Council committee and cabinet meetings

My previous question was concerning the technical specification showing the Incinerator can burn 1 Tonne of RDF Skip Waste an hour.

Your Response was that the information was available on the council¿s web site.

On the website the technical details are in fact a sales flyer from 2017, which on one page says General Incinerator and on the next page says Medical Incinerator (see PDF CVSH i8-1000- general_incinerator ). The information does not refer to skip waste or RDF.

The manufacturer has issued an updated flyer for the same incinerator which says the maximum burn rate for the incinerator is only 600Kg per hour (see PDF below i8-1000G).

The up to date I8-1000 Incinerator technical documents state a maximum burn rate of 600 kg per hour for RDF general waste. Furthermore the Operation, Maintenance and Installation Handbook for the I8-1000 states ¿Operating the machine beyond its design limits can damage the machine, it can also be dangerous.¿

Will the officers now amend the Environmental permit to up to 600kg per hour?

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Public Services and Communities Councillor Durrans replied to David Pugh [PDF file 104KB]|

On December 20th 2024, David Dunbar replied to an email sent by Councillor Ashton requesting answers to questions raised at the Sowerby Bridge Ward Forum on Dec.10 2024.

In reply to question 5 re the rating plates that should be on the incinerator and/or it¿s components, David Dunbar states that a site visit and extensive enquiries established that there were some rating plates but not on the actual combustion chambers and that they were not needed.

If no rating plate is present because it is classed as an ¿installation¿ then a comprehensive ¿Build File¿ of the installation is required stating all the compliances and certifications signed off by a competent Installation Engineer, usually approved by the manufacturer.

The main object of the question was to establish the Identity and date of manufacture of the incinerator, in order to ensure that that the exact specification of the Incinerator on site could be verified from the manufacturer, Inciner8. I believe that this plant was manufactured prior to 2017 not 2020 as stated in the Permit application. On the site visit were records taken from the existing Rating Plates and/or the Build File to verify this?

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

Considering frontline Council services continue to deteriorate despite increased central Government funding and the annual Council Tax increases, does the Cabinet have confidence that the CEO and the Council Leader are capable and have the ability to improve local services and create communities that local people want to live in? And does the Cabinet feel that local residents get value for money in the delivery of public services?

The Leader Councillor Scullion replied to Philip Cole [PDF file 85KB]|

The Draft Environmental Permit in respect of CVSH¿s incinerator published on your website states:

Definitions include:

The end of the permissible period of abnormal operation means the earliest of the following: d) when, in any calendar year, an aggregate of 60 hours has been reached for permissible periods of abnormal operation.

And

Condition 3.12 includes:

Where, during permissible periods of abnormal operation, on an incineration line, any of the following situations arise, waste shall cease to be charged on that line until normal operation can be restored: b) the cumulative duration of permissible periods of abnormal operation over 1 calendar year has reached 60 hours.

My question is: Once the cumulative duration of permissible periods of abnormal operation in any 1 calendar year totals 60 hours will the SWIP not be able to operate for the remainder of that calendar year and why is a calendar year rather than a rolling 12 months basis being applied?

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Public Services and Communities Councillor Durrans replied to Jeanette Hunton [PDF file 74KB]|

Your reply to my question at the last Cabinet regarding the draft permit published for Calder Valley Ship Hire said if emission levels are exceeded for a period of more than 4 hours, on notification of such, council officers will ensure that the incineration of waste ceases until the matter is resolved, describing this as being dealt with swiftly.

During such periods of `Permissible periods of abnormal operation¿ the defined limits of safe operation are by definition exceeded, with potentially all the raw emissions from incineration being released directly to air via the emergency dump valve with no form of pollution abatement occurring.

Given the release point of these emissions is 22 centimetres below the road level of Rochdale Road only 90 metres away does the Cabinet believe that all raw emissions from incineration being released directly to air for a period of four hours before notification is required acceptable or dealing with environmental pollution swiftly.

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Public Services and Communities Councillor Durrans replied to Andrew Dobson [PDF file 82KB]|

The original flood risk assessment for the Belmont site approved at the planning stage, was incorrect. The Environment Agency flood risk assessment confirms that the surface water flood risk for HX6 3LL is high risk.

The Existing Drainage Plan by Philip S. Ryley shows no reference to the gully running through the site and has the wrong postcode on the plan. The work has not taken place shown on the approval to culvert the stream from Norland hillside - this is now causing erosion of the protected woodland area and this has resulted in high levels of surface water flooding in January 2025. It is negligent to ignore the flood risk assessment.

Planning was passed in 2019 after an enquiry by Inspector Ian Jenkins and a number of planning conditions were set.

Condition 22 The development shall not begin, until a scheme for the provision of surface water drainage works has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and 25 concerning drainage and woodland management have not been satisfactorily discharged after over four years.

Furthermore the failure to meet the initial planning requirement to separate the site from the River Ryburn with a 1.75 metre wall has not been carried out. My question is why has planning permission not been revoked?

The Deputy Leader, Cabinet Member with responsibility for Climate Action and Housing Councillor Patient replied to Faye Williams [PDF file 90KB]|

Residents are grateful to the MPs and the majority of councillors who have supported their efforts to protect the health and environment of Sowerby Bridge. They also welcome the Government announcement to require more control over incineration and to increase the scrutiny of incinerator plants. Residents trust that CMBC will fully adopt those procedures.

This does not appear to be the case so far.

As an example, Cabinet might be interested in the officers' statement that they are satisfied with the storage capacity of 20 tonnes of Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) in the incinerator shed for the overnight burn, when the doors have to remain closed for 13 hours.

RDF has an average density of 120 to 250kg per tonne, say average of 185kg.

