
A nu122rela
tion of the prefe
al development o
need to extend
ites.
m the existing bu
nd surrounding
h the National Pl
alth department
erse effect on fu
ble of delivering
tern of the existin
ong community ob
orced from existin
p site contributingw development is
orced from the bu
mmunity objection
umber of Tuxford and 490 are regaative size
erred sites:
of certain sites w
the Secondary S
uilt‐up area wou
Tuxford is iden
lanning Policy F
t has consistentl
ture residents; a
g wider benefits
ng built form.
bjection;
ng built form of Tu
g to the open charconsidered likely
uilt form
n;
sites exhibit simiarded as having m
would have on t
School in the tow
uld result in inco
tified as Grade
ramework, deve
y advocated avo
and
for the existing
S
Comments
uxford.
racter of the Mill to harm the signi
ilar positive featumore extensive be
he Tuxford Cons
wn;
ongruent extens
2 therefore is
elopment should
oiding developm
community.
Site Allocations
Mount character ificance of the CA
res and limitationnefits as a direct
servation Area;
ions that encroa
regarded as th
d be avoided wh
ment immediate
Selection Proces
10
area of the CA, A
ns, although sites result of their
ach unnecessari
e best and mo
here other land
ly adjacent to th
ss
03
ly
st
is
he
S
10
RURA
BECKI
Site R
101
105
106
107
203
451A
451B
496
497
Summ
Site Allocations S
04
ALSERVICEC
INGHAM SITES
ef Preferred SDiscounte
ScreeniAssessm
ScreeniAssessm
ScreeniAssessme
Preferred
SustainabApprais
A SustainabAppraisB
ScreeniAssessm
ScreeniAssessm
mary of key facto
The impact th
The potential
Consultation r
Due to the sca
Selection Proces
CENTRES
Site or ed By
ng ment
Bui
ng ment
Bui
ng ent,
Com
Bui
d Site
Ov
Thenet
Pro
bility sal
SO
bility sal
Bet
ng ment
Com
Bui
ng ment
Un
ors that shaped
hat development
loss of local em
responses show
ale of developm
ss
Reason
ilt Character
ilt Character
mmunity Support
ilt Character
erall community s
e site makes a lotwork; and
oximity of the site
14
tter Site Identified
mmunity Support
ilt character
resolved Constra
the preferred si
t of some of the
ployment facilit
ing an overall ob
ent sought in Be
Exis
Divo
Divothe
t Maj
Devhist
support;
ogical extension
e to the existing se
Loss
d Goo
resi
t Maj
Divo
ints Un‐
te selection:
other proposed
ies if some sites
bjection to the a
eckingham, cons
sting employment
orced from existin
orced from existinvillage.
jority objection;
velopment of the toric core of the v
to the southern
ervices including t
s of commercial f
od Site however sdents better acce
jority objection
orced from existin
‐adopted road
d sites would hav
s were develope
allocation of som
sidered better to
t use;
ng built form.
ng built form – no
entire site would illage.
end of the villa
the recreation gro
armyard and asso
ite 107 considereess to Community
ng built form
ve on the built c
d;
me sites; and
o develop availa
Comments
ot in keeping with
detract significan
age within existin
ound and village h
ociated buildings.
ed to be more susty facilities
character of the
ble small‐scale s
the linear charac
ntly from the exist
ng boundaries de
hall.
tainable as its loc
village;
site than parts o
cter of this part of
ting form in the
efined by the roa
ation will allow
of larger sites.
f
ad
BLYTH
Site R
178
213
214
266
369A
369B
517
589
590
Summ
H SITES
ef Preferred SDiscounte
SustainabApprais
ScreeniAssessm
Preferred
ScreeniAssessm
A SustainabApprais
B SustainabApprais
ScreeniAssessm
ScreeniAssessm
ScreeniAssessm
mary of key facto
Site or ed By
bility sal
Moava
ng ment
Lan
Un
d Site De
Eas
ng ment
Co
Co
Gre
bility sal
Moava
bility sal
ng ment
Co
Bu
ng ment
Co
ng ment
Co
Bu
ors that shaped
Reason
ore Sustainable sitailable
ndscape Characte
resolved Constra
velopment of nor
se of access to the
mmunity Support
mpatibility
een infrastructure
ore Sustainable sitailable
mpatibility
ilt Character
mpatibility
mpatibility
ilt Character
the preferred si
te Scodue
er
ints
Wit
Larg
Acc
rth‐western part a
e village GP surge
t
e
O
A
Nsp
te Scd
A
Thmin
A
A
Thminh
te selection:
res well in Sustaine to the proximity
thin a ‘Conserve’ L
ge electricity pylo
ess to north‐east
avoids any constr
ery; located close
Overall Objection;
Adjacent to A1 flyo
Negative impact onpace.
cores well in Sustue to the proximi
Adjacent to A1 flyo
he A1 prohibits dmaking even linearncongruent with t
Adjacent to A1 flyo
Adjacent to A1 flyo
he A1 prohibits dmaking even linearncongruent with tigher density buil
nability Appraisal of flood risk area
Landscape Charac
ns run diagonally
ern part of the sit
aints and would c
to village recreati
over – concerns fr
n Protected Right
ainability Appraisty of flood risk ar
over – concerns fr
evelopment to thr development alohe built form on t
over – concerns fr
over – concerns fr
evelopment to thr development alohe built form to tding areas in Blyt
S
Comments
but site 214 is coa to this site.
cter Zone;
y across the site;
te unresolved.
continue linear bu
ion ground with p
rom environment
t of Way across th
sal but site 214 is ea to this site.
rom environment
e west of the siteong the roadside the opposite side
rom environment
rom environment
e west of the siteong the roadside the east. The A1 bth.
