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 ...

02.07.2014 Views

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. Flood risk Because Phase 2 sites were only to fulfil a temporary role for around 18 months to boost the 5 years supply in a depressed market, it was considered that all sites should be released to maximise the potential delivery of housing. The now-known issues of flood risk may limit delivery on some sites and on others prevent them from coming forward at all. Given the short timescales it was not possible to undertake a Flood Risk Assessment on all the sites, or any other assessment of delivery potential. The Officers report to Full Council on 13 September 2011 contains a table of the Phase 2 sites which notes constraints due to flood risk (which was not known at the time of allocating) and land ownership which may both frustrate delivery. Paragraph 2.28 of that report states “The table shows that the theoretical Phase 2 contribution is 1341 dwellings at SADPD figures. However, the total has been reduced to represent a blanket expected maximum 30% delivery potential given the necessary lead in time for progressing allocations through planning application stage to development within the next 18 months. This gives the discounted figure of 402 dwellings which might be expected to be over the next 18 months, thus stimulating the market to deliver the 440 per year need”. As such the Council does not expect the full yield to be realised from Phase 2 sites, and any sites that do not come forward may be reviewed in the SADPD allocation process. NPPF para 105 states that “For individual developments on sites allocated in development plans through the Sequential Test, applicants need not apply the Sequential Test.” However as the SDLP has not undergone a sequential test, one is required for the site in application number 2012/0399/EIA as it lies in Flood Zone 3a and as such will require a flood risk assessment. It is considered that there are 30

sufficient sites available within Sherburn-in-Elmet (as evidenced in the SHLAA) that are of a lower flood risk than the subject site. 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. 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 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 31

sufficient sites available <strong>with</strong>in Sherburn-in-Elmet (as evidenced in the<br />

SHLAA) that are of a lower flood risk than the subject site.<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 />

In response to the ‘Option B’ for Affordable Housing Contributions <strong>and</strong><br />

a lower 25% of on site provision; the SPD sets out that if a lower than<br />

the target 40% of affordable housing is proposed then the applicant<br />

must demonstrate / justify the lower figure based on viability. However<br />

no evidence has been provided by the applicant which tests the<br />

viability to justify this level of provision. It should be noted that the fact<br />

that 40% has been offered indicates that 40% is viable <strong>and</strong> therefore in<br />

principle there appears to be no basis for reducing the level of<br />

affordable housing.<br />

Furthermore, clarification should be sought as to what local<br />

infrastructure projects (restricted to Sherburn in Elmet) refers to any<br />

supporting evidence for such projects.<br />

Furthermore, the Council’s Developer Contributions SPD (2007) sets<br />

out how contributions can be sought for affordable housing <strong>and</strong> in<br />

addition to / on top of other contributions for recreation <strong>and</strong> open<br />

space, waste <strong>and</strong> recycling facilities, education, health <strong>and</strong> community<br />

31

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!