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 ...
2.22.7 The developers have offered a contribution towards the enhancement of education facilities at Hungate Community Primary School in accordance with requirements of North Yorkshire County Council Education and this would be secured via the Section 106 agreement. 2.22.8 As such the scheme is considered to accord with Criterion 3 of ENV1, Policy CS6 of the Local Plan and the Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on Developer Contributions. Primary Care Trust 2.22.9 In terms of developer contributions to healthcare then the “Approved Development Brief” for the wider site outlines that the development “will be required to meet the healthcare needs generated by the development and the overall scheme should allow for the reservation of land for such facilities if necessary”, going on to state that “the preferred method of delivery and the level of payment required will be discussed with the PCT and suitable provision will be made to secure these improvements through a legal agreement”. As such alongside CS6, the Council’s SPD on Developer Contributions and the Development Brief there is a policy context to seek contributions to improvements in healthcare provision as a result of the development. 2.22.10 The PCT have confirmed that additional health care provision may need to be considered, however have not confirmed what contribution they would seek and what these monies would be utilised for. Therefore in the absence of this information it is considered that a contribution cannot be justified at this stage, as it cannot be shown by the LPA to be necessary or reasonably related in scale and kind to the development proposed (in the absence of evidence supporting the level of contribution). Waste and Recycling Facilities 2.22.11 As part of any S106 and in line with Policy CS6 and the Council’s SPD on Developer Contributions the provision of waste recycling for the dwellings would be based on the following levels subject to prices changing based on all of the units being “Dwellings with Gardens”. Therefore the total contribution would equate for the provision of 2 bins and 3 recycling bins and this would be secured via a Section 106 agreement. Community or Small Scale Retail Provision 2.22.12 In terms of developer contributions to community venues and retail provision the “Approved Development Brief” for the wider site outlines that as the site would ultimately accommodate more than 3000 residents, this level of population “may require a venue for meeting purposes and / other community needs”. 218
2.22.13 The scheme does not include such a provision and the Parish Council although highlighting issues with capacity on existing services, have not identified specific proposals to which the developer could be asked to contribute in terms of existing facilities and the development of the site is not considered to be of a scale to justify on site provision of a community centre or retail space as part of the scheme so no such offer has been made. Other Elements - Fire Station / Policing / Household Waste Provision/Leisure Facilities 2.22.14 In commenting on the application objectors have noted that there is no fire station in the village, that staffing at the Police Station is voluntary and that there will be a potential impact on crime levels, that there is a need for a household waste site in the village and a need for leisure facilities. 2.22.15 There is no evidence to indicate that even with provision of contributions from the developers of the site that a fire station is required in the village, that the development will directly result in a need for a change in the police provision in the village, nor that the development results in a need for a household waste site in the village. 2.22.16 North Yorkshire Police and Fire Service have not stated that the developers of the site should be required to make such provision, and no comments have been forthcoming from NYCC Planning to indicate that the application requires provision of a household waste site. 2.22.17 In terms of leisure facilities the comments from Policy Officers sets out the reasons why such facilities have not been demonstrated to be required as a direct result of the development. 2.22.18 As such the provision or contribution towards such service improvements within the village a result of the development are not considered to meet the test of Policy CS6 or that of Circular 11/95 as they are not fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed development, are not are necessary to remedy any shortfalls or adverse impacts resulting from the proposed development; and are not considered necessary to make the proposal acceptable in land use planning terms. 2.22.19 Overall, it is considered that the scheme can effectively take account of the capacity of local services, and can secure appropriate upgrading as practicable in line with Policy CS6 and the SPD on Developer Contributions in terms of individual property provisions for waste and recycling and for education it is therefore considered acceptable in terms of Policy ENV11 of the Regional Spatial Strategy and under Criterion 3 of ENV1 of the Local Plan and under Policy CS6. 219
