Doncaster Local Plan Submission (February 2020)

Settlement Audit (2020 Update)

1

Introduction and Purpose of the Paper

The Doncaster Local Plan will set out planning policies which will be used to guide

planning decisions across the borough up to 2035.

This process started in 2014 when the Council carried out a Settlement Audit,

which was published in 2015, and subsequently updated in 2017. For the 2018

Draft Policies and Proposed Sites consultation, the Settlement Audit was expanded

on to provide clearer details of the services included, and also clarified a few further

anomalies.

As six years have now passed since the original Settlement Audit was undertaken,

it has been decided that the Settlement Audit will be reviewed and updated where

necessary to ensure the information within it is up to date and reflects the current

service provision in the borough.

The services that were assessed in the former Settlement Audit have therefore

been reassessed to check that they either still exist, or that new services are

captured. This was undertaken in 2019 to ensure that the Local Planning Authority

is satisfied that the data is up to date and still supports the proposed Settlement

Strategy which aims to direct housing to the most sustainable locations in the

borough.

2

Contents

Introduction and Purpose of the Paper ............................................................................................ 1

1. Background and Overview ........................................................................................................ 3

1.1. Background and Original Settlement Audit ....................................................................... 3

1.2. Criticisms of the Settlement Audit ..................................................................................... 4

2. Services assessed in the Settlement Audit ............................................................................... 5

2.1. Which Services have been assessed? ................................................................................ 5

3. Proposed Assessment Methodology ........................................................................................ 8

3.1. Selecting the Areas to Assess ............................................................................................. 8

4. 2019 Settlement Audit Re-evaluation .............................................................................. 10

4.1. 2019 Settlement Audit Scores.......................................................................................... 10

4.2. Assessment ...................................................................................................................... 15

4.3. Rankings ........................................................................................................................... 16

4.4. Assessment ...................................................................................................................... 18

5. Conclusions ...................................................................................................................... 20

5.1. Summary of the 2020 Settlement Audit .......................................................................... 20

3

1. Background and Overview

1.1. Background and Original Settlement Audit

1.1.1. In preparation for the emerging Local Plan, in 2014 a Settlement Audit was

untaken, with the results published in 2015. This was one of the earliest

pieces of the Local Plan evidence base, and helped inform the Settlement

Hierarchy. This document was reviewed and republished in 2017 and

amendments made where necessary when anomalies had been noted.

1.1.2. The Settlement Audit was undertaken and compiled using a mix of methods,

including Community Profiles, desktop surveys and local officer knowledge.

1.1.3. In total, the boroughs settlements were assessed against thirteen services,

which were split into “primary” and “secondary” services deemed desirable

to have in a settlement, and which indicate a settlement may be sustainable.

1.1.4. Primary Services are the more vital services which are considered very

important for a settlement to have in order to be considered sustainable and

desirable as a place to live. They include:

A primary school;

Town Centre;

Train Station;

Bus network;

GP; and

Pharmacy.

1.1.5. Secondary services are those deemed less important than primary services,

but still able to contribute towards the sustainability and appeal of a

settlement. These include:

Secondary schools;

Shopping;

Dentists;

Libraries;

Leisure Centres;

Formal Open Space;

Informal Open Space; and

4

A secondary bus network (if an area has not scored for buses in

primary category).

1.1.6. Certain services such as post offices, salons / hairdressers and employment

sites were considered but not assessed in the audit, as set out in original

the document itself.

1.1.7. Settlements could only score ‘1’ or ‘0’, based on whether or not the service

exists within the settlement. It did not assess the quantity of provision or

differentiate in scoring to highlight which services were more important. This

meant there was a simple scoring system which means there was also a

degree of ‘future proofing’ to the Audit. For a service score to change, and

therefore the overall settlement score to change, a service would have to

either completely disappear from the settlement, or a completely new

service type locate in the settlement. For example, there could be three

primary schools in a settlement. If one were to have closed, it would not

impact the score as the settlement scored ‘1’ to indicate that service exists

in some capacity in the settlement, irrespective of the quantity.

