Council committee and cabinet meetings

The renewal of a 3-year Private Hire Driver licence is £259.

The renewal of a 3-year combined licence which allows the holder to drive both a Private Hire and a Hackney Carriage (Taxi) is £359.

Historically our licensing fees were adjusted annually in line with inflation, subject to committee approval. Since 2020 taxi and private hire licensing fees have been frozen due to the impact of the pandemic and the subsequent cost of living crisis on the taxi and private hire sector in Calderdale.

An English test is not required for renewing a licence but proof of English speaking, listening and reading competency is required prior to an application for a new driver licence. An applicant is only required to sit an English Test if they are unable to provide evidence of a Level 1 qualification taught in English. This is equivalent of a GCSE (General Certificate of Secondary Education) at Grades 3-1 (previously grades D-G).

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Public Services and Communities Councillor Durrans replied to Derek O'Hara [PDF file 46KB]|

Could the speed limit be reduced from 30mph to 20mph from the bottom of Bridge Lanes to the junction at Saville road? The current speed limit is posing particular diffi-culties for those with disabilities and is contributing to the already unacceptably high levels of pollution along that stretch of road.

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Regeneration and Transport Councillor Courtney replied to Margot Puddepha [PDF file 11KB]|

Calderdale have agreed an environmental Permit to CVSH. The Government Inspector Jenkins stated that a condition of use would include a requirement to for the Incinerator to operate and achieve a recoverable energy level of R1 and also be connected to the National Power Grid.

Will Calderdale insist that the recovery rate of R1 must be achieved by the incinerator once it becomes operational and that connection to the national grid is necessary requirement.

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

In relation to my question dated 4th August 2025 regarding planning conditions for the Belmont Incinerator, your answer was incorrect in saying condition 8 has been discharged; it has only been partly discharged.

In your answer you said that the local authority does not have to be fully aware as to the future operational state of the facility with regard to its R1 status until a breach of the approved document becomes apparent

In respect of the information submitted to the LPA in relation to condition 8.

The original calculations submitted were for a sample one hour period and this was scaled up to provide a yearly figure which met R1 and this was accepted by planning. The calculations were carried out on an Environment Agency Excel spreadsheet which was modified to suit the application. This modified calculation did not take into account a number of factors impacting the required R1 standard. There are considerable omissions in the calculations provided by CVSH to prove the plant can achieve R1 status and be classed as energy from waste.

It is NOT a one time verification but an ongoing process. This is why the energy from waste calculation needs to be resubmitted.

1. A significant omission in the submitted calculations is the

loss of energy via the flue (approx 37%), directly related to the exit temperature of the flue gas from the heat exchanger. This is NOT in the RPS R1 calculation.

2. The ORC output of electricity is small relative to the waste

energy input. Will the electricity generator (ORC) run by the incinerator produce 200kW of electricity, and if not, then what is the electricity production?

3. This is a quote from the RPS SWIP ENERGY RECOVERY SYSTEM document.

2.3.6 In order to ensure the SWIP is operated to maintain R1 status and in accordance with Condition 6 of the Planning Permission, the plant will only operate when the drying plant is available for use and there is an associated demand for heat. The SWIP will not be operated to produce electricity only.

4. There is no coherent specification for the dryer. The dryer only runs up to 11 hours per day, reducing the average thermal energy counted as ¿useful heat¿ reducing its contribution to the R1 calculation.

5. There are no calculations regarding the heat loss from the 120 m underground duct to the dryer.

6. The temperature of air exiting the heat exchanger, flow rate, temperature of the air entering the dryer and exiting the dryer to show energy use during the day is not reflected in the calculations.

There should be a diagram of flow and temperature gradient throughout the whole system from beginning to the end to support the R1 calculation.

In your answer also on 4th August to Mr Dobson you highlighted that ¿Officers will follow a monitoring and compliance plan which has been developed to ensure that operation of the plant is in accordance with the conditions of the environmental permit, in order to protect the health and the environment¿

Therefore does the cabinet agree that the local authority does have to be fully aware of the details of the plant as it is the regulator of the facility and that the following actions need to urgently take place?

a) Clarify the true burn rate for the incinerator, as figures ranging from 1000kg to 450kg per hour have been suggested in various documents and meetings. This figure will again impact the calculations the original modified spreadsheet was based on 1 ton per hour..

b) Considering the lack of detail in the calculations and the fact that the dryer can only contribute to the energy recovery during the day the R1 calculation needs to be revalidated using the latest Environment Agency proforma for determining energy efficiency using R1 (Version 3.2 August 2022) and be validated by an independent expert.

c) Ensure that all relevant planning conditions are documented and properly discharged and in compliance BEFORE operation of the plant.

Local people need to have confidence in the Local Authority; these actions will demonstrate to the residents that you are proactive and serious about regulating the plant and not just wait until a breach of the approved document becomes apparent.

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

It has been brought to my attention that a guide has been published by SOLACE, CIPFA and LLG, to address roles and key responsibilities of the ¿Golden Triangle¿ of Senior Officers, namely, Head of Paid Service, the Monitoring Officer and the section 151 Officer.

