MUST and SHOULD – what you need to know

MUST is used 23 times, and SHOULD appears 89 times in the Thornhills Masterplan Code

What’s the difference, and why is it important?

A statement including MUST is generally non-negotiable; whatever is stated will happen; SHOULD is a recommendation that the Council could change or ignore when planning applications are submitted.

Everywhere you see SHOULD, ask yourself if this is appropriate language. Unless you have complete confidence in the process, make a point of checking everywhere SHOULD is used. If the policy requirement is important to you, you might want to object to the paragraph and tell Calderdale to replace it with MUST.

Remember, the same applies to must not or will/will not!

Various supporting documents are missing and have yet to be published.

• Rooftax
• Viability information

1. Considering these documents work alongside and support this SPD, do you believe it is acceptable to launch this consultation without all the information available?

1. Are you happy with how this document has been prepared?
2. If this is the first time you can comment on the SPD, is it realistic that your views are being sought so late in the process?
3. Paragraph 1.2.4 mentions in-depth topic workshops (except for landowners with commercial interest); it appears no local community representatives have been included; is this reasonable?
4. Calderdale Policy IM7 is referenced twice in the introduction. Policy IM7 requires the public are involved in the process

Climate emergency

1. (1.3.3) Do you believe this policy document addresses the climate emergency?

Green and Healthy Streets

1. (1.3.5) A core ‘Calderdale objective’ is to reduce inequalities, sare you confident this SPD helps to achieve the reducing inequalities objective?

Government guidance “Testing your masterplan” states:

How to develop and test a masterplan for a garden community.

• masterplan must be consistent with the vision, principles and objectives established for the garden community

• engagement with local people and stakeholders must feed into the evolution of the masterplan

Does this process reflect government’s Garden Communities guidance?

The section on IM7 – Masterplanning quotes selectively from Calderdale’s policy and misses out

• engagement
•  

1.3.19 Masterplanning ensures that new development is properly integrated with existing settlements, with the focus  on sustainable mixed communities. Policy IM7 ensures that the allocations are delivered in a high quality, comprehensive, phased and coordinated manner.
1.3.20 Amongst other requirements, the policy expects a management plan to be produced to demonstrate how Open Space, infrastructure and community assets will be  aintained and managed following completion of development.

1. Is this section an accurate and complete representation of policy IM7?
   1. Should public engagement be added?
   2. How do you feel about the council’s engagement  activity in this process?

Do you agree with the site constraints comments?

Is there anything missing or inaccurate?

Page 18 MAP – Is the wildlife habitat network logical?

Do you accept the site assets and opportunities?

1. Does the site layout and detailed design of buildings positively respond to the site’s topography, taking inspiration from local precedents?
2. Are you confident existing woodland, trees and hedgerows will be retained and enhanced as much as possible to reinforce the site’s established landscape character and benefit biodiversity?
3. What do you understand by heritage assets? How can they influence the layout and character of development parcels if they are lost in the development?
4. Does it make sense to retain existing waterways as key features within the open space network?
5. What do you think of the ‘Summit Park’ idea for long-distance views across the valley and providing a focal point for the community?
6. Does the new local centre and primary school location enable existing Clifton residents as well as new residents of the Garden Community easy access?
7. Do you agree with the main vehicular access points into site from Highmoor Lane (A643)
8. Is a secondary access point from Thornhills Lane (with restriction on vehicle numbers) in keeping with the previous designs?
9. What do you think about the missing spine road from the A641 that was disclosed to the Inspector and in the previous site proposals? Should the A641 road be included to reduce traffic pressure through the village
10. Should details on traffic-calming existing lanes running through the site – Thornhills Lane, Thornhills Beck Lane and Jay House Lane be provided if they are mentioned in these documents?
11. Are you confident vehicle ‘rat-running’ along Thornhills Lane and in Clifton will be eliminated with these proposals?
12. What do you understand by providing key links to Brighouse town centre and surrounding areas of recreation, sport, and employment (both existing and proposed) to increase opportunities for residents of the Garden Community?
13. The document suggests a new linkage could be provided from the site to Wellholme Park via the former Pickle Bridge railway line (although the steepness of the embankment may be prohibitive). Is this realistic, given the steep inclines?
14. Is the network of off-site cycle routes running through the site and along the former Pickle Bridge railway line realistic to provide a connected active travel network through the new development?
15. Do you believe it is important existing Public Rights of Way (PRoW) crossing the site are safeguarded in the green space network? Are you happy for a PRoW to disappear and be subsumed into the developments?
16. Is it important to you that attractive, ecologically rich buffer planting to existing dwellings within the site and around the boundary, or are you happy that they could be sensitively integrated into the new street scene, as appropriate?

Do you agree with the land use statements?