20 tonnes would require a storage volume of 108 cubic metres. The area shown on plans submitted for storage is 23 square metres. The shed is 3.2 metres high at eaves and 5.4 metres at the ridge. Access for loading machinery would be required. RDF does not appear to stack vertically - more conical in profile.

Using those dimensions gives a storage capacity of circa 25 cubic metres - less than 25% of what has been approved.

Officers have declined an elected Councillor's request to be present at their site meetings and the company has not responded to two requests for a resident visit, despite their invitation as advertised on 'Calendar'.

Residents would be grateful for a clear explanation regarding the capacity of the shed for overnight RDF storage and confirmation that such storage is fully compliant with H&SE advice regarding fire risk, dust and vapour and working conditions.

Relevant information is not available on the council Permitting or Planning websites. The answer to this question could be published on the relevant site

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Public Services and Communities Councillor Durrans replied to George Pickles [PDF file 40KB]|

I would like to know what the second outlet or chimney is on the small waste incineration plant building at Belmont, Sowerby Bridge. It is not shown on any of the plans submitted with the Environmental permit application. It is not shown on the site boundary plan for emission points, the layout plan or the SWIP location plan. Looking at the more detailed diagram of the building and its contents, in the Layout Plan by P S Ryley for HX6 3BL, there is a cross over the Incinerator, which appears to be a flue, and which may match up with the external photograph of the building. Is this a dump stack and would it be monitored?

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Public Services and Communities Councillor Durrans replied to Jane Pugh [PDF file 38KB]|

I received an inadequate response to my question of 9th December querying why officers approved an incinerator which would be harmful to human health.

The response was basically that it was governed by a regulatory regime and from fear of court costs from disappointed parties should the application be refused.

Does the cabinet believe that fear of litigation is a good enough reason to compromise the health and safety of Sowerby Bridge residents especially when the said regulatory regime is open to interpretation.

The council have stated that expert consultation was sought, however the experts did not even visit the site, whose topography is one of the critical issues raised by environmental experts.

I also do not believe the unelected council officers who interpreted the regulatory regime had the necessary knowledge or experience in this field.

This was amply demonstrated at the Sowerby Bridge Ward Forum that officers attended on 9th December. The overall impression given was that officers were ill informed, ill prepared, inept and naive. Many members of the audience knew more about the subject than the officers themselves.

So I ask again, does the cabinet believe that fear of litigation is a good enough reason to compromise the health and safety of the residents of Sowerby Bridge, we seem to be the only people not considered in the process - what was the point of a consultation!

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Public Services and Communities Councillor Durrans replied to Clive Wilkinson [PDF file 32KB]|

I am disappointed to see the deadline for Cabinet Questions has been brought forward to Wednesday at 5:00 PM from Friday at 12:00 PM. This significant reduction in the submission deadline leaves residents and Councillors with insufficient time to thoroughly analyse the extensive Cabinet papers (today¿s Cabinet Agenda is 280 pages and December¿s Cabinet Agenda was 300 pages) and write thoughtful questions.

This compressed timeline undermines effective scrutiny and the principles of accountability. Therefore, I request that the Cabinet publish their papers 43 hours earlier than the usual schedule because this would compensate for the shortened deadline and ensure that residents and Councillors have adequate time to prepare for Cabinet.

The Leader Councillor Scullion replied to Councillor Blagbrough [PDF file 83KB]|

First, I want to express my appreciation to the Officers and Cabinet for considering Cllr Hunt's alternative proposal of closing each tip one day or a couple of days per week to achieve the necessary savings and thus avoid the closure of Elland Tip. I strongly urge the Cabinet to seriously consider and implement this option. The primary justification for the Cabinet's decision to close Elland Tip was to make savings and option two offers a larger saving.

However, the report that states if Elland Tip were to close the Council will still meet the necessary requirements for Household Waste & Recycling Centres. But this assessment fails to account for the significant planned housing developments in the Lower Valley, Elland, and surrounding Wards. These developments will increase waste generation, making the continued operation of Elland Tip even more crucial.

Another point raised regarding alternative closures of each tip was the potential underutilization of capital and machinery at the other tips during their closure periods. However, option two does offer the flexibility to increase opening hours at these sites in the future if funding becomes available which should be the long-term priority of this Council. In contrast, the closure of Elland Tip would necessitate significant capital expenditure if a new tip were to be required in the future.

Finally, this Council has previously stated its ambition to be the best borough in the country but closing a vital public service such as Elland Tip would directly contradict this aspiration. The Conservative Group urges the Council to not close Elland Tip.

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Public Services and Communities Councillor Durrans replied to Cllr Leigh MBE [PDF file 39KB]|

Item 11 is the 2024 Annual Health and Safety Report for Calderdale MBC but there is no mention of the Sowerby Bridge Incinerator in the report. Please can I request that the Health and Safety Team look into the potential health issues that could arise from the incinerator and report back to Cabinet. Moreover, what reassurances can the Cabinet provide about the robustness of the monitoring of the incinerator and enforcement of the environmental permit and planning conditions.

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Public Services and Communities Councillor Durrans replied to Councillor Dickenson [PDF file 83KB]|

Following the report from the Director of Public Services, I am writing to you on behalf of the residents of Elland and also Cllrs Gallagher and Barnes.

I am pleased to see in the report acknowledgement that there are now two viable options to save money with our Calderdale HWRCs. Will you do the fairest thing and decide to close all HWRCs on a rotation basis and also do you note the report which states that there are actually more savings to be made with this option in comparison to the least fair option of closing solely Elland HWRC?

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Resources Councillor Dacre replied to Councillor Veitch [PDF file 36KB]|