1.1.8. Services could only be allotted to one settlement, which means that even

though a service may be likely to be used by residents of a nearby

settlement; this has not been reflected in the scoring (unless this has been

an obvious error and a service corrected to the settlement it clearly serves).

For example, Adwick train station is very well related to Carcroft – Skellow,

but as it falls within the boundary for Adwick - Woodlands, only scores a

point to this settlement.

1.2. Criticisms of the Settlement Audit

1.2.1. Although feedback on the Settlement Audit has been relatively limited, there

have been criticisms of this document.

1.2.2. Previous consultation feedback indicated that there was occasional

confusion about the Settlement Audit methodology and that in some

locations services may have been missed. Whilst important for accuracy

purposes, and amendments made where noted, as aforementioned this

would only change the scoring if it was a missed service type that had not

otherwise been recorded in that settlement, or incorrectly counted one that

does not otherwise exist in a settlement.

1.2.3. There is also a lapse in time between the audit being undertaken and the

Local Plan publication, however the scoring system should have negated

5

potential issues arising from this interval for the reasons stated above. This

update will address this matter by providing an up to date overview of

service provision.

1.2.4. Some feedback criticised the Audit for failing to take into account future

opportunities and pipeline development in certain settlements. However, the

job of the Settlement Audit is to reflect the situation on the ground at the

time it is undertaken, which in turn will inform decision making that leads to

future development. It is not the job of the audit to speculate on what may

happen in the future in an area, and scoring based on this may unfairly

prejudice certain settlements. Changes will instead be recorded in future

iterations of the Audit. This is also consistent with the approach taken

through the Sustainability Appraisal for site allocations which assesses

potential site options against the current baseline situation.

1.2.5. It is accepted that given the lapse in time between the Settlement Audit

being undertaken and now, it is possible that there have been material

changes to the service provisions in settlements which warrant the

Settlement Audit being revisited to reassess the service levels and

sustainability of the boroughs settlements.

1.2.6. Therefore, in preparation for the Local Plan Submission, the Settlement

Audit has been revisited for a third time to ensure all scores are up to date,

and to provide absolute clarity on the process undertaken.

2. Services assessed in the Settlement Audit

2.1. Which Services have been assessed?

2.1.1. The services which have been assessed in the Settlement Audit are as

follows:

Service Description

Primary School Free to access public schools, including faith

schools and academies, but not schools for

children with special educational requirements.

Where schools are split over two sites as infant /

junior they count as one.

6

Town centre Where a settlement is recorded as having a town,

district or local centre in the Doncaster Retail,

Leisure and Town Centre Study (and reflected in

Policy 2 of the Local Plan).

Train Service Settlements with an operational passenger train

station.

Bus Network (Primary) Buses on the SYPTE core network - a stretch of

highway where there is a combined frequency of

equal to or more than six buses per hour.

GP NHS registered GP surgeries

Pharmacy Medicinal dispensaries which may be stand-alone

units, or a staffed unit as part of a larger shop.

Secondary School Free to access public schools, including Faith

schools and academies, but excluding schools for

children with special educational requirements.

Shopping (secondary) Settlements with Neighbourhood Shopping

Parades or larger shops.

Dentist NHS registered dentists.

Library Council or community run venue for loaning

books, films, music etc.

Leisure Centre Public facilities that provide a range of health and

recreational opportunities to communities, such as

swimming pools, indoor courts, gyms, all weather

pitches and more.

Formal Open Space Settlements with a sufficiency of formal open

space, as recorded in the Green Space Audit

Informal Open Space Settlements with a sufficiency of informal open

space, as recorded in the Green Space Audit

Bus Network (Secondary) Settlements which have a bus service that has

four visits at three bus stops which equate to one

visit every quarter of an hour or two visits every

half an hour.

