Council committee and cabinet meetings

Government Inspector Jenkins imposed detailed conditions for the Planning Appeal Decisions 17/00114/VAR and 17/00113/WAM. Can the Council please confirm that they will instruct their officers to ensure that all the conditions will be fully complied with and exactly in accordance with the wording shown by the Government Inspector?'

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Climate Action and Housing Councillor Patient replied to George Pickles [PDF file 11KB]|

Councils across the country are responding to the negative impact of corporate advertising in public spaces on public health, wellbeing and on the environment.

Calderdale Council does not have a large council-owned advertising estate but private advertising space in Calderdale¿s public space is significant and proliferating.

Once privately-owned advertising spaces are given permission and constructed, Calderdale Council has little control over their content and do not receive income from them. This means that advertisers can show, for example, gambling, alcohol, junk food and fossil fuel advertising, which damage local communities while extracting local wealth for the profit of multinational corporations. Advertising spaces are concentrated in areas with high levels of poverty, exacerbating the problems that these communities face. Electronic billboards also consume vast quantities of electricity, threatening Calderdale¿s energy transition.

In order to stop the proliferation of private ad space, Calderdale Council could introduce a ¿No New Billboards¿ policy in their planning policy framework, such as a `Local Plan¿ or a `Local Development Framework¿. For example, Lambeth Council introduced a policy stating ¿in order to enhance the environment, proposals for the renewal of advertisement consents for existing large panel advertisements will generally be resisted¿

Does Calderdale Council¿s Cabinet have any plans to introduce such a policy? Why or why not?

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Climate Action and Housing Councillor Patient replied to Hez Hesmondhalgh [PDF file 57KB]|

Following on from my question to Cabinet on 9 December 2024 regarding CVSH¿s incinerator, please can you advise:

Whether the Council have received the methodology documentation and if so please advise the date this was received and please can these documents be published.

Whether the Council have received notification of validation testing dates and if so please advise the date this was received and the validation testing dates.

And please can you confirm that the incinerator has not been started up for whatever reason, or if so on what dates.

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Public Services and Communities Councillor Durrans replied to Jeanette Hunton [PDF file 66KB]|

I attended the place scrutiny panel meeting that convened on the 30th of January 2025. From this meeting a recommendation was made to the council pertaining to how permitting decisions are made and asking that the council explore the potential to amend the constitution to redefine the way future determinations of this type are arrived at.

This recommendation was voted through by all members sitting on the Place Scrutiny Panel, regardless of political affiliation, clearly the elected members sitting on the panel felt this was a justifiable request. I appreciate implementing changes to the constitution is a complex process, and would take time.

With this in mind, I still feel an update is overdue. Could I please ask what work has been done since the recommendation was made and when it will take effect?

The Leader Councillor Scullion replied to Clive Wilkinson [PDF file 55KB]|

It is reported that increased parking charges in Calderdale have generated a surplus of £1.05m and this surplus has been used to reduce the Neighbourhoods Service overspend to £3.19m.

Please can the Cabinet provide a detailed explanation of how the surplus income from parking charges was allocated within the Neighbourhoods Budget?

Furthermore, in light of this surplus, will the Cabinet reconsider the additional £700,000 in further planned increases to parking charges which were approved in this year¿s Budget? Parking Charges should not become a cash cow to address this Council¿s overspending.

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Resources Councillor Dacre replied to Councillor Blagbrough [PDF file 80KB]|

The Annual Corporate Performance Report 2024/25 highlights that youth unemployment in Calderdale was at 1,250 (8.7%) in March 2025 and this figure hasn¿t changed since December 2024.

However, the Report doesn¿t acknowledge the increase in youth unemployment of 180 from 1,070 (7.5%) in June 2024. Given this alarming trend, which represents an increase of 16.82%, what specific actions are being taken to address the rising level of youth unemployment in Calderdale?

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Children and Young Peoples Services Councillor Wilkinson replied to Councillor Hunt [PDF file 65KB]|

Now that Brighouse Civic Hall has been sold for £700,000, please can the Cabinet confirm whether the proceeds from this capital sale will be reinvested in capital projects within the Brighouse Ward? For example, will any of the funds be allocated to support the ongoing regeneration in Brighouse?

