mm – Clifton Village – West Yorkshire

Main modifications

Thank you to the community groups and individual respondents across Calderdale for their help in compiling this page.

Disclaimer:

This information is to help non-professional participants make general responses to some of the main points in a rather technical process. There are over 1,200 pages of documents in this consultation, and it is impossible to cover everything on this website using volunteers.

The information on this page is supplied in good faith; cliftonvillage.org.uk and its authors cannot be held responsible or liable for any errors or omissions.

By continuing to use this page (which is subject to our monitoring and privacy policy), you hereby agree that cliftonvillage.org.uk and associated parties (including authors) cannot be held liable for any omissions or errors, technical or presentation.

You should seek independent professional advice rather than rely on the information on this website if you are making anything other than a general response to the consultation.

Start here

You might find it useful to read the few simples points before launching into the details of the main modification consultation.

What are the main modifications?

There are several requirements that Local Plans must meet to be adopted. The plan is examined by a Planning Inspector (an independent professional appointed by the government). During the local plan examination, the Inspector checks that the plan meets these requirements.

Main modifications (MM) are changes the Inspector has identified during the examination process that resolve issues around soundness and legal compliance (meaning a plan could be adopted).

These are just typos and minor changes?

NO!
Major modifications are required to make an unsound plan legally compliant and sound.

Minor modifications include clarifications, corrections and minor updates to the text. Unlike main modifications, these changes do not relate to the soundness of the plan and are provided for information only.

Comments received on the minor modifications will not be forwarded to the Inspector.

Making comments is a waste of time?

No, if you have issues, or concerns then this is your opportunity to put your comments to the Inspector. The Inspector’s 21 March letter to Calderdale in March 2022, saying that “subject to main modifications, the Plan is likely to be capable of being found legally compliant and sound”. Put simply, as it stands the plan is not sound and legally compliant and the changes in the consultation will be reviewed to make the plan sound and compliant. Without these changes, the plan is not capable of being found sound.

I don't know where to start

We’ve listed some of the key points by subject heading that applies across Calderdale and then consider area-specific items for Clifton.

How can I make my comments count?

To make your comments count we recommend:

Focus on the important issues
Be objective and factual
Where possible, suggest alternatives
Short and direct answers
Identify problems or contradictions
Remember, you know more about the area than the Inspector
It’s your words, your local knowledge that counts – don’t copy template letters

How should I respond?

Calderdale has several ways you can respond

Online: The consultation portal is working again

Email: spatial.planning@calderdale.gov.uk.

Write: Spatial Planning, Planning Services, Town Hall, Halifax. HX1 1UJ

Calderdale has some comment forms you might want to use

If you need further help you can call the council on 01422 288001

Should I respond?

Yes! The Inspector doesn’t know your area as well as you do. If you believe something is missing, misrepresented or just plain wrong then this is your chance.

How will know if you make changes?

We have added a changes section at the bottom of this page to highlight changes.

Why are you listing questions not answers?

Our objective is to help you to respond to a complex process.

We all have different perspectives, knowledge and outcomes.

We are not here to tell you what to write, but we want you to get involved!

Planning is complex, full of jargon and complex rules – it’s important to have your say because we will be impacted by, and have to pay for, what follows.

I need further help, can I speak with someone?

The team who have put this section together are all volunteers doing this in our spare time. We recommend you contact the council’s spatial planning team at spatial.planning@calderdale.gov.uk or call Calderdale on 01422 288001.

Who has written this information

This information has been compiled by several community groups and passionate individuals who are grateful to cliftonvillage.org.uk for agreeing to publish the information. Please note that the information is provided without any warranty or liability and is offered only for non-professional participants to provide general comments. You should seek independent professional advice if you wish to rely on any evidence to respond to the consultation.

Main modifications

Link to documents

Main Modification Document SD01.1

Housing Requirement figure increase

MM4-MM12
MM19-20 Distribution of growth

Housing requirement figure increased from 12,600 to 14,950

Is this justified and appropriate for Calderdale considering the updated census figures for Calderdale?

Population data is published by the Office for National Statistics (ONS).

