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

contribute in terms of existing facilities and the development of the site.
In addition there is no evidence base to demonstrate the need for such
facilities nor that the development would justify such provision for which
to support such contributions and as such it is not considered that the
development (taken together with other development on this Phase 2
site) would 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
2.22.13 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.
2.22.14 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.
2.22.15 The PALO 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.
2.22.16 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.
2.22.17 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.
2.22.18 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.
80