2.1.2. In order to update the information in the Settlement Audit, officers have

used the following sources of information:

Service Description

Primary School Up to date information from DMBC Education Team

Town centre Information in the Doncaster Retail Study, which has

informed the Local Plan retail hierarchy.

7

Train Service National Rail

Bus Network

(Primary)

Mapping data provided by the SYPTE on bus stops and

service frequency.

GP NHS GP location search: https://www.nhs.uk/service-

search/GP/LocationSearch/4

Pharmacy Doncaster Pharmaceutical Needs Assessment

http://www.doncaster.gov.uk/services/health-

wellbeing/doncaster%E2%80%99s-health-and-

wellbeing-board

Secondary School Up to date information from DMBC Education Team

Shopping

(secondary)

Information in the Doncaster Retail Study, which has

informed the Local Plan retail hierarchy. Other

information on Neighbourhood Shopping parades and

individual shops gather via officer searches.

Dentist NHS Dentist location search:

https://www.nhs.uk/Service-

Search/Dentists/LocationSearch/3

Library Doncaster Libraries

https://library.doncaster.gov.uk/web/arena

Leisure Centre Doncaster Cultural and Leisure Trust

https://www.dclt.co.uk/venues/

Formal Open Space Doncaster Green Space Audit:

https://www.doncaster.gov.uk/services/planning/green-

space-documents Informal Open Space

Bus Network

(Secondary)

Mapping data provided by the SYPTE on bus stops and

service frequency.

2.1.3. Where possible, data has been cross checked against UPRN GIS

information that the Council holds and anomalies checked. This might be,

for example, where GIS information says there should be a doctor’s surgery

but the NHS website does not. Such conflicts have been individually looked

at and resolved. This ensures that the information being recorded is

accurate and has been doubled checked in the instances where the data

exists (schools; GPs; Pharmacies; Dentists; Libraries; and Leisure Centres).

https://www.nhs.uk/service-search/GP/LocationSearch/4https://www.nhs.uk/service-search/GP/LocationSearch/4http://www.doncaster.gov.uk/services/health-wellbeing/doncaster%E2%80%99s-health-and-wellbeing-boardhttp://www.doncaster.gov.uk/services/health-wellbeing/doncaster%E2%80%99s-health-and-wellbeing-boardhttp://www.doncaster.gov.uk/services/health-wellbeing/doncaster%E2%80%99s-health-and-wellbeing-boardhttps://www.nhs.uk/Service-Search/Dentists/LocationSearch/3https://www.nhs.uk/Service-Search/Dentists/LocationSearch/3https://library.doncaster.gov.uk/web/arenahttps://www.dclt.co.uk/venues/https://www.doncaster.gov.uk/services/planning/green-space-documentshttps://www.doncaster.gov.uk/services/planning/green-space-documents

8

3. Proposed Assessment Methodology

3.1. Selecting the Areas to Assess

3.1.1. The borough has 58 settlements which are currently defined, ranging from

the Main Urban Area to small villages. The Settlement Audit used the 2014

“Community Profiles”, which split the borough into 88 separate areas with

the intention of reflecting where people say they live – which means that

they do not always conform neatly to conventional ward or parish

boundaries.

3.1.2. The community profile areas generally include areas of population and in

the case of many areas outside of central Doncaster, the surrounding rural

lands. All together, the individual profile areas cover the whole of Doncaster.

3.1.3. The 88 community profile areas have subsequently been updated in 2018

to 39 areas based on Mid Layer Super Output Areas (MSOAs). However,

these boundaries are less reflective of the individual settlements in the

borough than the 2014 community profile areas, as they merge many of the

settlements into larger geographical groups.