In his comments, the President of SOLACE stated ¿¿..this timely guide is designed for all staff and elected members, to help everyone better understand the requirements of these roles and how together, we can deliver better outcomes for our communities¿

Can the responsible Cabinet member tell me how this publication is to be delivered to all staff and elected members and what quality feedback will be actioned?

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

The Council appears to be transferring The Shay Stadium for only a nominal sum, though the details remain unclear. In doing so, CMBC is handing over a stadium which has just had £800,000 invested in it, with tenants already contributing around £240,000 a year in rent, plus an additional notional value of approximately £170,000 from Council office use.

Can the Cabinet please explain how this represents value for money for Calderdale council tax payers, and what, specifically, the public is getting in return for the disposal of this major community asset?

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Public Services and Communities Councillor Durrans replied to Gavin Butler [PDF file 61KB]|

Why was the Equality Impact Assessment for the disposal of the Shay released to the public in an incomplete form and how does Cabinet justify making such a major decision without publishing a full and transparent assessment?

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Public Services and Communities Councillor Durrans replied to Christopher Wilde [PDF file 10KB]|

Why did the Council take no action to implement the 2019 report recommendation to develop parts of the Shay estate in order to make the

stadium financially self-sufficient?

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

Has a date been set for the demolition of the former Halifax Swimming Pool? It has been boarded up for a long time now and presents an unsightly picture to visitors arriving in Halifax by road.

Does any demolition schedule allow for Hirst's Conservation to make an accurate assessment of the cost of removing the ceramic mural British Pond Life by the foremost ceramic artist of the 20 C, Kenneth Barden, and for this to be considered before it is too late?

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Public Services and Communities Councillor Durrans replied to Councillor Holdsworth [PDF file 10KB]|

Appendix C: Supporting Technical Information / Air Quality Monitoring Data QA/QC, sub-section QA/QC of Diffusion Tube Monitoring of the recently published Calderdale Council¿s 2025 Air Quality Annual Status Report includes the following statement.

¿Before improvements were made in March 2024, it was common for site codes to be incorrectly transcribed by SOCOTEC, resulting in measurements for Site IDs that did not match Calderdale Council¿s master list (for example AQ21 might have been transcribed as A21, or AQS1). This resulted in a process where some measurements had to be assigned to the best estimate of the Site ID. This introduced some additional uncertainty to the 2024 results.¿

I would like to know whether the mis-match of diffusion tube results to site IDs only occurred during 2024 or whether it is likely to have also occurred in previous years meaning there is also potential uncertainty in previously reported results and if so which years?

I would also like to know why the December 2024 diffusion tube result for SB1 (30.1 µg/m3) reported in Table B.1 ¿ NO2 2024 Diffusion Tube Results (µg/m3) was so significantly lower (over 40% lower) than the other months for the same location which were all broadly consistent and averaged 50.8 µg/m3.

I also note that in Table B.1 ¿ NO2 2024 Diffusion Tube Results (µg/m3) SB1 is missing 4 months of data (January to March and June) and SBAQ is missing 6 months of results (July to December). Please can you clarify why?

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Public Services and Communities Councillor Durrans replied to Jeanette Hunton [PDF file 97KB]|

We understand the reasons for the necessary roadworks on salterhebble hill to facilitate the provision of utilities for the new hospital wing.

What we do not understand is why the traffic lights for the left turn into dudwell lane are still operational when this road is closed in both directions.

This is totally unnecesary and causing traffic to build up along stainland road and the a629 bypass causing misery for motorists travelling to halifax.

Can the portfolio holder please investigate whether these lights can be turned off, allowing free flow of traffic into halifax.

It may also be worth checking if there are other roadwork sites in calderdale where there are similar issues.

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Regeneration and Transport Councillor Courtney replied to Councillor Prashad [PDF file 10KB]|

Considering the answers given to Mr Pickles on 30 June 2025 and to me on

4 August 2025 that local planning authorities have a discretion to take enforcement action when they consider it expedient to do so and 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, so the steps taken will depend on the precise circumstances of the case.

If the LPA is not going to enforce the conditions it specified on a planning approval why specify them in the first place?

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Climate Action and Housing Councillor Patient replied to Andrew Dobson [PDF file 10KB]|

The draft open space, sport and recreation SPD introduces a `Stewardship Hub¿ model ¿ in effect a Hidden Housing Levy on new housing developments over a certain size. Similar to the garden suburbs stewardship funding approach, this was never disclosed at the Local Plan Examination, never factored into the Council¿s viability assessments, and is absent from the Community Infrastructure Levy/Section 106 infrastructure proposals.

On what legal and evidential basis is Calderdale now attempting to impose this untested, perpetual financial burden on households through an SPD, and how can the Council justify introducing such a fundamental policy shift outside of public examination and the statutory infrastructure planning process?

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Climate Action and Housing Councillor Patient replied to Jason Carlton [PDF file 94KB]|

Given the serious concerns raised by residents over inadequate consultation, delayed equality impact assessments, inconsistent financial reporting, and lack of transparency surrounding the proposed disposal of The Shay Stadium, will the Cabinet please review this decision and the process to ensure these concerns are addressed.

