Tracked Version of Core Strategy, November 2012 - Selby District ...
Tracked Version of Core Strategy, November 2012 - Selby District ... Tracked Version of Core Strategy, November 2012 - Selby District ...
Selby District Submission Draft Core Strategy – May 2011 ___________________________________________________________________ opportunities for continued growth owing to a combination of flood risk and environmental constraints. Consequently further planned growth would not be appropriate in these settlements, although some housing development inside Development Limits such as conversions, replacement dwellings, and redevelopment of previously developed land, may take place where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities (PC 6.21). Other than filling small gaps in built up frontages and the conversion/redevelopment of farmsteads (which are currently classed as greenfield), development on greenfield land will not be acceptable (see Policy CP1A). 4.28 Development aimed at meeting a specific local need, such as 100% affordable housing will be considered favourably, consistent with other planning considerations, including affordable housing schemes adjoining village development limits as an exception to normal policy. Countryside 4.29 Development in the countryside (outside defined Development Limits), including scattered hamlets, will generally be resisted unless it involves the replacement or extension of existing buildings, the re - use of buildings preferably for employment purposes and well-designed new buildings (PC7.5). Proposals of an appropriate scale which would diversify the local economy (as defined in PPS4), or meet affordable housing need (adjoining the defined Development Limits of a village and which meets the provisions of Policy CP6) (PC6.22), or other exceptional special (PC6.23) circumstances, may also be acceptable. The Council will resist new isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances such as the essential need for a rural worker to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside; or where such development would represent the optimal viable use of a heritage asset or would be appropriate enabling development to secure the future of heritage assets; or where the development would re-use redundant or disused buildings and lead to an enhancement to the immediate setting; or the exceptional quality or innovative nature of the design of the dwelling (tested against the NPPF paragraph 55 and other future local policy or design code). (PC 6.24). PC7.4 References to Development Limits in this document refer to the Development Limits as defined in the Adopted Selby District Local Plan. The Development Limits for Selby, Sherburn in Elmet, Tadcaster and Designated Service Villages will be reviewed as part of the Site Allocations DPD preparation process. PC7.4 References to Development Limits in this document refer to the Development Limits as defined on the Policies Map. Development Limits will be reviewed through further Local Plan documents. - 38 -
Selby District Submission Draft Core Strategy – May 2011 ___________________________________________________________________ Other Locational Principles 4.30 In addition to the specific geographical priorities and strategy above, the following factors will also influence the allocation of sites in DPD’s and (PC3.1) consideration of development proposals: a) Previously Developed Land (PDL) 4.31 High priority is given to the importance of utilising previously developed land (PDL) wherever this can be done without compromising other overriding sustainability issues considerations and housing delivery (PC1.16). 4.32 Within individual settlements a sequential approach will be adopted to allocating suitable sites for development in the following order of priority: • Previously developed land and buildings within the settlement. • Suitable greenfield land within the settlement. • Extensions to settlements on previously developed land. • Extensions to settlements on greenfield land. 4.33 Overall a practical target indicator (PC6.25) of 40% of new dwellings on previously developed land including conversions is proposed between 2004 and 2017. There is insufficient information at present to predict the long-term supply of PDL within the District to provide a meaningful target indicator (PC6.25) beyond 2017. However, the Council will continue to pursue policies which give priority to the use of PDL, subject to consistency with other elements of the Strategy, with the aim of achieving the highest possible percentage. Further details of the PDL target and accompanying trajectory up to 2017 are provided in Appendix 1. b) Flood Risk 4.34 Government guidance 6 also requires a sequential flood risk test to be applied when identifying land for development. This is to ensure that alternative, suitable sites with a lower probability of flooding are not overlooked used in preference (PC1.17). Potential flood risk 7 is a critical issue across the District and consideration of the flood risks associated with this development strategy has been undertaken through the Council’s Strategic Flood Risk Assessment. 8 This has also influenced the selection of villages and strategic development sites around Selby where further growth may be appropriate 9 . c) Accessibility 6 Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk, December 2006 2010 (PC5.5) 7 See Figure 6 Key Diagram for indication of high flood risk areas, Zone 3 8 Selby District Level 1 and Level 2 Flood Risk Assessments 9 For further information see Background Paper No. 7 Strategic Development Sites - 39 -
- Page 1 and 2: Selby District Local Development Fr
- Page 3 and 4: The Status of RSS and the Implicati
- Page 5 and 6: List of Maps, Figures and Appendice