3.1.4. For audit purposes, the community profiles do not hold information related

to the provision of wider services in the area, and therefore reverting back

to the boundaries of the original 2014 Community Profiles, which on the

whole better reflect the boroughs individual settlements, and using these for

mapping in GIS allows officers to more accurately and efficiently undertake

an audit update, as well as providing consistency with the original

Settlement Audit.

3.1.5. The community profiles generally cover the defined settlements in the

borough, however on occasion some changes must be made to either

merge community profile areas or split them ensure that settlements in the

Local Plan are fully reflected. These include:

Settlements Merge / Split? Reason

Adwick and

Woodlands

Merge Contiguous settlements.

Auckley and

Hayfield Green

Merge Adjacent settlements which reflect

the parish boundary.

9

Barnburgh and

Harlington

Merge Adjacent settlements which reflect

the parish boundary.

Braithwaite &

Kirk Bramwith

Split Separate settlements.

Brodsworth &

Pickburn

Split Separate settlements.

Carcroft and

Skellow

Merge Contiguous settlements.

Dunscroft,

Dunsville,

Hatfield and

Stainforth

Merge Contiguous settlements and

reflects the Unity initiative

proposals.

Hampole -

Skelbrooke

Split Separate settlements.

Old Rossington

and New

Rossington

Merge Contiguous settlements

(Rossington).

Thorne and

Moorends

Merge Reflects the Town Council area

and designated Neighbourhood

Plan area boundary.

Sprotbrough Split Split by the A1(M) to reflect the

decision that Sprotbrough Village

(west of the A1(M)) is a separate

settlement to the area east of the

A1(M). Sprotbrough Village will be

assessed in its own right, with the

remainder being assessed as part

of the Main Urban Area.

3.1.6. The settlements listed in the table above will have their respective

settlements merged or split, and scored accordingly. This settlement split

forms the basis of the Settlement Audit, as the 88 Community Profile Areas

(or variations thereof listed above), are mapped and can allow data for a

number of services to be extracted based on their location within them.

10

4. 2019 Settlement Audit Re-evaluation

4.1. 2019 Settlement Audit Scores

4.1.1. There are 14 categories which the settlements can score against, however

the maximum score is 13, as if a settlement scores for being on the primary

bus network, it cannot also score for being on the secondary network.

4.1.2. Following data collection and information sifting, the scores have been

compiled for the settlements, and are shown in the table overleaf.

11

Area1 PR

IMA

RY

SC

HO

OL

TO

WN

CE

NT

RE

TR

AIN

ST

AT

ION

BU

S N

ET

WO

RK

(PR

IMA

RY

)

GP

PH

AR

MA

CY

SE

CO

ND

AR

Y S

CH

OO

L

SH

OP

PIN

G

DE

NT

IST

LIB

RA

RY

LE

ISU

RE

CE

NT

RE

FO

RM

AL P

OS

INF

OR

MA

L P

OS

BU

S N

ET

WO

RK

(SE

CO

ND

AR

Y)

PR

IMA

RY

SE

RV

ICE

TO

TA

L

SE

CO

ND

AR

Y S

ER

VIC

E

TO

TA

L

TO

TA

L

Adwick and Woodlands 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 N/A 6 5 11

Adwick upon Dearne 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1

Arksey 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

Armthorpe 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 N/A 5 5 10

Askern 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 4 5 9

Auckley and Hayfield Green 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 3 4 7

Austerfield 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 2

Barnburgh and Harlington 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 1 4

Barnby Dun 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 4

Bawtry 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 4 3 7

Blaxton 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1

Braithwaite 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Braithwell 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 2

Branton 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 3

Brodsworth 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Burghwallis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1

Cadeby 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 Green boxes indicate where the individual scores have changed from the previous Settlement Audit. This will also change the overall score for these settlements.

