The next stage of the Local Plan Examination will be held between late September and early October, 2020.
The Stage Two hearings are provisionally scheduled to commence late September 2020.
No, the plan has yet to be found sound and legally compliant; the Inspector has issued updated guidance to explain what will happen in the next stage.
The Clifton Village Neighbourhood Forum will continue to participate in the hearings. You can find out more information on their activities here.
The Programme Officer, Miny Schofield, recently wrote to all participants who contributed to earlier consultations and expressed an interest in speaking at this stage
The Inspector has issued a further list of questions (57 pages), you can read the document here,
Stage Two hearings are scheduled for:
w/c 21st September
w/c 28th September
w/c 12th October
w/c 19 October
News and information on the plan, including how you can watch the sessions, will be available here,
Elland | Halifax | Hebden Bridge, Mytholmroyd, Ripponden and Sowerby Bridge | Todmorden
The Planning Inspector raised concerns about Calderdale’s mismatch between their housing allocations and economic aspirations, although the Inspector accepts the relationship between housing and industrial land allocations are complicated.
An imbalance between housing and economic growth can have consequences for the area, including more workers travelling into the borough (in-commuting) or, if there is not enough employment land to support the housing it will impact on the ability of businesses to ‘develop and grow’, (promoting out-commuting).
In the 2018 Local Plan, Calderdale Council proposed to build 840 dwellings per year
The Inspector noted that although Calderdale hadn’t directly matched housing to economic development in the 2018 plan, in an earlier document Calderdale predicted a similar number of dwellings would need 46 hectares of industrial land
* : The Planning Inspector identified a mismatch between the number of houses (840 per year) and the allocated land for industrial/economic development. In her letter of 16 July 2019 the Inspector asked Calderdale to review their numbers.
"…the Council may determine it necessary to identify additional housing sites. Or alternatively the Council may wish to revisit the economic strategy to better align with housing growth"
Add housing sites that were previously excluded, or not identified. This enables Calderdale to maintain their economic aspirations
Revise the economic strategy to better align with the proposed housing numbers
Calderdale has decided to increase the borough’s housing numbers
The option to match their ambitious economic strategy to current housing numbers was not even discussed in detail, the Council assumes we all support their growth plans.
The proposed change to the number of homes which are needed over the next 15 years
Do you think the Council has sufficiently justified the relatioship between housing need, population and the justification for their economic growth aspirations?
If not, what do you think is missing?
You might want to consider if there is spare industrial property capacity in Calderdale, and what developments are taking place in neighbouring areas (particularly as Calderdale has signed up to supporting Leeds City Region’s growth plans)
There are two options open to Calderdale in light of the Inspector’s comments
Which option would you pick,
What supports your choice ?
Why did you reject the other option?
The Planning Inspector gave Calderdale Council two options, reducing economic growth to match the current housing numbers or increasing housing sites. Calderdale has not asked for your views on the economic aspirations, do you have any concerns that Calderdale has not asked for views on the economic aspirations?
Additional sites which are now included to meet the new housing requirement
The previous plan suggested South East Calderdale would take over 40% of the borough’s development because of the proximity to M62.
If you accept South East Calderdale can cope with the predicted demand, are you happy to support a further increase of development in South East Calderdale?
How would current infrastructure, any planned interventions and the timing of those interventions make a difference to your opinion?
Calderdale’s Infrastructure Plans can be found here
If Junction 24a is not delivered, will this be an issue for development in South East Calderdale?
West Yorkshire Combined Authority’s latest Transport Fund (Financial) plan predicts a requirement of £18.51m to fund junction 24a, this has approved funding of £0.07m, total spend to date is £40,000, and there is no planned spend between 2019/2020 and 2027/28.
Further information here
The Planning Inspector gave Calderdale Council two options, reducing economic growth to match the current housing numbers or increasing housing sites. Calderdale has not asked for your views on the economic aspirations, do you have any concerns that Calderdale has not asked for views on the economic aspirations?
In the previous consultation, Calderdale Council justified the ‘garden suburbs’ on the basis there was insufficient brownfield sites available for the amount of housing required. Considering this current consultation has now ‘found’ brownfield sites, and added sites that were previously rejected, is the initial ‘exceptional release of greenbelt’ a flawed document?
Find out more
As new housing allocations are being added in Elland, Greetland and surrounding South East Calderdale areas, are you happy that the extra growth proposed (in addition to the garden suburbs) is concentrated in South East Calderdale?
You might want to consider infrastructure such as roads, schools, medical facilities and drainage.
Calderdale Council and West Yorkshire Combined Authority recently published their budgets. Both organisations accept there are funding issues, the amount of future funding is uncertain, and it is likely both require further cuts or borrowing to fund their growth aspirations.
Are you comfortable the finance exists to add extra development in South East Calderdale?
There are two options open to Calderdale in light of the Inspector’s comments
Which option would you pick,
What supports your choice ?
Why did you reject the other option?
Recent WYCA bulletin provides an update on the investment to improve the Halifax to Huddersfield corridor, is this important when thinking about the spatial distribution of new housing?
Find out more here
The ‘Sustainability Appraisal’ which examines the potential social, economic and environmental effects of the Local Plan to make sure that any development is sustainable
Considering recent flooding, are you comfortable the plans for increasing building above Brighouse are sustainable, deliverable and justified?
Do you have any evidence to back up your answer?
Is the Sustainability Appraisal comprehensive considering:
1. Recent climate emergency
2. The evidence / explanation how conclusions reached
Will increasing housing allocations in South East Calderdale help keep employment in the area? If not, why do you believe new homes might encourage people to live in Brighouse and work in Leeds, Manchester and surrounding areas?
The Habitat Regulations Assessment, which examines whether the Local Plan would have an impact on any protected habitats
Please note we have implemented reCAPTCHA v3 on this site and your use of reCAPTCHA v3 is subject to the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.