02.07.2014 Views

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 ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

infrastructure) <strong>and</strong> came into force in April 2010. The Regulations<br />

make clear that planning obligations must be:<br />

(a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms<br />

(b) directly related to the development; <strong>and</strong><br />

(c) fairly <strong>and</strong> reasonably related in scale <strong>and</strong> kind to the development.<br />

These principles were originally found <strong>with</strong>in Circular 05/2005, which<br />

was guidance but now have more weight due to being enshrined <strong>with</strong>in<br />

legislation.<br />

2.21.8 There has been much case law on the issue of whether an obligation<br />

met these tests which provide the basis on how (a) (b) <strong>and</strong> (c) should<br />

be interpreted. These provisions are intended to ensure that<br />

developers cannot buy planning permissions as set out in the Circular<br />

at B6 of Annex B – “The use of planning obligations must be governed<br />

by the fundamental principle that planning permission may not be<br />

bought <strong>and</strong> sold. It is therefore not legitimate for unacceptable<br />

development to be permitted because of benefits or inducements<br />

offered by a developer which are not necessary to make the<br />

development acceptable in planning terms. Therefore, the legal<br />

framework makes clear that a planning authority cannot ask for<br />

contributions that do not arise directly from the development.<br />

2.21.9 In light of the above, Officers would therefore recommend that the 40%<br />

on-site affordable housing provision be accepted as this accords <strong>with</strong><br />

policy SHB/1B (9) of the Local Plan <strong>and</strong> the Developer Contributions<br />

SPD, Policy H4 of the Regional Spatial Strategy <strong>and</strong> the NPPF subject<br />

to 40% of the units being affordable on a 50:50 tenure split basis <strong>and</strong><br />

the agreement of the mechanisms for the identification <strong>and</strong> delivery of<br />

these units to be covered by the S106 accordingly.<br />

2.22 Community Infrastructure, Education <strong>and</strong> Local Service Provision<br />

2.22.1 Criterion 3 of ENV1 states the Council will take account of “the capacity<br />

of local services <strong>and</strong> infrastructure to serve the proposal, or the<br />

arrangements to be made for upgrading, or providing services <strong>and</strong><br />

infrastructure”. Also Policy CS6 of the Local Plan states that in<br />

considering proposals the <strong>District</strong> Council will expect developers “to<br />

provide for or contribute to the provision of infrastructure <strong>and</strong><br />

community facility needs that are directly related to a development, <strong>and</strong><br />

to ensure that measures are incorporated to mitigate or minimise the<br />

consequences of that development. In addition consideration of such<br />

provision is covered by the Supplementary Planning Document (SPD)<br />

on Developer Contributions.<br />

2.22.2 In addition, Policy SHB/1B in terms of community infrastructure states<br />

that proposals for the site must make provision for:<br />

77

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!