12

Area1 PR

IMA

RY

SC

HO

OL

TO

WN

CE

NT

RE

TR

AIN

ST

AT

ION

BU

S N

ET

WO

RK

(PR

IMA

RY

)

GP

PH

AR

MA

CY

SE

CO

ND

AR

Y S

CH

OO

L

SH

OP

PIN

G

DE

NT

IST

LIB

RA

RY

LE

ISU

RE

CE

NT

RE

FO

RM

AL P

OS

INF

OR

MA

L P

OS

BU

S N

ET

WO

RK

(SE

CO

ND

AR

Y)

PR

IMA

RY

SE

RV

ICE

TO

TA

L

SE

CO

ND

AR

Y S

ER

VIC

E

TO

TA

L

TO

TA

L

Campsall 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 3

Carcroft and Skellow 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 N/A 5 2 7

Clayton 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1

Clifton 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Conisbrough and Denaby 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 N/A 6 6 12

Dunscroft, Dunsville, Hatfield and Stainforth 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 N/A

6

4

10

Edlington 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N/A 5 7 12

Fenwick 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Finningley 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 3 5

Fishlake and Fosterhouses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 2

Hampole 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1

Hatfield Prison 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0

0

0

Hatfield Woodhouse 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 2 3

Hickleton 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1

High Melton 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1

Highfields 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 N/A 2 1 3

Hooton Pagnell 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 2

Kirk Bramwith 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

13

Area1 PR

IMA

RY

SC

HO

OL

TO

WN

CE

NT

RE

TR

AIN

ST

AT

ION

BU

S N

ET

WO

RK

(PR

IMA

RY

)

GP

PH

AR

MA

CY

SE

CO

ND

AR

Y S

CH

OO

L

SH

OP

PIN

G

DE

NT

IST

LIB

RA

RY

LE

ISU

RE

CE

NT

RE

FO

RM

AL P

OS

INF

OR

MA

L P

OS

BU

S N

ET

WO

RK

(SE

CO

ND

AR

Y)

PR

IMA

RY

SE

RV

ICE

TO

TA

L

SE

CO

ND

AR

Y S

ER

VIC

E

TO

TA

L

TO

TA

L

Loversall 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Main Urban Area 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 N/A 6 5 11

Marr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1

Mexborough 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 N/A 6 5 11

Micklebring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Moss 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Norton 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2

Old Cantley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Old Denaby 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Old Edlington 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Owston 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Pickburn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Rossington 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 N/A 5 6 11

Skelbrooke 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1

Sprotbrough 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 2 5

Stainton 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1

Sutton 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1

Sykehouse 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1

Thorne and Moorends 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 5 6 11

Thorpe in Balne 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

14

Area1 PR

IMA

RY

SC

HO

OL

TO

WN

CE

NT

RE

TR

AIN

ST

AT

ION

BU

S N

ET

WO

RK

(PR

IMA

RY

)

GP

PH

AR

MA

CY

SE

CO

ND

AR

Y S

CH

OO

L

SH

OP

PIN

G

DE

NT

IST

LIB

RA

RY

LE

ISU

RE

CE

NT

RE

FO

RM

AL P

OS

INF

OR

MA

L P

OS

BU

S N

ET

WO

RK

(SE

CO

ND

AR

Y)

PR

IMA

RY

SE

RV

ICE

TO

TA

L

SE

CO

ND

AR

Y S

ER

VIC

E

TO

TA

L

TO

TA

L

Tickhill 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 4 3 7

Toll Bar and Almholme 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 2 3

Wadworth 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 3

15

4.2. Assessment

4.2.1. The scoring shows that overall, very little has changed from the previous

Settlement Audit. Seven settlements have seen their scores change, with only one

of these having multiple scores changed for the reasons set out below.

4.2.2. The table below explains the changes:

Settlement Change Reason

Braithwell Now scores for a GP.

Braithwell has a GP surgery which is part of a group of localised surgeries. The Braithwell site opens 5 days a week for shortened hours / half days.

Clifton Primary bus service score removed.

This score was highlighted as a possible anomaly and reinvestigated. The settlement was found not to score for a primary or a secondary bus service.