Site Allocations
onsidered to be m
uilt form along the
potential to enhan
al health (noise);
he site and loss of
considered to be
al health (noise)
e, which would creinappropriate, as of the road.
al health (noise)
al health (noise)
e, which would creinappropriate, asbridge clearly mar
Selection Proces
10
ore sustainable
e road;
nce/extend.
informal open
more sustainable
eate a sizeable ga it would be
eate a sizeable ga it would be rks the boundary o
ss
05
e
ap
ap
of
S
10
Site Allocations S
06
Strong concer
of the potenti
The impact th
Some propose
Selection Proces
rns raised by Env
ial noise impacts
hat development
ed sites were loc
ss
vironmental Hea
s;
t of some of the
cated in or adjac
alth about the d
other proposed
cent to areas of
development of s
d sites would hav
identified flood
sites located im
ve on the built c
risk.
mediately adjac
character of the
ent to the A1 Co
village; and
orridor as a resuult
CUCK
Site Ref
303
398
399
Summ
KNEY SITES
Preferred SDiscounte
ScreeniAssessm
SustainabApprais
Preferred
mary of key facto
The potential
The impact th
Site or ed By
ng ent
Co
Bui
bility sal
SO
Site
Ov
Site
Devtha
ors that shaped
loss of open spa
hat development
Reason
mmunity Support
ilt Character
7
erall Community
e can replicate th
velopment of sitean the impact site
the preferred si
ace and green in
t of some of the
t Maj
Loss
Simimp
Support;
e linear built form
e would result in le 398 would have
te selection:
nfrastructure in t
other proposed
jority objection;
s of historic open
milar to site 399 expact on the setting
m of housing along
oss of grade 2 agon setting of heri
the village (form
d sites would hav
space.
xcept this site partg of heritage asse
g the south side o
ricultural land, hoitage assets if it w
mer Allotments);
ve on the Cuckn
S
Comments
tially within the vts.
of Budby Road (w
owever consideredwas developed.
and
ey Conservation
Site Allocations
illage Conservatio
will reflect surroun
d that this loss is
n Area.
Selection Proces
10
on Area and will
nding built form);
less significant
ss
07
S
10
EAST
Site R
108
109
110
111
112
141
142
143
145
146
150
152
Site Allocations S
08
MARKHAM SITE
ef Preferred SDiscounte
Preferred
ScreeniAssessm
SustainabApprais
ScreeniAssessm
ScreeniAssessm
Preferred
ScreeniAssessm
ScreeniAssessm
‐
‐
ScreeniAssessm
Screeni
Selection Proces
ES
Site or ed By
d Site
Ov
Dev
Loc
ng ment
Agr
Bui
bility sal
SO
ng ment
See
ng ment
Com
Agr
Bui
d Site Ov
Dev
The
ng ment
Agr
Bui
ng ment
Agr
Bui
Exi
Exi
ng ment
Com
Agr
Bui
ng Agr
ss
Reason
erall community s
velopment of the
cated within reaso
ricultural Land Cla
ilt Character
14
e site 112 below
mmunity Support
ricultural Land Cla
ilt Character
erall community s
velopment on thi
e site’s location e
ricultural Land Cla
ilt Character
ricultural Land Cla
ilt Character
sting Permission
sting Permission
mmunity Support
ricultural Land Cla
ilt Character
ricultural Land Cla
support for the de
e site would comp
onable walking di
ass Wo
Alsoof t
Loss
Give112
t
ass
Ove
Wo
Inco
support for the de
s site would gene
nables easy acces
ass Wo
Dev
ass Wo
Loca
Plan
Sustsecu
t
ass
Maj
Wo
Devcou
ass Wo
evelopment of th
plement the existi
stance of the villa
uld result in loss o
o dependant on she village.
s of an existing co
en the constraints2, this site should
erall objection;
uld result in loss o
ongruent to existi
evelopment of th
erally relate well t
ss to Public Rights
uld result in loss o
velopment of the
uld result in loss o
ated within the vi
nning permission
tainable site, capaured for this, ther
jority objection;
uld result in loss o
velopment would ntryside.
uld result in loss o
e site;
ng built form on B
age Primary Schoo
of Grade 2 agricul
ite 110 being dev
ommercial farmya
s of the dimensioonly come forwar
of Grade 2 agricul
ng built form.
e site;
o the surrounding
s of Way around t
of Grade 2 agricul
whole site would
of Grade 2 agricul
illage conservatio
has been secured
acity for 1 house –refore allocation n
of Grade 2 agricul
result in a signific
of Grade 2 agricul
Comments
Beckland Hill; and
ol.
ltural land (best a
eloped to make t
ard and associated
ns of site 111 andrd together with s
ltural land (best a
g built form, and;
the edge of the vil
ltural land (best a
be incongruent t
ltural land (best a
on area.
d for this, therefo
– however planninot required.
ltural land (best a
cant protrusion of
ltural land (best a
d
and most versatile
his sites fit into th
d buildings.