Housing delivery

MM8
Policy SD3

Anticipated rate of housing delivery

2018/19 – 2025/26 = 500 dwellings per annum
2026/27 – 2027/28 = 950 dwellings per annum
2028/29 – 2032/33 = 1,810 dwellings per annum

Is this realistic and achievable considering Calderdale’s current performance?
If multiple housing developments can be delivered simultaneously, will the market support large-scale developments?
In Brighouse, is the scale of development realistic in the timescales suggested

Housing developments planned in Calderdale

Employment land

MM21

Text change from type B sites to ’employment use’

The distribution of potential employment sites for ~~B type~~ employment uses across the Borough is focused in areas of the strongest market demand, which are also those where the better quality, and also larger sites, are available. The majority of sites are located in the south-east of the Borough and in Halifax. The availability of suitable employment land has limited the potential to allocate sites in other areas, particularly in the Upper Valley. It is therefore essential to protect existing employment areas and encourage small developments of E(gi/iii) ~~B1a/c~~ compatible with other uses to provide increased job opportunities in such areas.

Do you support the change from ‘B type’ to employment use?
Is ’employment use’ sufficiently defined, or could this be better phrased to focus development that will create better, more sustainable jobs in Calderdale?

Information on land use classess amendments

Employment site allocations

MM14,16,17,18 & 21 (Section 6 Planning for Growth)
MM24 (Section 7 Sites for Employment)
MM78 & 79 (Section 14 Employment and the Economy)
MM140 (Section Annex 4 Glossary)

Land use types are now extended, with new changes of use added which include E, F and Sui Generis uses.

Could changes of use risk further employment land losses? For example “Employment complementary” uses added, which include E, F and Sui Generis uses.

Information on land use classess amendments

Mixed use site allocations

MM25 (Section 8 Sites for Mixed Use)

Land use types are now extended, with new changes of use added which include E, F and Sui Generis uses.

Now says consideration will be given to alternative uses if the specified appropriate uses are not viable

Information on land use classess amendments

Addressing climate change

MM40: Policy CC1 Climate change

Development proposals should contribute aim to mitigating be net zero emitters of Green House Gases such as Carbon Dioxide and adapting to must demonstrate appropriate mitigation and adaptation measures to address the predicted impacts of climate change

Ensuring energy efficiency and reduced carbon emissions are is maximised and regarded as a priority outcomes outcome in development planning;
Using Sustainable Design and Construction methods, meeting national standards as a minimum;
Increasing levels of Renewable and Low Carbon Energy Generation, through both a range of technologies and domestic, community and commercial scale schemes, whilst taking account of cumulative and environmental impacts; wherever possible energy demand should be met by onsite renewable energy or a low carbon energy distribution network.
Supporting Active and Sustainable Transport ~~Networks~~ through travel planning and providing facilities for active low carbon travel contributing to a reduction in travel demand, traffic growth and congestion;
Locating development in areas accessible by public transport, and safe, attractive well linked cycling and walking routes, whilst recognising the different needs of rural areas
Protecting and enhancing Green and Blue Infrastructure Networks, acknowledging the benefits these can bring
Minimising flood risk, limiting surface water run off;
Creating, protecting and enhancing biodiversity habitats including the wildlife habitat network, taking care not to create barriers to the movement of wildlife over the wider landscape;
Reducing the amount of waste produced through a reduction in the consumption of materials and resources and maximising the recycling/re-use of waste whilst minimising that going to landfill.

If you recognise the climate emergency and support actions to reduce Calderdale’s carbon consumption/impact from new developments

What do you understand by appropriate mitigation and adaptation measures?
Should the council set actual targets and standards rather than saying ‘energy efficiency is maximised’ (for example using BREEAM ratings)?
Calderdale wants developments of more than 500 dwellings to include a master plan. Would it help ensure good developments if these had to achieve a BREEAM Communities Excellent or Outstanding rating?

What is BREEAM?

BREEAM: the world’s first environmental assessment method for new building designs

Why BREEAM might help masterplanning

BREEAM aims to ensure that its standards provide social and economic benefits whilst mitigating the environmental impacts of the built environment. In doing so, BREEAM enables developments to be recognised according to their sustainability benefits and stimulates demand for sustainable development.

BREEAM Communities standard

BREEAM Communities standard provides a framework to support planners, local authorities, developers and investors to integrate and assess sustainable design in the masterplanning of new communities and regeneration projects.

The sustainability framework is underpinned by credible science, allowing the assessment process to identify valuable insights on the asset’s performance. The internationally recognised and third-party certification provides assurance and validation of the data collated throughout the assessment.

More information on BREEAM

Addressing climate change

MM40: Policy CC1 Climate change

Locating development in areas accessible by public transport, and safe, attractive well linked cycling and walking routes, whilst recognising the different needs of rural areas

If you support this statement, would it help make this policy clearer by adding measurements?