1. (4.2.1) Principal land uses  – this has changed from the original proposals, which distributed development across the site. Now, the development is tightly packed nearer Highmoor Lane and Thornhills Lane. Does this still have a Garden Community feel, or is this a mass-housing plan?
2. (4.2.2) In all previous proposals the new primary school was a two-form proposal. Do you understand why this has been halved?
3. The proposed school location should cater for existing and new residents. Is the location reasonable to achieve this? Would you want to see any measures or restrictions to safeguard existing Thornhills Lane residents from traffic that the development might generate?
4. Incorporating sustainable drainage and water retention is an important contributor to preventing flooding. Do you support this as a mandatory requirement?
5. Are you concerned about different-sized development parcels providing flexibility to accommodate larger and smaller house builders with four parcels? For example, would you want to see controls on the order land should be developed to minimise site disruption and inconvenience?

BUILDING HEIGHTS

(4.3.1) Whilst most homes within the Garden Community will be 2-2.5 storeys high, some areas of the site on flatter or less visible land may have the potential for buildings up to 3 storeys high. A Landscape and Visual Impact  Assessment (LVIA) is usually produced to demonstrate that the design will not have a wider visual impact. This document does not make an LVIA a requirement for 2.5/3-storey buildings.

1. Should it be mandatory for every 2.5/3 storey application to include a LIVA to demonstrate the design proposal’s wider visual impact?

DENSITY

(4.3.4) Mentions a minimum density of 30 dwellings per hectare (dph). This contradicts the allocation evidence, which stated an indicative density of 19 dph. 

Calderdale’s evidence to the Inspector stated compliance with lifetime homes policies is easier to achieve with housing densities of less than 30 dph or greater than 60 dph.

1. Considering the scale of land allocation, is it reasonable for housing densities to remain below 30 dph, in line with the 19 dph presented in the published plan?

1. Do you support the idea most of the North Western Allocation is given over to the park, or would you prefer to see buildings allocated across the site to provide more of a garden community feeling?

2. Is the heritage and distinctive feel of Thornhills Hamlet sufficiently safeguarded in these proposals? Would you lke to see a wider buffer around all existing housing?

1. Do the proposals make sense?
2. Is active travel down into/up from Brighouse realistic?
3. How will cycling be encouraged?
4. The bus will only serve the primary route, how does this promote active travel in further parts of the site, or will it encourage car use?
5. Should all construction traffic be prohibited from using Thornhills Lane during the building phases?

Residential amenity – remember this is a very large site, and new development should be sensitive to and respect existing occupiers.

(5.1.4) All new developments within the Garden Community will need to demonstrate that it would not result in any significant adverse impact on the living conditions of existing adjacent residents or other occupiers concerning privacy, daylight and over-shadowing in particular.

1. What do you understand by significant adverse impact? Is this sufficiently defined, or would you prefer a better-defined policy (not overlooking/buffering to existing developments, restricting new build heights adjacent to existing developments to two storeys)

Paragraph 5.2.10 covers the Principles of Development
• The number of affordable homes provided through the garden suburbs should be a minimum be 25% of the overall total. 
• The predominant size and type of affordable homes should be 2 or 3-bedroom houses with some 4-bedroom houses.
• Development of affordable bungalows will be encouraged by allowing for one 1-, 2- or 3-bedroom affordable bungalow to replace two affordable homes required in any development.

Remember: the Council wants to encourage the provision of bungalows on the sites, and every one affordable bungalow will reduce a developer’s requirement to provide two affordable homes

1. Do you support the principle the developers can provide one affordable 1,2, or 3-bedroom bungalow instead of two affordable 1,2 or 3-bedroom homes?

• Affordable housing should be indistinguishable from market housing in terms of achieving the same high quality of design.

1. Is this statement sufficiently robust, or would it be better to say affordable housing must be indistinguishable?

• Affordable homes should be integrated into the development. However, homes
for affordable or social rent managed by a Registered Provider should be  clustered in groups of up to 10 to aid their management.

1. Do you support this idea of clustering up to 10 affordable homes in one place?

5.2 HOUSING

Paragraph 5.2.1 mentions the Garden Communities should create inclusive communities, providing a mix of housing to respond to different ages and incomes and addressing the needs of the district. Therefore, a broad range of homes of different types and sizes should be provided. Local Plan policy requires that the mix should be informed by the most recent SHMA (Strategic Housing Market Assessment) together with relevant and recent information as well as considering market factors and the location and characteristics of the site.

1. Is paragraph 5.2.1 clear to you?
2. Is ‘relevant and recent information’ a transparent statement? Should this information be described to avoid confusion or misunderstanding?
3. What impact could ‘market factors’ have on the housing mix?
4. Who would make this decision?
5. Would this be transparent or open to abuse or change without challenge?
6. The site location and characteristics are already known, do you understand why this is included here or should it be removed?