d the subsequent site 112.
and most versatile
llage.
and most versatile
to the built form o
and most versatile
re allocation not r
ng permission ha
and most versatile
f the built form in
and most versatile
e);
he built character
effects on site
e);
e);
of the village.
e);
required.
s already been
e);
nto the
e);
EAST
Site R
486
491
503
508
522
523
524
525
526
MARKHAM SITE
ef Preferred SDiscounte
Assessm
ScreeniAssessm
ScreeniAssessm
ScreeniAssessm
ScreeniAssessm
ScreeniAssessm
ScreeniAssessm
ScreeniAssessm
ScreeniAssessm
Screeni
ES
Site or ed By
ment Un
ng ment
Com
Agr
Bui
ng ment
Agr
Bui
ng ment
Com
Agr
Bui
ng ment
Bui
ng ment
Agr
Bui
ng ment
Agr
Bui
ng ment
Agr
Bui
Gre
ng ment
Bet
ng Agr
Reason
resolved Constra
mmunity Support
ricultural Land Cla
ilt Character
ricultural Land Cla
ilt Character
mmunity Support
ricultural Land Cla
ilt Character
ilt Character
ricultural Land Cla
ilt Character
ricultural Land Cla
ilt Character
ricultural Land Cla
ilt Character
een Infrastructure
tter Sites Availabl
ricultural Land Cla
ints In Cthe
t
ass
Ove
Wo
Ope
ass Wo
Ope
t
ass
Ove
Wo
Divo
The
ass Wo
Sitein tothe
ass Wo
Sitein tothe
ass
e
Wo
site
Provacce
e No dweloca
ass Wo
Conservation Areaarea.
erall objection;
uld result in loss o
en fields of the sit
uld result in loss o
en fields of the sit
erall objection
uld result in loss o
orced from the ex
e site is an importa
uld result in loss o
e relatively separao the countrysidecharacter of the
uld result in loss o
e relatively separao the countrysidecharacter of the
uld result in loss o
is completely div
viding access to tess to the site
major issues exceellings with limiteated directly adjac
uld result in loss o
a and contains larg
of Grade 2 agricul
te contribute posi
of Grade 2 agricul
te contribute posi
of Grade 2 agricul
xisting built‐up are
ant open space w
of Grade 2 agricul
te from the core e that are includedConservation Are
of Grade 2 agricul
te from the core e that are includedConservation Are
of Grade 2 agricul
vorced from the e
he site will impac
ept concern that td garden space; ncent the school.
of Grade 2 agricul
S
Comments
ge mature trees t
ltural land (best a
tively to the Cons
ltural land (best a
tively to the Cons
ltural land (best a
ea
within the Conserv
ltural land (best a
of the village. Devd within the Consa
ltural land (best a
of the village. Devd within the Consa
ltural land (best a
xisting built form
t negatively on th
the dimensions ofnot ideally located
ltural land (best a
Site Allocations
that contribute to
and most versatile
servation Area.
and most versatile
servation Area.
and most versatile
vation Area.
and most versatile
velopment wouldervation Area, the
and most versatile
velopment wouldervation Area, the
and most versatile
he current bridlew
f the site would ond in highway safet
and most versatile
Selection Proces
10
the character of
e);
e);
e);
e);
d enclose views ouerefore harming
e);
d enclose views ouerefore harming
e);
way/footpath
nly allow for smalty terms being
e);
ss
09
ut
ut
ll
S
11
EAST
Site R
Summ
Site Allocations S
10
MARKHAM SITE
ef Preferred SDiscounte
Assessm
mary of key facto
The impact of
The impact th
The potential
The potential
Selection Proces
ES
Site or ed By
ment Bui
Un
ors that shaped
f developing site
hat development
loss of local em
loss of higher gr
ss
Reason
ilt Character
resolved constrai
the preferred si
es on the East M
t of some of the
ployment facilit
rade agricultura
ints
Site
Stro
te selection:
arkham Conserv
other proposed
ies if one of the
l land.
e is completely div
ong concerns abo
vation Area;
d sites would hav
sites was develo
vorced from the e
ut the impact of d
ve on the built c
oped; and
Comments
existing built form
development on t
character of the
the Conservation
village;
Area.
ELKES
Site R
244
246A
246B
247
248A
248B
249
Summ
SLEY SITES
ef Preferred SDiscounte
ScreeniAssessm
A ScreeniAssessmB
Preferred
A SustainabApprais
B SustainabApprais
ScreeniAssessm
mary of key facto
The impact th
The impact th
Concerns abo
Site or ed By
ng ment
Lan
ng ment
Lan
d Site
Sitepro
Devbui
The
bility sal
MoAva
bility sal
MoAva
ng ment
Com
ors that shaped
hat development
hat development
ut the developm
Reason
ndscape Characte
ndscape Characte
e relates well to oviding the oppor
veloping this site ilt environment; a
e site is located w
ore Sustainable Sitailable
ore Sustainable Sitailable
mpatibility
the preferred si
t of some of the
t of some of the
ment of sites loca
er Wit
er Wit
the existing builtrtunity for better c
will help to reducand
within reasonable
te Sustbettthe
te Sustbettthe
Sitenois
te selection:
other proposed
other proposed
ated immediate
hin a ‘conserve’ la
hin a ‘conserve’ la
t form and provicommunity cohes
ce the surroundin
walking distance
tainable site, howter community covillage
tainable site, howter community covillage
e lies adjacent to tse and pollution.
