Council committee and cabinet meetings

In the interests of open government and public consultation are you going to arrange for a public meeting to be held to obtain views on the future ownership and management of the Shay Estate before a decision is made on it? This is in light of Kate Dearden's statement that 'I would expect the process to place fans front and centre, and to consult closely with both sets of supporters to ensure their voices are heard in shaping the future of the Shay

The Public Services & Communities Councillor Durrans replied to Christopher Wilde [PDF file 11KB]|

On behalf of a local community, an application to register a village green was submitted to Calderdale M.B.C. in November 2017, over seven years ago.

The Community requested registration in recognition of Calderdale M.B.C. declared objectives Community Cohesion, Inclusivity and Public Health.

Initially the application was refused in order to allow an appeal to a failed planning application, subject to timescales defined in Schedule 1A of the Commons Act 2006, Section 15(1)(c). The trigger and `termination event¿ so referred passed with no appeal. The application was resubmitted, accepted by the lead Officer of Licensing and Regulatory and by the corporate lead of Planning, Mr Seaman.

All legal obligations were met in respect of over 100 community members in support of registration and zero objections, acknowledged by the allocated Legal and Democratic Services solicitor, Gurpreet Sohanpal .

It should be noted that the Village Green in question is designated in the Local Plan as a Local Green Space, reference LGS30.

Despite the acceptance by the responsible solicitors in Legal and Democratic Services, I am now being asked (to) proving that the land in question has become a village green rests with the Applicant. As you will appreciate this is difficult as the application is for it ¿to be a village green¿.

I have offered to be contacted and/or be available to discuss the blockers being presented by C.M.B.C. To no avail.

On behalf of the children who use the Green for outdoor activities and the elder citizens who use the Green for a rest stop . The Community have provided a seat for such a purpose. May I request that the responsible Cabinet member and the responsible Officers expedite this application to a satisfactory conclusion.

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Resources Councillor Dacre replied to Ed Greenwood [PDF file 97KB]|

I attended the Group Place Scrutiny Committee on Thursday 30th of January 2025 where it was agreed that two recommendations be sent to Cabinet. I have précised these.

The first was to recommend to Council that the constitution be changed so that permitting decisions could be made by Elected Members in meetings open to the public. Also to enable Ward Members to refer permitting decisions to the Licensing and Planning Committees and to include full disclosure of all relevant documentation.

The second recommendation was to recommend to Cabinet that it make representations on behalf of the Council to relevant legislative bodies to ensure a review be undertaken into the applicability of specific environmental regulations that deal with site specific issues of concern.

I would like to ask the Cabinet if these two recommendations have been debated by Cabinet or Council; if so, what was the outcome and if not, when will they be, or have these recommendations been adopted already?

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Climate Action and Housing Councillor Patient replied to Jane Pugh [PDF file 56KB]|

I asked the following question on the 11 March 2024:

¿The Calderdale Climate Action Plan says: ¿We want to spread the message of

building a brighter Zero Carbon Calderdale.¿ How does granting a permit to burn

10,000 tonnes of waste a year near an Air Quality Management Area fit into the

Climate Action Plan?¿

You said you would send me a wider response in writing. I have not had a wider response, is this because there is no mention of incineration in the 76 page Climate Action Plan?

Furthermore is the council supporting or opposing the processing of hazardous waste on the Belmont site in Sowerby Bridge?

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Climate Action and Housing Councillor Patient replied to David Pugh [PDF file 118KB]|

Regarding my last question to cabinet on 10th February 2025, I again didn't receive an adequate or logical answer, at best it could have been deemed to be disingenuous.

I pointed out that in the past the same incinerator had been refused an environmental permit twice for the following reasons:

Impact on the Sowerby Bridge Air Quality Management Area

NOx levels

Conflicts when the site is managed by 2 regulators

Plume dispersal issues due to the proximity of nearby woodland

These reasons continue to apply at the Belmont site and so the decision the officers made to approve an environmental permit here was wrong.

