Council committee and cabinet meetings

I was recently asked by a resident to establish what interests did a Councillor have that was declared in the web based Register of Interests.

Apparently, the Councillor¿s current entry (No.1.) shows a company dissolved in 2022 and that same entry (No.1) pertaining to the Councillor¿s current employment is missing.

Furthermore, a senior Councillor¿s entry in Appointments to Outside Bodies shows an entry to a company that was dissolved on 2012 (12 years ago) and apparently, the entry was made some years before the person was even elected as a Councillor.

Does the Cabinet agree with me that such information in the public domain be correct and transparent to the citizens of Calderdale and should the problem be alleviated by notice (email) from Democratic Services to all Councillors at some period shortly after election date to remind them of their duty.

I look forward to a transparent, honest and evidenced response within the agreed seven days.

The Leader Councillor Scullion replied to Ed Greenwood [PDF file 80KB]|

Could an explanation be given as to why the Cabinet feel their 'hands are tied' on this Incinerator application and why one member of Cabinet is not allowed to vote on the issue

The Leader Councillor Scullion replied to George Pickles [PDF file 66KB]|

On the council website it says, CVSH have now provided us with enough information for a decision to be made.

Given that CVSH have not supplied the manufacturers technical documentation for the Incinerator. Is the council confident that the Incinerator can safely burn up to 2 tons per hour of skip waste?

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Public Services and Communities Councillor Durrans replied to David Pugh [PDF file 28KB]|

The cabinet took the decision to approve an Environmental permit at Belmont on the 8th February 2021; could the cabinet make the decision on this repeat application for an Environmental permit?

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Public Services and Communities Councillor Durrans replied to Jane Pugh [PDF file 28KB]|

Given that Council officers on previous occasions have wrongly supported applications for an incinerator in Sowerby Bridge by Calder Valley Skip Hire, why are Cabinet allowing officers to make this decision again when there is clear precedent that such a decision should be taken by Cabinet.

The precedent is that when a similar EP application for an incinerator at Mearclough was decided, the Cabinet chose to make the decision due to the level of public interest and concern about the application. This level of public concern remains there were 850 comments in the first round of consultation, plus all the Ryburn and Sowerby Bridge councillors as well as others in Greetland and Stainland, Skircoat etc are against it. Both local MP's are also against it. If this doesn't demonstrate a high level of public interest and concern then what does?

Incidentally the Cabinet then refused the Mearclough application on the following grounds among others

Proximity to the Sowerby Bridge Air Quality Management Area

NOX levels

Inability to properly regulate as the site would have 2 regulators Environment Agency and CMBC

These 3 reasons equally apply to the proposed site at Belmont as well as the fact that a government planning inspector, last July, has already refused an EP for that site due to its potential harm to human health and the environment - isn't that judgement in itself a reason why Cabinet should be involved now?

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Public Services and Communities Councillor Durrans replied to Clive Wilkinson [PDF file 88KB]|

There is a worrying trend emerging within this Council. Last year, the Conservative Group called-in the previous report on Parking Charges. Now this year¿s report intends to bypass future Scrutiny by proposing to delegate authority to Council Officers over any future changes to parking charges.

Parking policy is a politically sensitive matter, and we are all aware of this. Whilst I am trying to understand the rationale behind this proposal, the delegation of decision-making reflects a lack of transparency and a disregard for democratic principles. I urge you to reconsider this recommendation, as moving toward less transparency is neither in the public interest nor conducive to good governance.

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Public Services and Communities Councillor Durrans replied to Councillor Leigh MBE [PDF file 78KB]|

Short-stay Parking in Brighouse will skyrocket by a staggering 400% under these proposed plans by this Labour Cabinet. Local residents and businesses are still reeling from the unexpected blow from last year¿s increases which were hard enough, but these new proposals show a complete disregard for the impact these increases will have.

Brighouse is a vibrant town, and thanks to the £19.1 million investment from the previous Conservative government, it has a promising future. But now these drastic parking charges risk deterring people from shopping and visiting Brighouse, and could jeopardising all of our hard work.

Whilst I understand the council¿s financial pressures, these proposed increases are excessive. I¿ve already seen one business relocate because residents are choosing to shop elsewhere to avoid parking charges. This Cabinet needs a more balanced approach that considers the long-term impact on local businesses and the revenue they generate through business rates. These proposals show a lack of economic foresight and business acumen. I strongly urge the Cabinet to reconsider these proposed massive increases.

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Public Services and Communities Councillor Durrans replied to Councllor Blagbrough [PDF file 89KB]|

Can the cabinet confirm the additional cost of the Employer National Insurance contributions, announced in the budget, for the council as an employer.

In addition, have we been able to estimate the impact on partner and supplier organisations in terms of costs and delivery.

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Resources Councillor Dacre replied to Councillor M Hey [PDF file 37KB]|

When changes were proposed/made to the system of scrutiny, the leader talked about the vital role that scrutiny plays in Local Government. Yet today's cabinet papers are looking to further delegate powers to officers which would take said decisions outside of the scrutiny process. Resulting in a diminution in democracy. I also note that neither change have no printed rationale behind them (as per the public papers). What has changed and why is the cabinet seeking to reduce the key role that councillors have in helping shape the future of our borough?

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Resources Councillor Dacre replied to Councillor Barnes [PDF file 77KB]|