Council committee and cabinet meetings

I was recently contacted by a member of an organisation willing to expense several thousands of £s in order to take advantage of a traded service allegedly offered by C.M.B.C. The organisation was disappointed in the response from Traded Services stating 'No resources', 'We believe in maintaining the highest standards of service and do not want to commit to something we cannot deliver to our usual standard'.

.I was led to believe that C.M.B.C. was not able to offer this service of itself but could do so via a separately owned company. The company I believe is Calderdale One Limited. It also seems that Calderdale One Limited incorporated in August 2016 whose registered address is c/o Head of Democratic Services, Town Hall, Crossley Street, and despite being subject three times to a `compulsory strike off', is till registered as a `dormant company' (A Confirmation statement is overdue!).

Furthermore, inspection of RO TSR (Revenue Outturn Report Traded Services) shows that External Traded Service Expenditure was £0 and Income was £0.

Therefore, my question is the Authority serious in leveraging its skills and abilities to generate income in order to offset its allegedly annual financial stress, and does the evidence from RO TSR and Calderdale One Limited belie the response given in the first paragraph?

Therefore, my question is the Authority serious in leveraging its skills and abilities to generate income in order to offset its allegedly annual financial stress, and does the evidence from RO TSR and Calderdale One Limited belie the response given in the first paragraph?

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Resources Councillor Dacre replied to Ed Greenwood [PDF file 78KB]|

Will this Cabinet endorse our open letter to the WYPF? If not, how does Cabinet propose to actively work towards WYPF's Divestment from companies identified by the UNHRO as complicit in illegal occupation and crimes against International Humanitarian Law

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Resources Councillor Dacre replied to Allen Keep [PDF file 74KB]|

I note from the above report that the previous promise to build primary schools in the Garden Suburbs has been abandoned, which will substantially increase the number of being car journeys in an already traffic-clogged area of the Borough. More disturbing still is the research from Cushman and Wakefield that indicates that 'the viability assessment results indicate that the scheme is at the margins of viability with the roof tariffs proposed' which could result in a proposal to reduce affordable housing'.

Can the Cabinet confirm that there's no circumstances where they would approve a reduction in Affordable Housing in the Garden Suburbs?

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Climate Action and Housing Councillor Patient replied to Councillor M Hey [PDF file 104KB]|

The Report on the infrastructure to support the delivery of the Garden Communities states that the Council will be borrowing £40 million for the project which will cost £7.434 million over the first six years. This is a major concern, especially given the Council's current and future budget situation. In this coming Budget, the council is implementing over £3 million in Budget cuts, increasing once again Council Tax by the maximum amount allowed, and implementing cuts to the Council Tax Reduction Scheme. Labour says that this extra burden on less fortunate residents was to bridge a funding gap of £1m because there are no reserves to use. The portfolio holder for Resources has stated on many occasions that we have very healthy reserves. Please explain. It is also important for the Council to provide a clear and detailed explanation of how it plans to pay for the Garden Communities project without further burdening taxpayers or reducing essential services. Would Cabinet please provide this information.

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Resources Councillor Dacre replied to Councillor Leigh MBE [PDF file 20KB]|

The infrastructure to support the delivery of the Garden Communities Report claims that 379 indirect jobs will be created as a result of the project. If the Council makes the bad decision to cancel the Primary Schools, then the job figures are very likely to be overstated. However, my question relates to the Reports use of Consultants to advise on the economic impacts. Please advise how much was spent to these Consultants, and whether or not they were tasked with providing sensitivity analyses to support their estimated cost benefit figures.

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Climate Action and Housing Councillor Patient replied to Councillor Monteith [PDF file 40KB]|

The paper on Infrastructure to support the delivery of the garden communities finally admits what we've been telling you all along - that the schemes are unviable as they were proposed. To fix the viability issues, the document proposes letting developers off the hook for paying their education obligations for the two primary schools and not index-linking future roof tax charges.