d sites would hav
d sites would hav
ly adjacent to th
andscape Policy Z
andscape Policy Z
des a logical linksion;
ng area’s vulnerab
of key services in
wever site 247 wilohesion by filling i
wever site 247 wilohesion by filling i
the A1 – Environm
ve on the built c
ve on the landsc
he A1 Corridor d
S
Comments
Zone
Zone
kage between the
bility to antisocial
the village.
l contribute to a sin a gap between
l contribute to a sin a gap between
mental Health hav
character of the
cape character o
due to potential
Site Allocations
e east and west s
behaviour and co
safer built environthe eastern and w
safer built environthe eastern and w
ve expressed stron
village;
of the area; and
noise and pollut
Selection Proces
1
sides of the villag
ontribute to a saf
nment and deliverwestern sides of
nment and deliverwestern sides of
ng concerns abou
tion impacts.
ss
11
ge
er
r
r
ut
S
11
EVERT
Site R
296
345
400
401
405
406
407
408
409
453
477
Site Allocations S
12
TON SITES
ef Preferred SDiscounte
Preferred
SustainabApprais
Withdraw
Withdraw
ScreeniAssessm
ScreeniAssessm
ScreeniAssessm
Preferred
Withdraw
ScreeniAssessm
Preferred
Selection Proces
Site or ed By
d Site
Loc
Ov
The
bility sal
SO
wn By landowner
wn By landowner
ng ment
Bui
ng ment
Bui
ng ment
Bui
d Site Ov
Rel
Loc
wn By landowner
ng ment
Bui
d Site
The
Loc
Repthis
ss
Reason
cated within a rea
erall community s
e site’s location e
8
r – no longer avail
r – no longer avail
ilt Character
ilt Character
ilt Character
erall community s
lates well to exist
cated within a rea
r – no longer avail
ilt Character
e site’s location e
cated within a rea
placing the existis part of the Cons
asonable walking
support for the de
nables easy acces
No to tRoa
able for consider
able for consider
CA cwou
Mo
Devto t
Siteto toveHou
support for the de
ing built form; an
asonable walking
able for consider
Theof tdev
nables easy acces
asonable walking
ng modern farm servation Area.
distance of the vi
evelopment of th
ss to Public Rights
obvious outflow fhe east would incad.
ation for site alloc
ation for site alloc
character area apuld introduce resi
re extensive deve
velopment would he site
e lies within the vihe overall characer the impact of deuse) of the site, pl
evelopment of th
nd
distance of key se
ation for site alloc
e open space of thhe Conservation Aveloped in additio
ss to Public Rights
distance of the vi
buildings on this
llage school;
e site, and;
s of Way around t
for surface water crease the flood r
cation
cation
ppraisal highlightsdential character
elopment would e
result in loss of v
llage CA and fieldter of the Gainsboeveloping the siteus locally listed b
e site;
ervices in the villa
cation
he site is identifiedArea. Complete lon to site 296.
s of Way around t
llage school; and
site with more s
Comments
the edge of the vil
runoff, any dischisk to properties d
concern at loss oto an area predo
excessively protru
iews in to and ou
ds such as this areorough Road chare; Grade II Listed Buildings.
age.
d as making a pososs of the site wou
the village;
ensitive developm
llage.
arge to the land ddownstream on G
of openness alongominantly of agric
de in to the coun
t of the CA, imme
regarded as contracter area – stroBuildings to the ea
sitive contributionuld harm this cha
ment may enhanc
drainage network Gainsborough
g this stretch and ultural character;
tryside.
ediately adjacent
tributing positivelng concerns raiseast (Hall Farm
n to the characterracter, especially
ce the character
;
y ed
r if
in
EVERT
Site R
484
Summ
TON SITES
ef Preferred SDiscounte
ScreeniAssessm
mary of key facto
Following the
owner, signific
The impact of
The compatib
Site or ed By
ng ment
Com
Bui
ors that shaped
Issues and Opt
cantly reducing
f developing site
ility of developi
Reason
mmunity Support
ilt Character
the preferred si
tions consultatio
the availability o
es on the East M
ng sites with the
t Ove
withof tof t
te selection:
on potential site
of potential land
arkham Conserv
e existing built c
erall objection
hin the village CA;he existing built fhis area
es to the north o
d within the villa
vation Area; and
haracter of the v
; development of orm away from th
of Everton (sites
age;
d
village.
S
Comments
the entire site wohe core of the vill
s 400, 401 & 40
Site Allocations
ould involve a sigage and loss of th
9) were withdra
Selection Proces
1
nificant extensionhe open character
awn by their lan
ss
13
n r
nd
S
11
GAMS
Site R
‐
410
412
413
534
577
Summ
Site Allocations S
14
STON SITES
ef Preferred SDiscounte
Preferred O
ScreeniAssessm
ScreeniAssessm
ScreeniAssessm
SustainabApprais
SustainabApprais
mary of key facto
Concerns oveBuildings mea
Selection Proces
Site or ed By
Option Not to
ng ment
Un
ng ment
Agr
ng ment
Agr
bility sal
Un
bility sal
Un
ors that shaped
r loss of Best anant that there ar
ss
Reason
allocate sites in G
resolved Constra
ricultural Land Cla
ricultural Land Cla
resolved Constra
resolved Constra
the preferred si
d most versatilere no preferable
Gamston: No sites
int DevBrapoli
ass Wo
Sitebuil
ass Wo
Sitebuil
int Devsett
int Sitecha
te selection:
e agricultural lansites within Gam
s considered suita
velopment of the mcote Lorne Schoices).