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Public Services and Communities Councillor Durrans replied to Councillor Blagbrough [PDF file 10KB]|

The Council has just approved planning application 24/00136/FUL for over 400 new homes in Elland, despite an objection from Sport England, which highlighted that the development will generate demand for sporting provision, and this is not adequately addressed within the current planning application.

At the same time, the Council is now bringing forward a new Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) that sets out clear requirements for open space, sport, and recreation provision in new developments. Given all this, why wasn¿t this SDP brought forward earlier to ensure that these provisions are provided for in local plan developments.

Had the SPD been in place prior to the decision, it seems likely the Council could have sought financial contributions to meet Sport England¿s concerns. Now without this, there is a real risk that local infrastructure will fall short of what¿s needed.

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

Why has it been felt necessary to stop Council staff parking in the Mulcture House car park by erecting barriers at a cost of £17,000, and to then decide to sell the Mulcture Hall Road car park, thereby losing an income stream for the Council and potentially displacing staff car parking spaces for a second time?

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Public Services and Communities Councillor Durrans replied to Councillor Bellenger [PDF file 51KB]|

Thank you for the answer given to my question about the elapse of approval 17/00114/VAR

You indicated that no action could be taken prior to the SWIP being operated. Currently there is no approval to burn on site, most of the incinerator is now installed awaits completion.

Have you advised the operator or owner that should it start to operate you would have to serve an enforcement notice?

The site has been extended on the upstream part into the woodland which is protected by Woodland Orders 86/00228/C and 88/00349/C and there is obvious damage to the trees and several are no longer in existence. The planning approval does not allow for the long term deposit of waste material in this protected woodland.

The appeal for a housing development on this site was turned down by a Government Inspector on two grounds ¿ Green Belt and potential risk to the protected trees.

Significant fines can be levied for damaging protected trees.

What enforcement action does the Council now intend to take?

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Climate Action and Housing Councillor Patient replied to George Pickles [PDF file 58KB]|

What were the underlying reasons for Calderdale Council prioritising the disposal of the Shay Stadium over alternative approaches, such as investing in operational improvements, implementing efficiency measures, or exploring a community-led management or ownership model? Were financial, strategic, or political considerations the primary drivers of this decision, and to what extent were the potential benefits of non-disposal options evaluated before concluding that disposal was the preferred course of action?

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Public Services and Communities Councillor Durrans replied to Malcolm Walker [PDF file 14KB]|

The contents list, on page 2 of the Environmental Permit S13/006 issued to Calder Valley Skip Hire on 27.01.25, lists a number of permit conditions from Section 1a to Section 9. Section 9 is listed as Energy Recovery. There is no section 10 listed there. It then lists appendix A and B, Drawings and Explanatory notes.

I found Section 9 was Management, not Energy Recovery which I found under Section 10, which was not listed in the contents. Energy recovery was summed up in just 7 lines of text.

I only mention this as it could be seen to reflect an attitude of disregard by officers and council towards the issue of energy recovery at this site and the implementation of important conditions, including the connection of the dryer.

Officers must be aware that the company, as in a recent meeting with three employees of Calder Valley Skip Hire, including the CEO of the company, local councillors, officers Kate Riley and Stephen Littlejohn, and representatives of both local MP¿s, the new company did not seem to be aware of the planning conditions regarding the first operation of the SWIP and of the planning conditions which must be in place before the first operation of the SWIP?

You may say that this is an area covered by Planning, not the Environmental permit, in which case I refer you to the Inspector Jenkins Appeal Decisions, (appendix B) in the Environmental Permit application documents so I attach the relevant conditions below.

Has Calderdale received a section 73 application to have any of the Jenkins conditions removed?

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

¿ The Shay Stadium is a Council-owned asset. The risk of displacement arises directly from the Council¿s decision on its disposal.

¿ Under Section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972, Public Sector Equality Duty, and the Gunning Principles, the Council must consider the impact of its decisions on existing users.

¿ The Council¿s own Asset Disposal Policy requires assessment of community impact and continued viability of current tenants.

I therefore request this question is accepted and answered at Cabinet, or that you provide a written response confirming:

¿ What assessment has been made of the risk of displacement;

¿ What steps will be taken to mitigate this risk.

If no assessment exists, please confirm this explicitly.

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

Whilst it is neither illegal nor prohibited in the Council¿s Constitution for an Executive Member to sit on the Planning Committee, both the Local Government Association (LGA) and the Planning Advisory Service advise against this practice because it may expose the Council to legal risk, particularly in the form of a Judicial Review, due to the potential for perceived or actual predetermination of planning applications.

As a result, several councils have amended their constitutions to explicitly prohibit Executive Members from serving on Planning Committees, thereby mitigating such risks.

Given this information, will the Council Leader please propose to remove and replace Cllr Dacre at the next Full Council Meeting and ask the Head of Legal and Democratic Services to bring forward a report to Governance and Business outlining a change to the Council¿s Constitution to prohibit Executive Members from sitting on the Planning Committee.

The Leader Councillor Scullion replied to Councillor Issott [PDF file 52KB]|