For example, in other parts of the local plan, Calderdale referred to ‘within 400m of the core bus network or 750 metres of railway stations’ when thinking about sustainable development.

Air Quality

MM123 (Section 21 Environmental Protection)

New paragraphs added which include the statement “the Plan aims to improve air quality in the Borough and achieve compliance with legal Air Quality objectives as soon as possible.”

Are you comfortable that this is an appropriate statement for improving air quality?
What do you understand by “as soon as possible” or would you prefer to see a date included?
What is an appropriate date for the council to comply with their legal requirements?

Information on air quality

Gypsies, Travellers & Showpeople Policy HS8

MM104-106 (Section 16 Housing)

Policy change, Green Belt can be allocated for needs identified in the forthcoming Development Plan Document:
“…The Development Plan Document will be based on an update to the GTAA 2015, in order to ensure that the future needs of Gypsies and Travellers and Travelling Showpeople are met. Where need is identified the allocation of land to meet those needs will be guided by the criteria set out below (with the exception of criterion ii relating to the Green Belt)…”
“…ii The site is not located in the Green Belt…”
• The Government Planning Policy for Travellers Document (Policy E) says a local planning authority can alter the Green Belt boundary to meet identified need if it wishes. Excerpt below:
17. “Green Belt boundaries should be altered only in exceptional circumstances. If a local planning authority wishes to make an exceptional, limited alteration to the defined Green Belt boundary (which might be to accommodate a site inset within the Green Belt) to meet a specific, identified need for a traveller site, it should do so only through the plan-making process and not in response to a planning application. If land is removed from the Green Belt in this way, it should be specifically allocated in the development plan as a traveller site only.”

Are you comfortable that Calderdale has correctly identified land for traveller needs?
Do you support Calderdale’s ambition to include Green Belt boundaries to meet identified needs if it wishes?
or do you believe Calderdale should have already identified need and location by this point in the plan?

Information on planning for traveller sites

Sustainable Travel IM4

MM66 (Section 13 Infrastructure and Masterplanning)

The following has been removed from the policy: “Encourage development within 400 metres of the Core Bus Network or within 750 metres of railway stations”

If you support the principle of sustainable travel (walking, cycling and public transport), does removing this policy statement support or hinder development in sustainable locations?
Is ‘encourage development’ a suitable phrase, or could you suggest a firmer requirement for planners to focus on development within 400 metres of the core bus network and 750 meters of a railway station

Information on sustainable travel

Ensuring development Supports sustainable Travel IM5

MM67 (Section 13 Infrastructure and Masterplanning)

The following has been removed from the policy: “Proposals should be located within the urban areas or associated with a village inset in the Green Belt”

If you support the principle of sustainable travel (walking, cycling and public transport),

Does removing this policy statement support or hinder development in sustainable locations?
Could you suggest alternative wording?

Information on sustainable travel

HS1 Non-Allocated Sites

MM94 & MM95 (Section 16 Housing)

Paragraph 16.3 has been removed. This included: “A fundamental consideration in determining whether a non-allocated site is suitable and sustainable for housing will be its accessibility to services and facilities by good quality public transport, cycling and walking….”

If you support the principle of sustainable travel (walking, cycling and public transport),

Do you consider accessibility to services and facilities by good public transport, cycling and walking to be important factors in considering if non-allocated sites are suitable for housing?
Does removing this policy statement support or hinder development in sustainable locations?
Could you suggest alternative wording?

Information on sustainable travel

Policy IM1 Strategic Transport Interventions

MM59-62 (Section 13 Infrastructure and Masterplanning)

Scheme removed from the list of potential strategic transport interventions and will be delivered during the local plan period:

Cooper Bridge / A644 Highway Scheme (Kirklees led)

Note: incorrectly labelled as Cooper Bridge/A641 scheme in ‘strategic interventions list

This scheme supports the selection of sites in South East Calderdale (through improving traffic flow and reducing congestion)

Information on Cooper Bridge scheme

Policy IM1 Strategic Transport Interventions

MM59-62 (Section 13 Infrastructure and Masterplanning)

Schemes removed from the list of potential strategic transport interventions being delivered during the local plan period:

M62 Junction 24a

M62 Junction 24a was promoted as a potential strategic scheme to support the selection of sites in South East Calderdale (through improving traffic flow and reducing congestion)

J24a referenced twice in justification for LP1451 and twice for LP1463;

J24a referenced 14 times in Strategic Vision for South East Calderdale and justification for filtering LP1456/LP1457/LP1459 (twice).