There is now a real risk that the public will lose out on the immediate benefits of well-funded infrastructure and the long-term value of integrated community investment, particularly in affordable housing and essential services like education.

Given that the Draft Charging Schedule (Community Infrastructure Levy) consultation is already underway and that your paper makes it clear both sites are only marginally viable, has the Draft Charging Scheduled factored these proposals into Brighouse's calculations?

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Climate Action and Housing Councillor Patient replied to Jason Carlton [PDF file 59KB]|

At the Cabinet Meeting on 13 January 2025, in reply to my question re the CE marking of the equipment the answer was given that there would be 'CE Declaration of Conformity Certificate' issued before the equipment came into use. Post Brexit and post 31st Dec 2024 the Installation may require to be UKCA marked as CE marking is being phased out in the UK. See UKCA Marking: assessment and documentation on Gov.UK. This certification is complex and technical.

Given Calder Valley Skip Hire's poor provision of accurate technical information previously in the application for the Permit. Eg :-

>Incorrect date of manufacture.

>A Flow model for a very low burn rate to justify residence time.

>No credible calculations provided for RDF throughput and loading.

>No credible technical explanation on how it will meet R1 and therefore condition 8 of the planning permission.

Plus many other technical issues pointed out by local residents in their comments.

Will Calder Valley Skip Hire be providing this Certification, and does CMBC as regulator have anyone qualified to read and understand the required technical build file and the required assessments and actions undertaken in order to certify this Installation is correct, and complies with the Supply of Machinery (safety) Regulations 2008, The Electrical Equipment (Safety) regulations 2016, The EMC Regulations 2016, and the Measuring Instruments Regulations 2016? And will they do this before the certification is accepted?

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Public Services and Communities Councillor Durrans replied to Richard Davis [PDF file 79KB]|

I am aware of the answer Councillor Durrans provided at the last Cabinet meeting on the 13 January 2025 in response to Mr George Pickles question, in relation to the Environmental Permit Application for the CVSH Incinerator, that:

'The capacity of the waste storage is stated as 20 tonnes on the application, and this has been accepted by Calderdale Council. If the storage area cannot hold 20 tonnes, then they will simply not be operating 24 hours a day as there are strict planning conditions on both the operating conditions and times of operation of the SWIP and the adjacent waste transfer station'

Please advise how the Council's Environmental Health Officers, in their determination of the Environmental Permit Application, have satisfied themselves that the storage capacity for RDF within the incinerator building is 20 tonnes providing details of any calculations made?

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Public Services and Communities Councillor Durrans replied to Jeanette Hunton [PDF file 75KB]|

A number of consultation responses submitted under the third consultation, which closed on the 4 November 2024, have been included on the Council's Environmental Permit application consultations and decision website in a manner that they are not legible and are incomplete.

These consultation comments have not been truthfully reproduced as a number of them end mid-sentence, some sections within the documents are missing, some sections have moved above or below where they belong and tables have had their formatting removed so are now unreadable.

Additionally my objection included photographs and screen copies which are omitted.

The residents individually contacted Calderdale Council by email around the 13 and 15 December 2024 asking why this had occurred and for their comments to be re-published in their original format however no replies have been received and their comments have not been re-published.

Can members of the Cabinet please explain why these consultation comments have not been truthfully reproduced, why no responses have been received to emails sent by the individuals and confirm that the consultation comments will be republished after being redacted in the format in which they were submitted as they currently are not a true representation of the submissions.

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

I have raised questions at cabinet about the progress of the Northbridge Leisure centre since January 2024.

Cabinet advised me in June 2024 that a new revised layout, cost plan and income assessment had been completed, tenders were due to be issued in July 2024 and subject to governance approvals, construction was due to commence in early 2025 with a completion date of Summer 2026.

Can cabinet now advise if there are any further hold-ups to this project and when can the people of Halifax reasonably expect to have a fully functioning leisure centre.

