Council committee and cabinet meetings

I read with interest Mr Pickles question at the last Cabinet '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 offic-ers to ensure that all the conditions will be fully complied with and exactly in accord-ance with the wording shown by the Government Inspector?' and the response 'Once an alleged breach of planning control has been brought to the attention of the Local Planning Authority, there are a number of options available to the Council as to how they may respond to the alleged breach... LPAs are under a duty to act in a manner which is proportionate to the breach having regard to the impact the breach has on the local area and the Local Plan.'

The Cabinet will recall a Motion at 24 July 2024 Council meeting included Resolution 2 This Council resolves to 'Do everything within its power to prevent any potential health and environmental impacts that the proposed incinerator could have on the lo-cal community and residents. Moreover, the Council will impose any relevant sanc-tions on the applicants should the rules stipulated in the environmental permit and Planning application be breached.'

Will the Cabinet confirm it will instruct its Officers to unilaterally and proactively moni-tor and inspect the implementation and operation to comply with the resolution that it will 'impose any relevant sanctions on the applicants should the rules stipulated in the environmental permit and Planning application be breached'

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

Please can you advise how many grant applications Calder Valley Skip Hire have made to Calderdale Council including any applications which have been administered by Calderdale Council and how many were successful.

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Resources Councillor Dacre replied to Jeanette Hunton [PDF file 330KB]|

Regarding Calder Valley Skip Hire Belmont Industrial Estate Rochdale Road Triangle Sowerby Bridge West Yorkshire

Planning Approval 17/00114/VAR Variation of Conditions 5 (to allow 24 hour use with-in the building Monday to Friday inclusive) and 12 (to allow use of heat and energy recovery plant) of Planning Application 04/02712

According to the Development Manager Richard Seaman, the applicant has failed to submit information required to satisfy conditions confirmed by the Government ap-pointed Planning Inspector within the statutory period allowed and hence the approval 17/00114/VAR is now invalid.

The 'Important Notice' issued by CMBC with planning approvals strongly advises:-

'the site owner/operator/developer to ensure all details on the decision notice are complied with. Failure to comply with the approved plans may result in FORMAL AC-TION in the form of a Breach of Condition Notice or Enforcement Notice'

When will CMBC serve a Breach of Condition notice or Enforcement Notice on the owner/operator/developer?

If CMBC does not intend to serve such notices can the Cabinet please explain to the public why they are not taking action on this important matter?

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Public Services and Communities Councillor Durrans replied to George Pickles [PDF file 57KB]|

According to the Council's Capital Programme, £5.4 million has been allocated for a 'General Fleet Upgrade'. Given the significant cost, it is concerning that no public information appears to be available about the nature or scope of these plans. Can the Cabinet clarify what this fleet upgrade entails and provide details on how this expenditure will be funded.

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Resources Councillor Dacre replied to Councillor Blagbrough [PDF file 190KB]|

Please will the Cabinet publish a full public report outlining the planned £2.6 m works to the Halifax Town Hall. I appreciate that Calderdale Councillors were only recently made aware of these plans, but it is important that local residents are fully informed about any significant works to this public building.

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Resources Councillor Dacre replied to Councillor Dickenson [PDF file 55KB]|

As you will know from the petition with over 2400 signatures presented to the last full council, the people of Sowerby Bridge do not want a waste incinerator to operate in their town.

Given the council's refusal, thus far, to rescind the environmental permit (despite huge amounts of evidence from the public), it is now imperative that if this folly is al-lowed to proceed, the council do everything in its power to ensure that the planning conditions stipulated by HM Government's planning inspector Mr Jenkins are imple-mented.

One of these is about the export of electricity to the Grid.

Jenkins said:

'Before the first operation of the SWIP, a scheme for its connection to the National Grid for the export of electricity shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The connection shall be completed in accordance with the approved details before the first operation of the SWIP and shall be maintained as installed. The SWIP shall not be operated in the event that the connection to the Na-tional Grid for the export of electricity is not available for use.'

How will the council ensure that this planning condition is enforced?

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Public Services and Communities Councillor Durrans replied to Clive Wilkinson [PDF file 56KB]|

Whilst inspecting the document 'CALDERDALE COUNCIL'S PETITIONS SCHEME', produced by Democratic Services, I note in Section 12 that there is a reference to 'Use of Resources Scrutiny Panel' whereby a petitioner may believe that the petition has not been dealt with properly. Despite being refused to input a question to Cabinet on the existence or non-existence of this panel, it would appear that a petitioner now does not have a process to challenge the Authority's decision.

It now begs the question:

What document quality control (date produced, review date, authorisation etc.) does the authority have on publications to the citizen as to enable them to exercise their democratic right to correct processes?

The Leader Councillor Scullion replied to Ed Greenwood [PDF file 58KB]|

I did not receive a satisfactory answer to my question concerning the Sowerby Bridge incinerator and the recovery of energy from the drying plant.

To remind you of your planning decision conditions:

'the incinerator can only be operated during the operational hours of the drying plant. The incinerator shall not be operated in the event that the Drying Plant is not available for use'.

To remind you of my question 'If the dryer is not available for use at night how will energy be recovered from 18:00 to 07:00 to meet the R1 status?'

Your answer was: 'CVSH is currently undertaking investigations into the energy re-covery process'

After eight years of deliberation and thousands of pages of documentation and as both planning permission and an Environmental Permit have been granted by the council, I can't understand why you do not have a clear coherent answer about how energy will be recovered at night whilst the incinerator is operational.

