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

2.21.5 The application is for 120 units and therefore 40% of the units would
equate to 48 affordable units. The submitted Draft Section 106
Agreement states that a 40% provision would be provided across the
site which would accord with policy requirements, although the tenure
mix, types, sizes and location are to be agreed. Policy Officers have
considered this and would support the provision of 40% on site
affordable housing provision.
2.21.6 Notwithstanding this the developers have offered an alternative
approach in response to comments from local councillors and to be
consistent with the two further developments on this Phase 2 site
whereby they would offer 25% affordable housing to be provided onsite
with the difference of the remaining 15% provided to Selby District
Council as a financial contribution the exact figure of which would be
determined at reserved matters stage and this would be to provide
local infrastructure projects restricted to Sherburn in Elmet and off-site
affordable housing.
2.21.7 There is no policy context on which to support this alternative approach
and as set out above Policy Officers have clearly set out the reasons
why this approach should not be supported as it is not policy compliant
and is unlawful. The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010
introduced a limitation on planning obligations (in respect of
infrastructure) and came into force in April 2010. The Regulations
make clear that planning obligations must be:
(a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms
(b) directly related to the development; and
(c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
These principles were originally found within Circular 05/2005, which
was guidance but now have more weight due to being enshrined within
legislation.
There has been much case law on the issue of whether an obligation
met these tests which provide the basis on how (a) (b) and (c) should be
interpreted. These provisions are intended to ensure that developers
cannot buy planning permissions as set out in the Circular at B6 of
Annex B – “The use of planning obligations must be governed by the
fundamental principle that planning permission may not be bought and
sold. It is therefore not legitimate for unacceptable development to be
permitted because of benefits or inducements offered by a developer
which are not necessary to make the development acceptable in
planning terms. Therefore, the legal framework makes clear that a
planning authority cannot ask for contributions that do not arise directly
from the development.
216