Will cabinet now stop defending the indefensible and rescind the environmental permit?

If not, then would Cllr Durrans be prepared to meet with a small group of local residents and their councillors for them to explain to her why the permit approval was so wrong?

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Public Services and Communities Councillor Durrans replied to Clive Wilkinson [PDF file 59KB]|

The council will be aware that Calder Valley Skip Hire has applied to the Environmental Agency to add Hazardous waste codes 19 10 03* and 19 10 05* to their current waste permit at Belmont which currently only permits non-hazardous waste.

Given that waste code 19 10 03* is small light hazardous particles and the Belmont site is immediately adjacent to the river Ryburn and is prone to flooding and draining into the River Ryburn, at least twice this past winter. And that the sight is surrounded by woodland accessible to the public, where light hazardous particles are likely to be blown about and settle. A public footpath also crosses the middle of the site. Does this comply with current Planning permission for the site? Does Calderdale Council consider it appropriate that hazardous waste is handled on this site and will they be opposing this variation to the Belmont environmental permit?

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Public Services and Communities Councillor Durrans replied to Rick Davies [PDF file 76KB]|

Why is the Gypsies and Travellers, and Travelling Showpeople Development Plan Document limited to sites for the settled community, rather than nomadic gypsies and travellers visiting Calderdale?

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Climate Action and Housing Councillor Patient replied to Aberline McShane [PDF file 56KB]|

This question relates to Item 9 on the Cabinet agenda - Gypsies and Travellers, and Travelling Showpeople Development Plan Document ¿ Preferred Options Paper Consultation

Has the Cabinet fully considered the implications of allocating locations for the gypsy/traveller community sites where the land is in private, rather than public, ownership?

Would it not be easier for this Council and others to address any issues that could possibly arise, issues such as ASB or Environmental, if the sites were in the ownership of this Council or other public body?

If a gypsy/traveller community site is established on private land what, if any, support would be offered by the Council, or others to protect the landowner from the above issues if they were to occur.

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Climate Action and Housing Councillor Patient replied to Councillor Bellenger [PDF file 68KB]|

In part 4 of the Environment Act (1995) as amended in 2021, Calderdale MBC is obligated to regularly review and assess air quality in their areas to fulfil the requirements of Local Air Quality Management.

The last Air Quality Annual Status Report was published in June 2023 and showed figures for two diffusion tubes in West Vale ¿ SR1 and SR2 with bias adjusted figures for Nitrogen Dioxide of 31.8 and 24.8 respectively.

However, the last published Dataworks Diffusion Tube Data dated 2019, shows both SR1, SR2, plus SR3 and SR4.

Can the Portfolio holder please explain why diffusion tubes SR3 and SR4 were not included in the Air Quality Status Report of 2023.

Also is any data being collected currently from diffusion tubes in West Vale and if not, when can it be reasonably expected that CMBC will achieve the stipulations of the Environment Act.

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Public Services and Communities Councillor Durrans replied to Councillor Prashad [PDF file 60KB]|

The Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) for the Elland Railway Station Project was confirmed by the Government on the 18th July 2024, and the West Yorkshire Combined Authority (WYCA) appointed a contractor for the final stage of development work on 9th September 2024. The Cabinet¿s Report confirms the development work is yet to finish but if the Council fails to transfer the land prior to the commencement of the works, this could delay the Project.

Therefore, please advise why the Cabinet is only just approving the process to start the acquisition of the required land, despite receiving confirmation from the Government 8 months ago. Last year, Calderdale Council and WYCA confirmed the Railway Station would be further delayed until late 2026. Please advise if residents in Elland should expect further delays. I would like to remind this Labour Cabinet that this project should have been completed in 2020.

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Regeneration and Transport Councillor Courtney replied to Councillor Hunt [PDF file 75KB]|