- Page 7 and 8: General PC6.1 PC6.2 PC6.3 Selby Dis
- Page 9 and 10: Selby District Submission Draft Cor
- Page 11 and 12: Selby District Submission Draft Cor
- Page 13 and 14: Selby District Submission Draft Cor
- Page 15 and 16: Selby District Submission Draft Cor
- Page 17 and 18: Selby District Submission Draft Cor
- Page 19 and 20: Selby District Submission Draft Cor
- Page 21 and 22: Selby District Submission Draft Cor
- Page 23 and 24: Selby District Submission Draft Cor
- Page 25 and 26: Selby District Submission Draft Cor
- Page 27 and 28: Selby District Submission Draft Cor
- Page 29 and 30: Selby District Submission Draft Cor
- Page 31 and 32: Selby District Submission Draft Cor
- Page 33 and 34: Selby District Submission Draft Cor
- Page 35 and 36: Selby District Submission Draft Cor
- Page 37 and 38: Selby District Submission Draft Cor
- Page 39 and 40: Selby District Submission Draft Cor
- Page 41 and 42: Selby District Submission Draft Cor
- Page 43 and 44: Selby District Submission Draft Cor
- Page 45 and 46: Selby District Submission Draft Cor
- Page 47 and 48: Selby District Submission Draft Cor
- Page 49: Selby District Submission Draft Cor
- Page 53 and 54: Selby District Submission Draft Cor
- Page 55 and 56: Selby District Submission Draft Cor
- Page 57 and 58: Selby District Submission Draft Cor
- Page 59 and 60: Selby District Submission Draft Cor
- Page 61 and 62: Selby District Submission Draft Cor
- Page 63 and 64: Selby District Submission Draft Cor
- Page 65 and 66: Selby District Submission Draft Cor
- Page 67 and 68: Selby District Submission Draft Cor
- Page 69 and 70: Selby District Submission Draft Cor
- Page 71 and 72: Selby District Submission Draft Cor
- Page 73 and 74: Selby District Submission Draft Cor
- Page 75 and 76: Selby District Submission Draft Cor
- Page 77 and 78: Selby District Submission Draft Cor
- Page 79 and 80: Selby District Submission Draft Cor
- Page 81 and 82: Selby District Submission Draft Cor
- Page 83 and 84: Selby District Submission Draft Cor
- Page 85 and 86: Selby District Submission Draft Cor
- Page 87 and 88: Selby District Submission Draft Cor
- Page 89 and 90: Selby District Submission Draft Cor
- Page 91 and 92: Selby District Submission Draft Cor
- Page 93 and 94: Selby District Submission Draft Cor
- Page 95 and 96: Selby District Submission Draft Cor
- Page 97 and 98: Selby District Submission Draft Cor
- Page 99 and 100: Selby District Submission Draft Cor
<strong>Selby</strong> <strong>District</strong> Submission Draft <strong>Core</strong> <strong>Strategy</strong> – May 2011<br />
___________________________________________________________________<br />
Other Locational Principles<br />
4.30 In addition to the specific geographical priorities and strategy<br />
above, the following factors will also influence the allocation <strong>of</strong><br />
sites in DPD’s and (PC3.1) consideration <strong>of</strong> development<br />
proposals:<br />
a) Previously Developed Land (PDL)<br />
4.31 High priority is given to the importance <strong>of</strong> utilising previously<br />
developed land (PDL) wherever this can be done without<br />
compromising other overriding sustainability issues considerations<br />
and housing delivery (PC1.16).<br />
4.32 Within individual settlements a sequential approach will be<br />
adopted to allocating suitable sites for development in the following<br />
order <strong>of</strong> priority:<br />
• Previously developed land and buildings within the<br />
settlement.<br />
• Suitable greenfield land within the settlement.<br />
• Extensions to settlements on previously developed land.<br />
• Extensions to settlements on greenfield land.<br />
4.33 Overall a practical target indicator (PC6.25) <strong>of</strong> 40% <strong>of</strong> new<br />
dwellings on previously developed land including conversions is<br />
proposed between 2004 and 2017. There is insufficient<br />
information at present to predict the long-term supply <strong>of</strong> PDL within<br />
the <strong>District</strong> to provide a meaningful target indicator (PC6.25)<br />
beyond 2017. However, the Council will continue to pursue<br />
policies which give priority to the use <strong>of</strong> PDL, subject to<br />
consistency with other elements <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Strategy</strong>, with the aim <strong>of</strong><br />
achieving the highest possible percentage. Further details <strong>of</strong> the<br />
PDL target and accompanying trajectory up to 2017 are provided<br />
in Appendix 1.<br />
b) Flood Risk<br />
4.34 Government guidance 6 also requires a sequential flood risk test to<br />
be applied when identifying land for development. This is to ensure<br />
that alternative, suitable sites with a lower probability <strong>of</strong> flooding<br />
are not overlooked used in preference (PC1.17). Potential flood<br />
risk 7 is a critical issue across the <strong>District</strong> and consideration <strong>of</strong> the<br />
flood risks associated with this development strategy has been<br />
undertaken through the Council’s Strategic Flood Risk<br />
Assessment. 8 This has also influenced the selection <strong>of</strong> villages<br />
and strategic development sites around <strong>Selby</strong> where further<br />
growth may be appropriate 9 .<br />
c) Accessibility<br />
6 Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk, December 2006 2010 (PC5.5)<br />
7 See Figure 6 Key Diagram for indication <strong>of</strong> high flood risk areas, Zone 3<br />
8 <strong>Selby</strong> <strong>District</strong> Level 1 and Level 2 Flood Risk Assessments<br />
9 For further information see Background Paper No. 7 Strategic Development Sites<br />
- 39 -