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

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 facility, 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
The Council has no evidence of any specific local infrastructure
projects which are needed related to Sherburn in Elmet over the plan
period (other than those identified in the IDP).
Contributions should only be offered or sought to provide infrastructure
required as a direct result of the proposed development or to mitigate
any negative impact caused. Without identifying specific projects and
demonstrating the link this option would not meet regulatory tests (set
out in the NPPF and CIL Regulations).
The ‘Option B’ proposed by the applicant does not accord with the
Council’s Developer Contributions SPD and is not supported by any
additional evidence which underpins the Core Strategy. As such there
is no basis for accepting Option B.
5 year housing land supply
32