Agenda with Maps and Applications (21Mb) - pdf - Selby District ...
Agenda with Maps and Applications (21Mb) - pdf - Selby District ... Agenda with Maps and Applications (21Mb) - pdf - Selby District ...
The issue was further compounded that in the most up to date policy position (the Submission Draft Core Strategy), Sherburn-in-Elmet was expected to accommodate in the order of 500 dwellings in the 15 year plan period. SHB/1(B) was allocated for “900+” which is clearly in excess of the planned for quantum. The Preferred Options SADPD document at that time set out the intended allocations in the District in line with the CS figures as known at that time. The site SH1B was still considered appropriate for some development, albeit at a reduced quantum to reflect more up to date consultation on the desired smaller sites and increased distribution throughout the village, and availability of other sites. It was suggested that Phase 2 sites could be released in line with the emerging SADPD. Minute 40 states that Council resolved: iv To agree to the release of all the Local Plan Phase 2 residential allocations, but with revised housing numbers consistent with those set out in the Site Allocations DPD Preferred Options; Changes since the previous application The Council accepts the principle of some development on the subject site through both an allocation in the SDLP, and also a proposed allocation in the SADPD. The issue is the quantum of development proposed. The Council’s formal position remains that SHB/1(B) should be released for around 282 dwellings, as set out in the Council Report and Minutes of 13 September 2011. Since that resolution there have been a number of changes in the policy arena. The Core Strategy has undergone its Examination in Public where the Inspector raised queries over the total housing number in the District as well as the distribution in Tadcaster and Sherburn-in-Elmet. The Council undertook additional research and a full consultation programme which resulted in a series of amendments to the Core Strategy. Of particular note is the change from around 500 dwellings at Sherburn-in-Elmet to 790 (700 new allocations). This weakens the Council’s basis on the SADPD Preferred Options for a limited Phase 2 release as that document is no longer in conformity with the more up to date Core Strategy. In short there is a need to review the SADPD with more up to date figures, and this is likely to lead to changes in the quantum proposed for SHB/1(B) (aka SHER007). A further change that took place in March was the publication of the National Planning Policy Framework which replaces previous Government planning policies. Although the NPPF is very similar in thrust to previous policy and guidance documents, there is a much 178
stronger emphasis on the delivery of viable housing schemes where they are sustainable. Housing targets are minimum targets not maximum targets, and as such any housing delivery over and above those minimum targets is seen as positive. Given the SDLP allocation and the recognition of Sherburn-in-Elmet as a Local Service Centre, it is considered that development of the subject site must be viewed positively. Given the above, the Policy Team have no objection to the development in principle. Sustainable development Notwithstanding the above, the NPPF is not a stripping of any and all controls over development. There remain strong policies towards sustainable development and therefore it is considered that any proposal on the site must demonstrate its suitability such as in providing appropriate transport plans, infrastructure assessment, and a range of dwellings to suit the local needs. Clearly therefore, although there are three applications, they form part of a wider SDLP allocation and should be considered together. Affordable Housing The Council’s Developer Contributions SPD (2007) sets out the Council’s approach for the implementation of the policy for Affordable Housing as follows; • Amount - 40% of dwellings on the site should be local needs Affordable Homes. • Tenure – 50% rented and 50% intermediate • 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. 179
- Page 127 and 128: the Regional Spatial Strategy Polic
- Page 129 and 130: 2.9.1 Policy ENV1 (2) states that i
- Page 131 and 132: 2.9.10 In addition the report confi
- Page 133 and 134: 2.9.19 The Travel Plan Framework se
- Page 135 and 136: Phase 1 development on Moor Lane, w
- Page 137 and 138: 2.10.6 In addition, Paragraph 58 of
- Page 139 and 140: is no reason why the likely landsca
- Page 141 and 142: 2.14.2 In terms of flood risk the
- Page 143 and 144: 2.14.15 The application states that
- Page 145 and 146: 2.16.3 The Geoenvironmental Apprais
- Page 147 and 148: stage and a condition can be utilis
- Page 149 and 150: 2.19.9 In commenting on the applica
- Page 151 and 152: (b) directly related to the develop