The 2018 SHMA suggests need is highest for two- and three-bedroom homes and this is confirmed in subsequent studies with highest demand for 3-bedroom houses.

1. This statement contradicts the Strategic Sites Viability Assessment which cost over 50% of the site would be 4+ bedroom houses. In light of this, should the SHMA be updated now?

Paragraph 5.2.2 suggests local housing market evidence suggests the Garden Communities are less appropriate for flats.

1. Do you accept this evidence?
2. Should a limit be placed on location build height if flats are provided?

Paragraph 5.2.3 acknowledges Calderdale has an aging population, and the Garden Communities may play a role in accommodating older households downsizing to smaller homes after their children have left home. Some of this demand may be met by bungalows for which there is a recognised demand. Specialist accommodation is being developed elsewhere in the Borough and could be provided within the Garden Communities. Generally, people prefer to remain in their homes and adapt them as their lifestyles change. This can be made easier by increasing the supply of accessible and adaptable homes built to Requirement M4(2) of the Building Regulations (or any subsequent standard). Refer to Local Plan Policy HS4.

Proposals for residential development should ensure that 100% of units are adaptable and accessible homes.⁽³²⁾

1. Calderdale’s standard requirement is for 100% requirement with policy M4(2). Do you believe paragraph 5.2.3 is clear on this? Would you prefer to see a minimum requirement (certainly 80- 100%) to provide adaptable homes?

5.3.3 The precise mix of local centre uses will be determined at the pre/planning application stage in consultation with the Council and informed by market advice and subject to commercial considerations. However, it is expected that the Thornhills local centre will include the following key components:
• Farm shop and café (minimum 300 sqm to include catering kitchen/store/WCs). 
• Community hall (minimum 500 sqm to include kitchenette, stores and WCs).
• Nursery School, providing 35 places for children aged 2-5 years, with adjacent secure garden area to be accessed from within the building.

A Mobility Hub, incorporating some, or all, of the following features:
• Spaces for cycle parking
• E-bike charging points
• Bus stop
• Interactive public transport planning
• Secure delivery lockers
• Mobility scooter parking bays with charging points
• Hard and soft landscaping, including external seating, a play area and trees/planting.
• Adequate parking for cars and cycles using the local centre.

1. What do you think about the missing healthcare provision promised in the examination hearings?

Healthcare

6.2.8 Joint working with the Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) around the delivery of primary care health and wellbeing facilities has continued throughout the development of the Local Plan, including liaison with the Lower Valley Primary Care Network of GPs in Southeast Calderdale and the NHS Estates Delivery Unit.

6.2.9 Discussion with the NHS Estates Delivery Unit confirmed that there would be no appetite for the provision of on-site health and wellbeing hubs that could accommodate surgeries, pharmacies and other associated facilities. Increased demand will instead be accommodated through the enlargement of existing facilities in the local area.

1. Is this proposal contrary to what you previously understood?
2. Do you support the enlargement of existing surgery facilities or would you expect a new facility to be built on the site?

A641 Corridor Investment Programme

6.2.14 A detailed breakdown of the necessary funding mechanism is included in the funding strategy section to follow.

1. The funding strategy does not detail infrastructure phasing, are you confident the A641 works will be delivered?
2. The A641 plan presented to the Inspector included a spine road connection through the Garden Suburb which is missing from this document. Are you concerned about this?

A643 Scheme
6.2.15 The delivery of a highway improvement scheme is required on the A643 (Highmoor Lane) prior to occupation of the first units in Phase 1A of the Thornhills Garden Community. The key purposes of the scheme will be to enhance the arrival experience to the Thornhills Garden Community and introduce traffic calming measures to reduce vehicle speeds and improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists.

1. Do you support traffic-calming on Highmoor Lane?
2. What would you want to see to improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists?

Table 6.3.2 – developers will not be liable for any funding contribution towards secondary schools. This contradicts evidence presented to the Planning Inspector and included in earlier documents.

1. Do you believe all new buildings on the Thornhills ‘Garden Community’ should contribute towards secondary school provision as previously stated?

The Proposals include the provision for a Stewardship Trust to be established. This ‘Trust’ would own, maintain, and manage all public land and facilities within the garden community. This would include parks, children’s play areas, community buildings, sports and leisure facilities, productive landscapes, and public open space.

This novel financing means Trust will levy a service charge to all residents/commercial occupiers. It is unclear if there is an attempt to levy the charge outside the new ‘strategic sites’,

Most of the facilities will be open to wider public use beyond the residents and commercial occupants of the Garden Communities, so the service charge to those residents and occupants will need to confer fair benefits that deliver value for money, while helping to integrate the site with the existing local community.

1. Do you support a Trust owning the open spaces
2. Is it appropriate to levy new residents?
3. What do you think about a levy applying to existing Clifton/Thornhills residents?