- 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 and 178: The Parish Council are not sure wha
- Page 179 and 180: stronger emphasis on the delivery o
- 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: In light of the above, Officers wou
- 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/
- Page 229 and 230: land adjacent to units 11-14 on the
- Page 231 and 232: 2.5.1 Please see note at start of a
- Page 233 and 234: 2.8.2 Policy EMP9 of the local plan
- Page 235 and 236: contamination or other environmenta
- Page 237 and 238: 5.1 Planning Application file refer
- Page 239 and 240: 239
- Page 241 and 242: Having reviewed the revised scheme
- Page 243 and 244: 1.4 Consultations 1.4.1 Yorkshire W
- Page 245 and 246: Policy H6: Policy ENV1: Policy ENV2
- Page 247 and 248: ungalow to the south. To the east o
- Page 249 and 250: that shall first be submitted to an
- Page 251 and 252: 251
- Page 253 and 254: Report Reference Number: 2011/1049/
- Page 255 and 256: 1.4.6 Yorkshire Wildlife Trust - No
- Page 257 and 258: 2.6.1 Policies Y1, YH5, H1, H2 and
- Page 259 and 260: 2.7.9 Consequently, subject to the
- Page 261 and 262: acceptable in highway safety terms
- Page 263 and 264: uilding 4 or more units being requi
- Page 265 and 266: The part of the access extending 6
- Page 267 and 268: 4. Conclusion 4.1 As stated in the
2.22.13 The scheme does not include such a provision <strong>and</strong> the Parish Council<br />
although highlighting issues <strong>with</strong> capacity on existing services, have<br />
not identified specific proposals to which the developer could be asked<br />
to contribute in terms of existing facilities <strong>and</strong> the development of the<br />
site is not considered to be of a scale to justify on site provision of a<br />
community centre or retail space as part of the scheme so no such<br />
offer has been made.<br />
Other Elements - Fire Station / Policing / Household Waste<br />
Provision/Leisure Facilities<br />
2.22.14 In commenting on the application objectors have noted that there is<br />
no fire station in the village, that staffing at the Police Station is<br />
voluntary <strong>and</strong> that there will be a potential impact on crime levels, that<br />
there is a need for a household waste site in the village <strong>and</strong> a need for<br />
leisure facilities.<br />
2.22.15 There is no evidence to indicate that even <strong>with</strong> provision of<br />
contributions from the developers of the site that a fire station is<br />
required in the village, that the development will directly result in a<br />
need for a change in the police provision in the village, nor that the<br />
development results in a need for a household waste site in the village.<br />
2.22.16 North Yorkshire Police <strong>and</strong> Fire Service have not stated that the<br />
developers of the site should be required to make such provision, <strong>and</strong><br />
no comments have been forthcoming from NYCC Planning to indicate<br />
that the application requires provision of a household waste site.<br />
2.22.17 In terms of leisure facilities the comments from Policy Officers sets<br />
out the reasons why such facilities have not been demonstrated to be<br />
required as a direct result of the development.<br />
2.22.18 As such the provision or contribution towards such service<br />
improvements <strong>with</strong>in the village a result of the development are not<br />
considered to meet the test of Policy CS6 or that of Circular 11/95 as<br />
they are not fairly <strong>and</strong> reasonably related in scale <strong>and</strong> kind to the<br />
proposed development, are not are necessary to remedy any shortfalls<br />
or adverse impacts resulting from the proposed development; <strong>and</strong> are<br />
not considered necessary to make the proposal acceptable in l<strong>and</strong> use<br />
planning terms.<br />
2.22.19 Overall, it is considered that the scheme can effectively take account<br />
of the capacity of local services, <strong>and</strong> can secure appropriate upgrading<br />
as practicable in line <strong>with</strong> Policy CS6 <strong>and</strong> the SPD on Developer<br />
Contributions in terms of individual property provisions for waste <strong>and</strong><br />
recycling <strong>and</strong> for education it is therefore considered acceptable in<br />
terms of Policy ENV11 of the Regional Spatial Strategy <strong>and</strong> under<br />
Criterion 3 of ENV1 of the Local Plan <strong>and</strong> under Policy CS6.<br />
219