Finningley Pharmacy score removed.

The pharmacy in Finningley has been found to be a medical dispensary service for people who live over a mile from a pharmacy, rather than a more general pharmacy any member of the public can use, and therefore not felt to fulfil the criteria.

Old Edlington Primary bus service score removed.

This score was highlighted as a possible anomaly and reinvestigated. The settlement was found not to score for a primary or a secondary bus service.

Owston School score removed.

As previously noted in the Settlement Profiles published as part of the 2018 draft policies and proposed sites consultation, the Owston Park Primary School is clearly in Carcoft – Skellow and not Owston. This was a result of using the community profile boundaries.

Sprotbrough Score removed for primary bus network but added to secondary network. Score removed for secondary school, dentist and library.

As previously noted in the Settlement Profiles published as part of the 2018 draft policies and proposed sites consultation, the Sprotbrough community profile area does not reflect the intended settlement boundary as per the Local Plan, which aims to reflect the village only (i.e. to the west of the A1). Dwellings and services to the east of the A1 are considered to be part of

16

Score added for shopping (secondary).

the Main Urban Area. Scores have therefore been amended to reflect the service provision in the village only. Since the Settlement Profiles, it has also been noted that Sprotbrough village should score for secondary shopping due to having a Neighbourhood Shopping Parade on Main Street.

Thorne and Moorends

Score added for shopping (secondary).

The settlement did not previously score for shopping, but has a Sainsbury’s superstore which is not part of a centre, and therefore should score for this.

4.3. Rankings

4.3.1. The service scores by settlement are therefore as follows:

Area Primary Total

Secondary Total

Services Total

Conisbrough & Denaby 6 6 12

Edlington 5 7 12

Adwick & Woodlands 6 5 11

Main Urban Area 6 5 11

Mexborough 6 5 11

Rossington 5 6 11

Thorne and Moorends 5 6 11

Dunscroft, Dunsville, Hatfield and Stainforth

6 4 10

Armthorpe 5 5 10

Askern 4 5 9

Auckley & Hayfield Green 3 4 7

Bawtry 4 3 7

Carcroft & Skellow 5 2 7

Tickhill 4 3 7

Finningley 2 3 5

17

Sprotbrough 3 2 5

Barnburgh - Harlington 3 1 4

Barnby Dun 3 1 4

Toll Bar and Almholme 1 3 4

Highfields 2 1 3

Branton 1 2 3

Hatfield - Woodhouse 1 2 3

Wadworth 1 2 3

Campsall 0 3 3

Braithwell 1 1 2

Hooton Pagnell 1 1 2

Norton 1 1 2

Austerfield 0 2 2

Fishlake 0 2 2

Arksey 1 0 1

Adwick upon Dearne 0 1 1

Blaxton 0 1 1

Burghwallis 0 1 1

Clayton 0 1 1

Hampole 0 1 1

Hickleton 0 1 1

High Melton 0 1 1

Marr 0 1 1

Skelbrooke 0 1 1

Stainton 0 1 1

Sutton 0 1 1

Sykehouse 0 1 1

Braithwaite 0 0 0

18

Brodsworth 0 0 0

Cadeby 0 0 0

Clifton 0 0 0

Fenwick 0 0 0

Hatfield Prison 0 0 0

Kirk Bramwith 0 0 0

Loversall 0 0 0

Micklebring 0 0 0

Moss 0 0 0

Old Cantley 0 0 0

Old Denaby 0 0 0

Old Edlington 0 0 0

Owston 0 0 0

Pickburn 0 0 0

Thorpe in Balne 0 0 0

4.4. Assessment

4.4.1. The 2020 Settlement Audit scores show that the eighteen settlements (Main

Urban Area; Seven Main Towns; and ten Service Towns and Villages) which

form the Local Plan settlement hierarchy and will have housing allocations

directed towards them, remain the most sustainable locations in the borough

for housing to be directed towards. These eighteen settlements continue to

be the eighteen best performing in terms of service provision.