uld result in loss o
e within Conservatlt character.
uld result in loss o
e within Conservatlt character.
velopment of this ting of the nearby
e lies within the viracter of this area
nd and the detrimmston.
ble for allocation
site would jeoparool site (the conve
of Grade 2 agricul
tion Area, develo
of Grade 2 agricul
tion Area, develo
site would undery Grade I listed Ch
llage CA, therefora; site forms part
mental impact o
Comments
, redistribute grow
rdise the future coersion of the prop
ltural land (best a
pment of full site
ltural land (best a
pment of full site
rmine the characthurch to the east.
re the impact of dof the setting of t
on the conservat
wth to higher tier
onversion/reuse operty is already co
and most versatile
s would be incong
and most versatile
s would be incong
er of this CA and
development wouthe grade II listed
tion area and set
r settlements.
of the former overed by existing
e);
gruent with the
e);
gruent with the
damage the
uld undermine theGamston Manor
tting of Listed
g
e .
MATT
Site R
295
423
424
428
479
557
588
TERSEY SITES
ef Preferred SDiscounte
ScreeniAssessm
ScreeniAssessm
ScreeniAssessm
Preferred
ScreeniAssessm
ScreeniAssessm
ScreeniAssessm
Site or ed By
ng ment
Lan
Bui
ng ment
Co
Lan
Bui
ng ment
Lan
Un
d Site
Ov
Thethe
Loc
ng ment
Lan
Bui
ng ment
Co
Lan
Bui
ng ment
Lan
Bui
Reason
ndscape Characte
ilt Character
mmunity Support
ndscape Characte
ilt Character
ndscape Characte
resolved Constra
erall community s
e site relates wele village; and
cated within a rea
ndscape Characte
ilt Character
mmunity Support
ndscape Characte
ilt Character
ndscape Characte
ilt Character
er Wit
Eveform
t
er
Maj
Wit
Evemanvilla
er
ints
Wit
Clos
Bou
support for the de
l to the existing b
asonable walking
er Wit
Thethe
t
er
Obj
Wit
Sitedevbotinto
er Wit
Witthe
thin a ‘conserve a
n linear developmm of the main par
jority objection;
thin a ‘conserve a
n linear developmnner that is out ofage.
thin a ‘conserve a
se proximity to gr
und by FZ3 to the
evelopment of th
built form of Mat
distance of key se
thin a ‘conserve a
e site is completelcountryside
ection to develop
thin a ‘conserve a
e is largely separatvelopment runninh the character oo the countryside.
thin a ‘conserve a
thin the village Cowest of Main St w
nd reinforce’ land
ment would be anrt of the village.
nd reinforce’ land
ment along roadsif character with t
nd reinforce’ land
rade II Listed Build
north. EA suggest
e site;
tersey, particular
ervices in the villa
nd reinforce’ land
y divorced from t
pment;
nd reinforce’ land
te from the main g along Abbey Rof the Conservatio.
nd reinforce’ land
onservation Area awould be incongru
S
Comments
dscape Policy Zon
n incongruent exte
dscape Policy Zon
de would extend he relatively com
dscape Policy Zon
dings;
t that developme
rly the more mod
age.
dscape Policy Zon
he existing built f
dscape Policy Zon
built‐up area of Moad. Developmentn Area and the w
dscape Policy Zon
and developing touent with the exis
Site Allocations
e;
ension of the rela
e;
the built form sigpact form of the
e;
nt near FZ3 shoul
dern housing esta
e
form, protruding s
e
Mattersey, with ot would impact newider village, protr
e;
o the rear of existsting linear form.
Selection Proces
1
tively compact
gnificantly and in main part of the
ld be avoided.
tes to the south
significantly into
nly loose ribbon egatively upon ruding significantl
ing properties to
ss
15
a
of
y
S
11
Summ
Site Allocations S
16
mary of key facto
The impact th
The impact th
Land to the No
Selection Proces
ors that shaped
hat development
hat development
orth of Matterse
ss
the preferred si
t of some of the
t of some of the
ey, along the riv
te selection:
other proposed
other proposed
ver Idle, is within
d sites would hav
d sites would hav
n an identified flo
ve on the built c
ve on the landsc
ood zone.
character of the
cape character o
village;
of the area; and
MISSO
Site R
383
480
504
505
506
Summ
ON SITES
ef Preferred SDiscounte
ScreeniAssessm
Preferred
ScreeniAssessm
ScreeniAssessm
ScreeniAssessm
mary of key facto
The impact th
The impact th
The opportun
Site or ed By
ng ment
Bui
Un
d Site
ng ment
Bui
Bet
ng ment
Bui
Bet
ng ment
Com
Bui
ors that shaped
hat development
hat development
ity to deliver ec
Reason
ilt Character
resolved Constra
Site includes a la
Overall commun
A mixed‐use deavailable for bus
Located within a
the site is somesite will complem
The site location
ilt Character
tter Site Available
ilt Character
tter Site Available
mmunity Support
ilt Character
the preferred si
t of some of the
t of some of the
onomic benefits
int
Site
Nar
arge area of brow
nity support for th
evelopment that wsiness developme
a reasonable walk
ewhat detached fment and possibly
n enables ease of
e
Devup a
Con
e
Onlappcou
Con
t Ove
site
te selection:
other proposed
other proposed
s to the village.
