Agenda with Maps and Applications (21Mb) - pdf - Selby District ...

• Types and Sizes – Affordable Housing element must form an
integral part of and therefore reflect the characteristics (mix
of types and sizes) within the market scheme as a whole.
Furthermore, Policy CP5 Affordable Housing of the Submission Draft
Core Strategy supports this 40/60% affordable/general market housing
ratio within overall housing delivery. It is worth noting that the
underpinning evidence supporting Policy CP5 has been provided by
the Council’s Economic Viability Assessment produced by consultants
DTZ August 2009, which should also be considered alongside.
The s106 Heads of Terms proposes 40% affordable housing on site.
This is compliant with policy in terms of quantum although the tenure
mix, types, sizes, location etc this is to be agreed.
Local Infrastructure Projects
As set out above the target for affordable housing is 40% and should
be a starting point in all negotiations to be viability tested. The policy
does not set out an ‘options’ scenario presented by the developer in
the Heads of Terms.
In response to the ‘Option B’ for Affordable Housing Contributions and
a lower 25% of on site provision; the SPD sets out that if a lower than
the target 40% of affordable housing is proposed then the applicant
must demonstrate / justify the lower figure based on viability. However
no evidence has been provided by the applicant which tests the
viability to justify this level of provision. It should be noted that the fact
that 40% has been offered indicates that 40% is viable and therefore in
principle there appears to be no basis for reducing the level of
affordable housing.
Furthermore, clarification should be sought as to what local
infrastructure projects (restricted to Sherburn in Elmet) refers to and
any supporting evidence for such projects.
Furthermore, the Council’s Developer Contributions SPD (2007) sets
out how contributions can be sought for affordable housing and in
addition to / on top of other contributions for recreation and open
space, waste and recycling facilities, education, health and community
facilities, transport, highways and drainage and local employment and
skills and public realm enhancement.
The SPD does not itself identify any specific local infrastructure
projects.
The Core Strategy Infrastructure Delivery Plan identifies in general
terms that ‘improvements required’ and developer contributions are
needed for Transport, Water & Drainage and Health. For Community
Facilities only ‘no waste recycling facility is available’ is noted as a
required improvement. None of these items are quantified as projects.
105