4.4.2. Only two settlements of the eighteen – Finningley and Sprotbrough – have

seen their service levels reassessed as being lower than previously

calculated in the Settlement Audit. Sprotbrough’s is related to the re-defining

of the boundary to only incorporate the village, which therefore excludes a

small number of services.

4.4.3. In the case of Finningley, it is felt that what was assessed to be a pharmacy

does not fulfil enough of a function to be considered as this, and therefore

should not score against this primary service. However, the village still has

19

five services overall, including two primary services, and therefore is

considered to still be justified as a Service Town and Village – especially as

no other settlement has proven through the update to be a more sustainable

settlement than this.

4.4.4. In the case of the other amendments in Braithwell, Clifton, Old Edlington,

Owston and Thorne and Moorends, whilst it has been important to update

these settlements for accuracy purposes, the changes have no impact on

the settlements position in the settlement hierarchy. In the case of

Braithwell, Cliton, Old Edlington and Owston, these four villages remain

unsustainable locations overall with small populations. The additional score

for the GP surgery in Braithwell and the loss of a point in the other three

villages does not alter the overall hierarchy.

4.4.5. I Thorne & Moorends, this settlement was already considered a highly

sustainable location for growth which is proposed to deliver housing to meet

its own needs and a portion of the boroughs overall economic uplift. Again,

whilst important from an accuracy point of view, it does not alter the overall

approach to, or role of, the settlement in the hierarchy.

4.4.6. As explained in the Homes and Settlements Paper, whilst Toll Bar scores 4

overall, and therefore the same as Barnby Dun and Barnburgh – Harlington

which are settlements in the hierarchy with housing allocated towards them,

it is felt that as Toll Bar only has one primary service and three secondary

services (as opposed to three primary and one secondary service in Barnby

Dun and Barnburgh – Harlington), and therefore it does not have enough

primary services to be deemed a sufficiently sustainable location for housing

growth. The revised Settlement Audit does not note any additional service

provision that would justify a change in this approach, and therefore this

settlement will remain as a defined village.

4.4.7. The settlement hierarchy will therefore remain as follows:

Tier Hierarchy Settlements

1 Doncaster Main Urban Area

Main Urban Area

2 Main Towns Adwick – Woodlands; Armthorpe; Conisbrough &

Denaby; Dunscroft, Dunsville, Hatifield & Stainforth; Mexborough; Rossington; Thorne & Moorends

3 Service Towns and Villages

Askern; Auckley – Hayfield Green; Barnburgh – Harlington; Barnby Dun; Bawtry; Carcroft – Skellow; Edlington; Finningley; Sprotbrough; Tickhill

20

4 Defined Villages

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

5. Conclusions

5.1. Summary of the 2020 Settlement Audit

5.1.1. In order to ensure that the Council can be confident that the Settlement

Hierarchy is still representative of the most sustainable locations for housing

and population growth in the Borough, an updated Settlement Audit has

been undertaken. In doing this, the Council can be confident that the Local

Plan is based on, and reflective of, the most up to date settlement

information.

5.1.2. The 2020 Settlement Audit shows that in the years between the original

Settlement Audit and today, there has been very little overall change to

service provision which would affect the outcome of Settlement Audit

scoring.

5.1.3. Where changes have been noted, whilst important for accuracy purposes,

these were found not to materially impact on the overall hierarchy or

approach to settlements within the Local Plan. The 18 most sustainable

settlements (Main Urban Area, 7 Main Towns and 10 Service Towns and

Villages) remain the 18 most sustainable settlements, even where scores

have altered. In terms of service provision, nothing has happened to move

a settlement up or down a level in the hierarchy, and no settlement has

gained or lost enough services to lead the Council to consider that it should

be approached differently in the Local Plan.