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

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 a local
infrastructure projects (restricted to Sherburn in Elmet) refers to any
supporting evidence for such projects.
Further more, 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.
However, on Leisure it is noted that it is ‘not known’ what
improvements are required.
The Selby Retail, Commercial and Leisure Study (2009) identified the
need for leisure facilities for the District over the Core Strategy plan
period. In terms of Health and Fitness Facilities only 30% of the District
population attend a health and fitness facility. However, the six existing
facilities only accommodate c.6,000 members/users. Hence the
remainder are currently using facilities located outside the District.
There is the potential need within the District, subject to market
demand, for at least one more health and fitness facilities, preferably
accommodated by a higher quality operator to provide competition to
similar facilities lying outside the District.
However since 2009 there have been 2 planning permissions granted
for health clubs at Selby Business Park which would effectively take up
this capacity / meet this ‘need’ and therefore there is no justification for
a specific health and sports facility within the District.
The applicant has not provided any evidence that there is a need for
additional facilities resulting from the additional housing proposed and
180