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Resources Councillor Dacre replied to Councillor Monteith [PDF file 65KB]|

Calderdale Council recently announced that its vehicle fleet has started using Hydrotreated Vegetable Oil (HVO) as a more environmentally friendly alternative to diesel. However, HVO can be more expensive than diesel. Please could the Cabinet confirm whether the Council is incurring higher costs as a result of this switch, and if so, by how much?

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Resources Councillor Dacre replied to Councillor Dickenson [PDF file 11KB]|

The Final Accounts for 2024/25 report a Treasury Management overspend of £666k. Please could the Cabinet further explain how this overspend occurred?

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Resources Councillor Dacre replied to Councillor Issott [PDF file 10KB]|

I was recently contacted by a few residents and discussed with a Governor of local schools on the subject of smartphones used by children up to and including Key Stage 2 (<= age 14 years). The subject raised the point of how `uncontrolled usage¿ allowing social media would affect the formative years of this cohort of children.

it is evidenced that circa 35 schools ( out of 100 state funded) in C.M.B.C. area have signed up parents to the contained pledge. However, the number of parents is, generally, quite poor.

Whilst I believe that C.M.B.C has a Safeguarding policy; can I report back to the residents that the Local Authority has reviewed this issue ,has an active Strategy and Action plan to underpin the Safeguarding policy of our children and that it is `ahead of the curve¿ in implementation, along with third parties (Head Teachers and School Governors) and can the strategy be viewed.

Is the Action plan, if created, have ID entries in the KPI reports?

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Children and Young Peoples Services Councillor Wilkinson replied to Ed Greenwood [PDF file 73KB]|

Question concerning the Environmental Health report 28th November 2024 on the determination of the Incineration plant at the Belmont site in Sowerby Bridge.

The report does not address the ¿Concerns the SWIP will not meet the R1 criteria for energy return¿.

The incinerator has been described as a state of the art green installation which is designed to recover energy.

The R1 Efficiency Index is a formula to calculate the achievement of a certain level of energy regeneration from the process. The incineration MUST be efficient to comply with the R1 standard. The proposed facility must be classified as performing a ¿Recovery of Energy¿ function, and not ¿Disposal¿. The R1 recovery of energy relies on hot air from the incinerator (which burns for 24 hours per day) being connected to a drying machine used to dry waste material. The dryer can only be operated from 7:00 ¿ 18:00 as it is subject to a separate Environmental Permit issued by the Environment Agency, whilst the incinerator is controlled under a permit controlled by the local authority.

The planning permission says that the incinerator can only be operated during the operational hours of the drying plant. ¿The SWIP shall not be operated in the event that the Drying Plant is not available for use¿. The incinerator and the drying plant need to operate together to achieve the recovery of the excess heat generated.

My question is, if the dryer is not available for use at night how will energy be recovered from 18:00 to 07:00?

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Public Services and Communities Councillor Durrans replied to David Pugh [PDF file 58KB]|

My question to Cabinet on Monday April 14th 2025 had regard to the fact that Sowerby Bridge has high levels of respiratory conditions such as Asthma and COPD. I looked at this website recommended in your response: The DEFRA UK AIR website https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/air-pollution/ However, this only gives average readings for counties and some towns, so wasn¿t very helpful for me.

I looked at Calderdale¿s Air Quality Annual Status Report. Of the seven monitors in AQMA No.2 (Sowerby Bridge), two were in exceedance of the annual mean air quality objective in 2023. The highest concentration at a location of relevant exposure was recorded at site SB1 (41.8µg/m3) and concentrations increased at all but one of the diffusion tubes in the AQMA relative to 2022.

Even outside the Sowerby Bridge AQMA, the trends show that the NO2 concentrations were higher at all but one of the diffusion tubes in 2023 than in 2021.

When I looked at the Air Quality Action Plan I found different results for 2023 of the concentrations of NO2 showing that the concentration levels were exceeded and require significant reductions.

Calderdale¿s Let's Clear The Air campaign only focuses on transportation-related emissions, which is only part of the problem in Sowerby Bridge. I am very concerned that emissions from the approved small waste incinerator plant in Belmont would make the air quality in Sowerby Bridge worse, as did Government Inspector Woolcock.

How could the Cabinet support the recommendation to approve the Environmental Permit for an incinerator which would only add to the poor air quality in Sowerby Bridge?

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Public Services and Communities Councillor Durrans replied to Jane Pugh [PDF file 64KB]|