e is clearly divorce
rrow track needin
wnfield land;
he development o
will continue to ent within the villa
king distance of ke
from the village cy enhance the bu
access to Public R
velopment of the area;
nsidered that Site
y a limited linear propriate. Developntryside;
nsidered that Site
erall objection
is completely iso
d sites would hav
d sites would hav
ed from the existin
g improvements a
of the site;
provide employmage;
ey services in the
core, but sensitiveilt character of th
Right of Way arou
entire site would
480 can deliver a
development alopment beyond thi
480 can deliver a
lated from the re
ve on the built c
ve on the landsc
S
Comments
ng built form
and a pedestrian
ment opportunitie
village;
ely designed redehe village; and
und the edge of th
be incongruent w
better mix of dev
ng the roadside tis would represen
better mix of dev
est of the built‐up
character of the
cape character o
Site Allocations
footway
es and improve t
evelopment of th
he village.
with the character
velopment.
o the west of the nt a significant ext
velopment.
area
village;
of the area; and
Selection Proces
1
he range building
he large brownfie
r of the main built
site would be tension into the
ss
17
gs
eld
t‐
S
11
NETH
Site R
251
252
256
257
540
Summ
Site Allocations S
18
HER LANGWITH S
ef Preferred SDiscounte
SustainabApprais
ScreeniAssessm
Preferred
ScreeniAssessm
ScreeniAssessm
mary of key facto
The impact th
The impact th
The potential
The potential
Selection Proces
SITES
Site or ed By
bility sal
SO
ng ment
Bui
Un
d Site
Loc
The
The
ng ment
Bui
Gre
ng ment
Com
Bui
Un
ors that shaped
hat development
hat development
loss of higher gr
loss of an existi
ss
Reason
6 & SO12
ilt character
resolved Constra
cated within reaso
e site forms a logi
e site’s location e
ilt Character
een Infrastructure
mmunity Support
ilt character
resolved Constra
the preferred si
t of some of the
t of some of the
rade agricultura
ng valuable com
Devsite
ints
Bacof c
Low
the
onable walking di
ical extension to t
nables easy acces
e
The
Devthe
t
ints
Obj
Onlbuil
Adja
Weand
te selection:
other proposed
other proposed
l land; and
mmunity use alre
velopment would , providing emplo
kland developmecharacter with the
w levels of contam
existing building
stance of local se
the built form bet
ss to Public Rights
e site is isolated fr
velopment would character of the
ection to the site
y suitable for onelt character;
acent to a grade I
lfitt Grove is a nad poor visibility at
d sites would hav
d sites would hav
eady occupying a
result in loss of aoyment and traini
ent at the rear of ee existing linear fo
minants that will n
to the front of th
ervices;
tween the existing
s of Way around t
om the existing b
result in loss of narea.
;
e or two dwellings
I listed building;
rrow private roadthe junction
ve on the built c
ve on the landsc
a site.
Comments
community gardng opportunities,
existing propertieorm
eed remediated;
e site would need
g residential estat
the edge of the vil
built form;
umerous mature
s, any more devel
d without footway
character of the
cape character o
en/farm currently, impacting upon
es, of an incongrue
d to be demolishe
tes; and
llage.
trees, whose can
opment would ne
ys limited passing
village;
of the area;
y in use on the biodiversity
ent scale and out
ed to allow access
nopy contributes t
egatively impact o
opportunities,
s.
to
on
NORT
Site R
162
164
165
200
262
501
551
586
Summ
TH LEVERTON SI
ef Preferred SDiscounte
ScreeniAssessm
ScreeniAssessm
Preferred
SustainabApprais
ScreeniAssessm
ScreeniAssessm
ScreeniAssessm
ScreeniAssessm
mary of key facto
TES
Site or ed By
ng ment
Bui
Bet
ng ment
Bui
d Site
Ov
Thesou
Loc
The
bility sal
SO
ng ment
Bui
ng ment
Bui
Gre
ng ment
Bui
Bet
ng ment
Bui
ors that shaped
Reason
ilt Character
tter Site available
ilt Character
erall community s
e site forms a loguthwest;
cated within a rea
e site’s location e
12
ilt Character
ilt character
een infrastructure
ilt Character
tter Site available
ilt Character
the preferred si
e
Devterm
Site
Site
support for the de
gical extension to
asonable walking
nables easy acces
Lossprov
Theof tloss
e
Bac
Thecanof t
e
Devterm
Site
Theof tloss
te selection:
velopment on thems;
e 165 provides a m
e is divorced from
evelopment of th
o village between
distance of local s
ss to Public Rights
s of the garage wvision.
e many open areahis part of the vills of an open site in
kland developme
ere is relatively lowopy on and arounhe village.
velopment on thems, but dimension
e 165 provides a m
e many open areahis part of the vills of an open site in
front part of the
more logical exten
the existing built
e site;
the modern hou
services; and
s of Way around t
ill result in loss of
s along the southlage. Developmenn the street scene
ent would be out o
w tree coverage innd this site would
front part of the ns of the site limit
more logical exten
s along the southlage. Developmenn the street scene
S
Comments
site only would b
nsion and has grea
form
using estate to th
the edge of the vil
f an existing empl
ern side of Main Snt of this site woue.
of character with
n North Leverton have a negative i
site only would bt appropriate dev
nsion and has grea
ern side of Main Snt of this site woue.
