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.
Top Related