Calderdale’s sustainability appraisal records its work on selecting which sites could be suitable for development.

Calderdale has not reviewed its sustainability appraisal since removing J24a, considering J24a is mentioned in filtering sites in North Halifax, would you expect to see the sustainability appraisal updating?
Is it possible J24a might have influenced development in South East Calderdale, and now removed would it be appropriate to review large-scale sites previously removed?

Examiner article on Junction 24a

Policy IM7 Masterplanning

MM74 (Section 13 Infrastructure and Masterplanning)

The various criteria listed in the policy will not apply to all developments requiring masterplanning.

The requirements will depend on the scale, type and form of development proposed and will be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

The government supports master planning for large sites because it will create good collaborative working and effective decision-making among public and private sector partners and stakeholders.

Garden communities - good project governance

Good project governance will support you to:

ensure common objectives and outcomes are shared by relevant parties
give various parties clarity on their roles and responsibilities
speed up the delivery programme with efficient decision-making processes
involve relevant stakeholders in the decision-making process to increase buy-in
provide strategic direction, so delivery of a garden community is moved forward
identify barriers and challenges to successful delivery of the project and find solutions
support partnership working between the public and private sectors
provide consistency and ensure delivery of the initial vision

Government guidance on garden communities

The government published guidance on garden community planning and delivery https://www.gov.uk/guidance/garden-communities

What do you understand by case-by-case assessment?
Is it fair and reasonable to leave this open, or would it make sense to apply the government’s toolkit to all developments?
Would you support the policy that all large sites (perhaps over 500 dwellings) adhere to the policies in the government’s garden communities toolkit?
Should Calderdale require all large sites to follow the garden communities toolkit?

Government’s guidance on communities

Policy IM7 Masterplanning

MM71 (Section 13 Infrastructure and Masterplanning)

Where larger sites are in multiple ownership, masterplanning should inform the processes of collaboration and equalisation between landowners by resolving the extent and location of development, infrastructure, and open space; and also, the phasing of the site

The government’s guidance on masterplanning recommends that the scheme should be reviewed at the plan-making stage to test deliverability and inform policy development

Do you support the view it is important to follow the garden community toolkit and review scheme viability at the plan-making stage to test deliverability??
Would it make sense to update Calderdale’s statement to include viability testing at the same time as resolving extent and location of development?

Government’s guidance on communities

Developer contributions

MM76 & MM77 (Section 13 Infrastructure and Masterplanning)

Limited delivery of strategic sites

The complexities of trying to deliver both garden suburbs in the same area of Calderdale at the same time (including development challenges, infrastructure, remedial work, fragmented ownership, land in greenbelt, viability) means not all the sites can be delivered in the plan period

Thornhills – only 28% is planned to be delivered

Woodhouse – less than half the allocation is scheduled for delivery

Calderdale and the site promoter projected delivery in full to justify the allocations inclusion (and capability to finance required infrastructure).
Would significant under-performance mean the 2020 viability assessment is still reliable?
Would you expect the assessment to be updated to take into account the significant shortfall in delivery?

Waste Policy WA4

MM137 (Section 23 Waste)

The following has been changed, to say should prioritise, rather than should be located: “Applications for new waste management facilities should be located on previously developed land, sites identified for employment uses, and redundant agricultural and forestry buildings and their curtilages.”

Does it make sense to have a priority listing for considering where waste management facilities might be located?
Is there a risk that ‘should be located’ means applications on other land (perhaps employment and greenbelt land) could not be refused in favour of previously developed land because the priority to locate on previously developed land removed?

Guidance on waste planning policy

Residential Density Policy HS2

MM96 (Section 16 Housing)

The following is removed from the policy: “The Council will expect the capacities for mixed use and housing allocations indicated in Policies SD6 and SD7 respectively, to be achieved.”

Do you support development capacities (as per policies SD6 and SD7)?
Is there a risk that removing the policy requirement could change the number of homes on a site (either building more or not enough)?
Would changing capacities have benefits or risks for affordable housing numbers?
If changing the development capacities impacts on the infrastructre plans already discussed, what measures would you want to see to mitigate this, or would you prefer the council and developers to honour the allocation numbers already allocated?

Guidance on housing density