Site Allocations
be acceptable in b
ater public suppo
he north and the
llage.
oyment site and r
Street helps to deuld detract from th
the existing linea
loss of any of theimpact on the gre
be acceptable in belopment layout
ater public suppo
Street helps to deuld detract from th
Selection Proces
1
built character
rt
railway line to th
reduce service
efine the charactehis through the
r form;
e mature tree een infrastructure
built character options;
rt.
efine the charactehis through the
ss
19
he
er
e
er
S
12
Site Allocations S
20
The impact th
The potential
Selection Proces
hat development
loss of local em
ss
t of some of the
ployment if a sit
other proposed
te in the village w
d sites would hav
was developed f
ve on the built c
for housing.
character of the village; and
NORT
Site R
236
237
238
239
464
Summ
TH AND SOUTH
ef Preferred SDiscounte
Preferred
ScreeniAssessm
ScreeniAssessm
ScreeniAssessm
mary of key facto
The impact of
The lack of co
WHEATLEY SITE
Site or ed By
d Site
Ov
A ccom
Loc
ng ment
Bui
ng ment
Bui
Un
ng ment
Com
Bui
ors that shaped
f developing som
mpatibility of so
ES
Reason
erall community s
continuation of mplement the cha
cated within a rea
ilt Character
ilt Character
resolved Constra
mmunity Support
ilt Character
the preferred si
me of the propos
ome proposed si
support for the de
the linear develaracter of the are
asonable walking
Norweslackcha
ints
Devfrom
In cland
t Ove
Devroadharm
te selection:
sed sites on the
ites with the exi
evelopment of th
opment from thea; and
distance of key se
rthern half is divost marks a definitik of continuity woracter of the area
veloping the entirm the main conce
lose proximity to dscape setting of
erall objection
velopment of the dside (south and mful to the existin
Village Conserva
sting built chara
e site;
he existing built
ervices in the villa
rced from the buiive end to the ribbould mean that dea
e site would be a entration of the bu
local listed buildithe Conservation
site would be a dwest). This intensng character of th
ation Area and l
acter of the villag
S
Comments
form to the we
age.
ilt form and the bbon developmentevelopment of the
significant extensuilt form;
ngs; strong conse Area.
eparture from thesification of develhis part of the villa
ocally listed bui
ge.
Site Allocations
est along Top Pa
boundary hedgerot pattern. Howevee site would detra
sion of the village
ervation concerns
e existing linear foopment may be rage
ldings; and
Selection Proces
12
asture Lane wou
ow/trees to the er, it is felt that thact from the
e, protruding away
over the loss of
orm along the regarded as
ss
21
ld
he
y
S
12
RAMP
Site R
228
230
231
483
Summ
Site Allocations S
22
PTON SITES
ef Preferred SDiscounte
Preferred
ScreeniAssessm
ScreeniAssessm
ScreeniAssessmenSustainabApprais
mary of key facto
The lack of co
Balancing the
Selection Proces
Site or ed By
d Site
Ov
Thethe
Loc
ng ment
Com
Bui
Gre
ng ment
Bui
ng nt and bility sal
Un
SO
ors that shaped
mpatibility of so
significance of h
ss
Reason
erall community s
e site forms a loge existing built for
cated within a rea
mmunity Support
ilt Character
een Infrastructure
ilt Character
resolved Constra
7
the preferred si
ome proposed si
heritage assists a
support for the de
gical continuationrm of the area; an
asonable walking
t
e
Maj
Devof t
Part
Sitenea
int BarmayCor
te selection:
ites with the exi
and their setting
evelopment of th
n of the existing rnd
distance of the lo
jority objection
velopment would he village across t
t of this site has r
e divorced from tharest dwellings to
ns on the site arey be inappropriatee Strategy but wo
sting built chara
gs.
e site;
residential develo
ocal village shop.
detract from the the wider landsca
ecently been dev
he rest of the builtthe north.
considered to bee. Potential conveould subject to de
acter of the villag
Comments
opment along Tre
existing built chaape
eloped as a play a
t form due to a si
e a non‐designateersion of barns alretailed considerat
ge; and
eswell Road and w
racter and increa
area
zeable gap betwe
d heritage asset aready covered by ions.
would compleme
se the prominenc
een it and the
and any new buildadopted policy in
nt
ce
d n
STRUT
Site Re
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
Summ
TON‐LE‐STEEPLE
ef Preferred SDiscounte
ScreeniAssessmenSustainabApprais
ScreeniAssessm
Preferred
‐
‐
‐
‐
Preferred
ScreeniAssessm
mary of key facto
The similar ch
Levels of com
Existing Public
Lack of compa
E SITES
Site or ed By
ng nt and bility sal
Bet
ng ent
Bui
d Site Co
Lin
Bet
Bet
Bet
Bet
d Site Ma
lim
ng ent
Co
ors that shaped
haracteristics of m
munity support
c Rights of Way o
atibility of some
Reason
tter sites available
ilt Character
mmunity support
ear development
tter sites available
tter sites available
tter sites available
tter sites available
ajority support;
mited developmen
nstraints
the preferred si
most sites, with
for sites;
over a potential
proposed sites
e All swou
Locanort
t for the site;
t along the front o
e All swou
e All swou
e All swou
e All swou
nt along the roads
Site
te selection:
only small diffe
site; and
with the existing
sites similar excepuld better comple
ated on a prominthern end of the v
of this site would
sites similar excepuld better comple
sites similar excepuld better comple
sites similar excepuld better comple
sites similar excepuld better comple
side frontage wou
e has a public righ
erences allowing
g built character
pt sites 456 and 4ement the built ch
ent corner, develvillage
complement the
pt sites 456 and 4ement the built ch
pt sites 456 and 4ement the built ch
pt sites 456 and 4ement the built ch
pt sites 456 and 4ement the built ch
uld complement th
t of way running d
distinctions to b
r of the village.