- Page 153 and 154: Primary Care Trust 2.22.10 In terms
- Page 155 and 156: floorspace should secure at least 1
- Page 157 and 158: allocated for housing purposes. It
- Page 159 and 160: 2.26.3 The key issues in the determ
- Page 161 and 162: dwellings close to the watercourse
- Page 163 and 164: (3) highway construction details in
- Page 165 and 166: (ii) An independent Stage 2 Safety
- Page 167 and 168: Reason: To safeguard to the rights
- Page 169 and 170: Reason: In the interests of ecology
- Page 171 and 172: 171
- Page 173 and 174: efficiency and cumulative impact th
- Page 175 and 176: • Construction would be phased fr
- Page 177: The Parish Council are not sure wha
- Page 181 and 182: The Council has no evidence of any
- Page 183 and 184: The proposed development will only
- Page 185 and 186: countryside. The authority will nee
- Page 187 and 188: 1.4.20 Ramblers' Association No res
- Page 189 and 190: - Carousel Walk being opened up int
- Page 191 and 192: - Time frame for development up to
- Page 193 and 194: 2.7 Key Issues • Village Design S
- Page 195 and 196: 2.8.10 Policy H2A was clear that th
- Page 197 and 198: Elmet as being one of the most sust
- Page 199 and 200: an assessment of the cumulative imp
- Page 201 and 202: • Adequate facilities are provide
- Page 203 and 204: 2.9.31 As such the scheme is consid
- Page 205 and 206: • A linear belt of green space re
- Page 207 and 208: The proposals are therefore conside
- Page 209 and 210: watercourses. Furthermore flow atte
- Page 211 and 212: granted subject to conditions to pr
- Page 213 and 214: is in “outline” form details of
- Page 215 and 216: protected during the construction s
- Page 217 and 218: In light of the above, Officers wou
- Page 219 and 220: 2.22.13 The scheme does not include
- Page 221 and 222: Objectors have raised concerns rela
- Page 223 and 224: would provide financial contributio
- Page 225 and 226: 225
- Page 227 and 228: Report Reference Number: 2012/0401/
stronger emphasis on the delivery of viable housing schemes where<br />
they are sustainable. Housing targets are minimum targets not<br />
maximum targets, <strong>and</strong> as such any housing delivery over <strong>and</strong> above<br />
those minimum targets is seen as positive. Given the SDLP allocation<br />
<strong>and</strong> the recognition of Sherburn-in-Elmet as a Local Service Centre, it<br />
is considered that development of the subject site must be viewed<br />
positively.<br />
Given the above, the Policy Team have no objection to the<br />
development in principle.<br />
Sustainable development<br />
Not<strong>with</strong>st<strong>and</strong>ing the above, the NPPF is not a stripping of any <strong>and</strong> all<br />
controls over development. There remain strong policies towards<br />
sustainable development <strong>and</strong> therefore it is considered that any<br />
proposal on the site must demonstrate its suitability such as in<br />
providing appropriate transport plans, infrastructure assessment, <strong>and</strong> a<br />
range of dwellings to suit the local needs.<br />
Clearly therefore, although there are three applications, they form part<br />
of a wider SDLP allocation <strong>and</strong> should be considered together.<br />
Affordable Housing<br />
The Council’s Developer Contributions SPD (2007) sets out the<br />
Council’s approach for the implementation of the policy for Affordable<br />
Housing as follows;<br />
• Amount - 40% of dwellings on the site should be local needs<br />
Affordable Homes.<br />
• Tenure – 50% rented <strong>and</strong> 50% intermediate<br />
• Types <strong>and</strong> Sizes – Affordable Housing element must form an<br />
integral part of <strong>and</strong> therefore reflect the characteristics (mix<br />
of types <strong>and</strong> sizes) <strong>with</strong>in the market scheme as a whole.<br />
Furthermore, Policy CP5 Affordable Housing of the Submission Draft<br />
Core Strategy supports this 40/60% affordable/general market housing<br />
ratio <strong>with</strong>in overall housing delivery. It is worth noting that the<br />
underpinning evidence supporting Policy CP5 has been provided by<br />
the Council’s Economic Viability Assessment produced by consultants<br />
DTZ August 2009, which should also be considered alongside.<br />
The s106 Heads of Terms proposes 40% affordable housing on site.<br />
This is compliant <strong>with</strong> policy in terms of quantum although the tenure<br />
mix, types, sizes, location etc this is to be agreed.<br />
Local Infrastructure Projects<br />
As set out above the target for affordable housing is 40% <strong>and</strong> should<br />
be a starting point in all negotiations to be viability tested. The policy<br />
does not set out an ‘options’ scenario presented by the developer in<br />
the Heads of Terms.<br />
179