If the council has the expertise to grant Planning Permission and an Environmental Permit for the incinerator why can't the officers explain to the public how this fundamental part of the process works?

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Public Services and Communities Councillor Durrans replied to Dave Pugh [PDF file 62KB]|

This is a question to the Leader of the Council about Calderdale's Local Plan 2018-33, the key strategy for the future of the district. Before its adoption in March 2023 the Plan was fiercely contested by environmental & community groups who argued that its proposal to allocate the area of 500+ football pitches of precious Green Belt land [1] to build a total of 15,000 new houses could not be justified on the evidence, seeing that Calderdale's future population had essentially already stopped growing. The Council on the other hand, by means of manipulated modelling, claimed that because it wished to increase the number of local jobs (for some unknown reason) by 10,000 it was therefore necessary to attract 19,000 new people from unknown loca-tions, which therefore would have to be housed.

2 years on, the latest ONS and official statistics indicate that the environmental/community groups have been proved right and that the Council was spectacularly wrong: Calderdale's population in 2032 will be the same as it was in 2018 [2]; employment levels now have fallen, not increased [3]; and the district's actual housing delivery rate remains collapsed way below the Local Plan trajectory [4]. It's now impossible for the council's numbers, which drive so many other aspects of the Plan, to magically bounce back and be achieved by 2033.

The fact that the core strategy for the district's future was based on fantasy numbers - that therefore the Local Plan predicts a next decade for Calderdale that simply will not happen - is a huge failure of the Council, its leadership and officers, and a tragedy for beloved local environments. With the Local Plan coming up for its 5 year review in spring 2028, will the Council agree to start that review process with a consultation in 2026 that acknowledges the real world trends affecting the population, employment, and housing delivery numbers; and also allows community groups the opportunity to critique the underlying modelling approach which generated this extraordinary cock-up for Calderdale and which cannot continue uncorrected?

Anthony Rae

30th July 2025

c.c other party leaders on Calderdale Council

Sources

[1[ 'The Council has identified that 489 hectares would be released from the Green Belt. This includes some 371 hectares of land for housing and employment allocations (including the additional housing allocations).' Inspector's report paragraph 102. 371 hectares is the equivalent of 520 football pitches.

[2[ ONS 2022 based subnational population projections, released on 24 June 2025: www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationprojections/bulletins/subnationaLocal Planopulationprojectionsforengland/2022based and then scroll down to local authority area look-up under sections 3 and 6 . The Calderdale Friends of the Earth evidence to the Local Plan examination in public pointed out that the successive ONS population projections (2008/2010/2012/2014/2016/2018-based) showed a continuous downward trend for Calderdale's forecast population in 2032: from 240,000 to 214,000. The 2020-based projection was not produced. The new 2022-based projection continues the downward trend to just 210,348 in 2032 (preferred 'migration category' scenario). Calderdale's actual population in 2018 was 210,700 Calderdale Local Plan table 2.4 but according to the new ONS projection was just 207,660 in 2022. The new ONS projection has the 2032 Calderdale population from all UK sources reducing by 1,563 in the 10 years 2022-32; when international migration is included there is a very small net increase of 2,688.

[3] www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/articles/employmentunemploymentandrelatedstatisticsforyourarea/2023-10-05 (but published 4th July 2025), then use the local authority look-up for Calderdale sheet 1 column D www.ons.gov.uk/visualisations/labourmarketlocal/E08000033: row 69 Calderdale employment 2018 ' 97,075; Calderdale employment in 2024 - 96,725 (moving averages, rows 69-72 and 89-92).

[4] The number of actual housing completions for the first 7 years of the Plan period (see table below, prepared from council data) been compared to the Local Plan hous-ing requirement policy SD2, as quantified in table 6.2 'housing requirement and sources of supply', and displayed in figure 6.1 'Calderdale housing trajectory 2018-33'. Only 2,734 new dwellings have been achieved compared to required cumulative completions of 3,855. In the remaining 8 years of the Local Plan to 2033, Calderdale would be required to make good a shortfall of 9,673 dwellings - that is, an annual average of 1,209 net additions - of which 8,029 are meant to be newbuild on the Local Plan allocated sites. This would require an increase of 269% in the annual average rate of newbuild completions: from 272 to 1004 per annum.

The Leader Councillor Scullion replied to Anthony Rae [PDF file 147KB]|

I refer to my question of Monday, 17 March 2025 when I asked about the two recommendations made by the Group Place Scrutiny Committee on Thursday 30th of January 2025, and where it was agreed that these two recommendations be sent to Cabinet.

Your reply was:

'Dear Mrs Pugh,

Thank you for your question.

I can confirm that both matters are scheduled for initial discussion at our Leader¿s Briefing sessions in April. They are meetings of the Cabinet and senior officers.

Cabinet will need to be briefed on the issues arising from the proposals and to direct the next stage of the process.'

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

The Leader Councillor Scullion replied to Jane Pugh [PDF file 59KB]|

I note with interest that the Air Quality Annual Status Report 2024 originally published on the Council's website in October 2024 dated September 2024 has recently been replaced with a version dated May 2025.

Please can you advise:

What instigated the need to publish a new version of the Air Quality Annual Status Report 2024?

What changes have been made in the recently published version?

Whether the previously published Air Quality Annual Status Report 2024 dated September 2024 contained inaccurate information?

Please can you also confirm that the data included in the Air Quality Action Plan 2024 fully aligns with the Air Quality Annual Status Report 2024 dated May 2025.

The Leader Councillor Scullion replied to Jill Wilkinson [PDF file 63KB]|