S
Comments
62 have communharacter of the vil
opment would er
built character al
62 have communharacter of the vil
62 have communharacter of the vil
62 have communharacter of the vil
62 have communharacter of the vil
he existing built fo
diagonally across
be made includi
Site Allocations
nity support and thlage
rode the open cha
ong Cross Street
nity support and thlage
nity support and thlage
nity support and thlage
nity support and thlage
orm
the site.
ng;
Selection Proces
12
heir development
aracter of the
heir development
heir development
heir development
heir development
ss
23
t
t
t
t
t
S
12
WALK
Site R
280
286
293
294
349
353
366
368
437
438
442
445
Site Allocations S
24
KERINGHAM SIT
ef Preferred SDiscounte
Infrastruc
ScreeniAssessm
ScreeniAssessm
SustainabApprais
Infrastruc
ScreeniAssessm
ScreeniAssessm
ScreeniAssessm
SustainabApprais
Preferred
ScreeniAssessm
Screeni
Selection Proces
TES
Site or ed By
cture Bet
ng ment
Bui
ng ment
Bui
bility sal
SO
cture Bet
ng ment
Lan
Bui
ng ment
Com
Bui
ng ment
Bui
bility sal
SO
d Site
Its
Dev
Dev
The
ng ment
Com
Bui
ng Com
ss
Reason
tter site available
ilt Character
ilt Character
8 – Flood/Drainin
tter site available
ndscape Characte
ilt Character
mmunity Support
ilt Character
ilt Character
8 – Flood/Drainin
location provides
velopment here w
velopment in a lin
e site’s location e
mmunity Support
ilt Character
mmunity support
Sitenew
Sitethe
Wobuil
ng Thisincr
Sitenew
er Wit
Site
t Ove
Birdboucha
Devund
ng Thisincr
s the only opportu
would ensure eas
near form along t
nables easy acces
t Maj
Devthe
t Com
e unable to addresw growth in the vi
e does not relate wbuilt character of
uld create an incolt‐up areas within
s area has previourease the flood ris
e unable to addresw growth in the vi
hin a ‘conserve’ la
e is divorced from
erall objection
dcroft Lane and roundary to the villaracter of this part
velopment along tdesirable characte
s area has previourease the flood ris
unity for land to b
e of access to loca
he roadside woul
ss to a Public Righ
jority objection
veloping this site wvillage
mmunity objection
ss the Specific neellage.
well to the existinf this part of the v
ongruent extensio the village, with
usly flooded and dsk for the wider ar
ss the Specific neellage.
andscape Policy Z
the built form
ow of mature treege. Developmentt of the village.
the portion of theeristic of the villag
usly flooded and dsk for the wider ar
be used for the ne
al services includi
d be a logical con
ht of Way around
would detract fro
n
Comments
ed for the School
g built form devevillage
on to the village afew other built st
development wourea
ed for the School
Zone
es, to the north oft beyond here wo
e site fronting the ge in this part of B
development wourea
eeded expansion o
ing the village Prim
ntinuation of local
the edge of the v
m the predomina
to expand to acco
elopment would s
s this site is isolattructures nearby
uld put new prope
to expand to acco
f the site, form a suld significantly a
may exacerbate tBeckingham
uld put new prope
of Walkeringham
mary School to th
character; and
illage.
antly linear charac
ommodate any
ignificantly alter
ted from other
erties at risk and
ommodate any
strong southern alter the built
the existing,
erties at risk and
Primary School;
he west of the site
cter of this part of
e;
f
WALK
Site R
468
547
Summ
KERINGHAM SIT
ef Preferred SDiscounte
Assessm
SustainabApprais
Infrastruc
mary of key fact
A significant c
Walkeringham
Walkeringham
TES
Site or ed By
ment Bui
bility sal
SO
cture Bet
ors that shaped
capacity issue at
m Primary Schoo
m Primary Schoo
Reason
ilt Character
8 – Flood/Drainin
tter site available
the preferred s
t the Walkeringh
ol is expanded; a
ol has no space w
Dev
ng Thisincr
Sitenew
ite selection:
ham Primary Sch
and
within their site
velopment would
s area has previourease the flood ris
e unable to addresw growth in the vi
hool. No new re
to expand.
detract from the
usly flooded and dsk for the wider ar
ss the Specific neellage.
esidential develo
S
Comments
open character o
development wourea
ed for the School
opment should b
Site Allocations
of this area
uld put new prope
to expand to acco
be delivered in t
Selection Proces
12
erties at risk and
ommodate any
the village befor
ss
25
re