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Public Services and Communities Councillor Durrans replied to Councillor Prashad [PDF file 29KB]|

In response to my previous questions to cabinet about the incinerator decision you have said that you were constrained by the government's environmental permitting regime.

However the same regime was in force when the council refused the incinerator at Mearclough for reasons which equally apply at Belmont i.e. NOx levels, nearness to AQMA and conflicts where two regulators manage the same site. In fact there are additional factors which make the Belmont site even less suitable than Mearclough, these being: it is deeper in the valley bottom so prone to inversions, the top of the emission stack is below the nearby road and adjacent houses, it is surrounded by protected woodland, the building housing the incinerator is next to the river Ryburn so at risk of flooding and finally the prevailing wind will blow emissions into the town centre.

The same regulatory regime was also in force when the planning inspector, John Woolcock, refused an EP here last July.

The only difference in this recent application is some additional modelling, which in itself is suspect (as referenced by Bureau Veritas) because of the reliance on weather data from places with a completely different topography to the Ryburn Valley. Also none of the other issues raised by John Woolcock were addressed.

Given all of the above, I cannot see why your officers thought it would be a good idea to approve a permit for an incinerator at this site.

Does the cabinet agree with me that the environmental permit process for this application was flawed, particularly with respect to the health and environment of the population of Sowerby Bridge.

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Public Services and Communities Councillor Durrans replied to Clive Wilkinson [PDF file 31KB]|

'Planning approval no 20/01169/FUL. Repair of existing partially collapsed ordinary watercourse at Calder Valley Skip Hire Belmont Industrial Estate Sowerby Bridge'

This was submitted by Philip Ryley in 2020 was also supported by an approval from the flood risk management section of Highways and Drainage CMBC. The work was required by that department to be completed by 28th October 2022.

The Planning Approval for the work has now expired.

No work has been carried out and the collapse endangers adjoining preserved woodland.and creates flooding on the waste recycling and proposed incinerator site. This flooding flows across the potentially contaminated waste site directly into the Ryburn.

When will the council and its appointed officers, if necessary working with the EA regulators of the permit, address this issue?

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Public Services and Communities Councillor Durrans replied to George Pickles [PDF file 31KB]|

Why did the CMBC officers find so many errors and inaccuracies to be acceptable in the CVSH EP Application (e.g. burn rate, date of machine manufacture, sensitive human receptors map etc.) when the objectors' detailed and technical objections addressing the relevant regulations were dismissed as being merely 'dissatisfaction with the thought of the operation of an incinerator'? As an example please see comments from Rick Davis in his submission (and there are many more with this level of detail)

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Public Services and Communities Councillor Durrans replied to Jill Wilkinson [PDF file 9KB]|

The justification for removing funding for the Primary Schools in the Woodhouse Garden Community and Thornhills Garden Community is completely inadequate. The justification is based on the Children and Young People's Service Directorate of Planning School Places 2023 Report, but this analysis acknowledges that it excludes the anticipated growing demand for School places from the Woodhouse Garden Community and Thornhills Garden Community. These two developments will add nearly 3,000 home and according to the Master Plan, 60-80% of these will be two or three-bedroom properties. Department of Education guidelines state that 1,000 homes typically generate the need for 250 primary and 130 secondary school places. Given the scale of development in Rastrick (1,927 new homes), the projected surplus of 234 places from Children and Young People's Service Directorate of Planning School Places 2023 Report will be eliminated, and an additional 500 primary school places will be required across Rastrick and Brighouse. Furthermore, Government guidance advises that new housing attracts young families which leads to an even greater demand for school places. Therefore, these developments could be fundamentally flawed and would potentially result in an even greater shortfall of school places. I also keep raising the issue of additional school places from new housing developments at the School Admissions Forum as the Chair of this committee. Would Cabinet please explain the rationale surrounding these cancellations and reconsider this inexplicable decision.

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Children and Young Peoples Services Councillor Wilkinson replied to Councillor Blagbrough [PDF file 62KB]|