Council committee and cabinet meetings

In the 2024-25 budget consultation, the proposal for The Shay was presented as a 'disposal' to achieve savings by 'transferring a long leasehold interest,' yet one option- 'disposal on the open market'- under council policy normally implies selling the freehold outright.

Could the Cabinet:

Explain why residents were not explicitly informed that a full sale of The Shay was on the table, and why the wording suggested only a lease transfer?

Acknowledge whether using the term 'disposal' without clarifying lease versus sale may have misled residents into unknowingly endorsing a freehold sale?

Clarify why the option to retain The Shay under council control - which featured strongly in written responses - was omitted from the consultation choices?

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Resources Councillor Dacre replied to Gavin Butler [PDF file 61KB]|

In CVSH's application they clearly state that the Incinerator will be fuelled by Refuse Derived Fuel at one tonne per hour with a maximum RDF Calorific Value 10 MJ/kg

The calorific value of Refuse-Derived Fuel (RDF) is typically between 8 and 30 MJ/kg, but can vary significantly based on the specific waste composition, moisture content, and processing method used to create the fuel. Lower-quality RDF with more moisture may have a lower heating value, around 8-15 MJ/kg, while higher-quality, pro-cessed RDF can reach values of 25 MJ/kg. Understanding the specific composition and processing of RDF is crucial for determining its potential as an energy source.

The i8 1000 has a maximum capacity of 600kg of acceptable RDF and the MJ/kg is variable due to the nature of the skip waste being burnt.

My understanding is that the gas exiting from the flu must be maintained at a con-stant temperature of 300 degrees to ensure that dioxins and furans are destroyed before entering the atmosphere. Due to bulk loading of fuel into the Incinerator and the variable nature of the RDF it will have a direct effect on the exit gasses reducing it down to around 200 degrees which is a temperature which will not destroy the dangerous Dioxins and Furans entering the atmosphere and presenting a real risk to the general public to both the employees and general public of Sowerby Bridge.

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Public Services and Communities Councillor Durrans replied to Keith Woodhouse [PDF file 72KB]|

Cabinet's answer to my 1 September question was that an unusually low December 2024 NO2 result and missing July to December 2024 NO2 data were due to issues in the transcribing of site locations. The Air Quality Annual Status Report 2025 states such issues occurred before March 2024 when improvements were made.

Is the Air Quality Annual Status Report 2025 correct or the answer Cabinet gave me?

Cabinet's answer to my unusually low December 2024 NO2 result for SB1 query also included 'monitoring will continue at the site as normal so we can determine if this drop in emissions is a continued trend or an erroneous result'.

Given it is now October 2025 please tell me what the outcome of, as normal, continued monitoring at site SB1 determined. Was the December 2024 low result a continuing drop in emissions trend or an erroneous result?

The Air Quality Annual Status Report refers to 'process where some measurements had to be assigned to the best estimate of the Site ID'. Over what time period was this process in operation?

Cabinet meeting 4 August a question asked what changes had been included in a recently published revised Air Quality Annual Status Report 2024, the question included specific report dates and published dates. Cabinet's answer stated an inaccurate figure had been corrected. This answer was incorrect, having reviewed the two versions of the report there were 72 changes to figures. Why was the Cabinet answer so materially inaccurate?

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

Bearing in mind the decision taken by Cabinet on 17 March this year, could I be informed:

a) If it has been possible to include the restrictive covenant mentioned in the Cabinet resolution in any sale agreement; and

b) Whether any fundraising events linked to, but not necessarily directly involving sporting activities, would be able to take place at the stadium?

Further, will the Cabinet make a pledge to ensure that all caveats are robust enough to secure the longevity and sustainably of the ground's use as a sporting stadium?

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

My attention has been drawn to Calderdale Budget section of Calderdale Dataworks last updated 4 years ago with the last file being year 21/22. It would seem that even the dashboard, supposedly created by OpenInnovations use of the data, is also deficient.

To ask the responsible Cabinet Member to acknowledge the evidence presented above, why it happened, who authorised the deficiency and what action will be taken to reinstate the files in order to align with the Government's Transparency and Democratic Accountability objectives.

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Resources Councillor Dacre replied to Ed Greenwood [PDF file 58KB]|

In the Warley ward we are seeing an increased number of residents concerned about breaches of planning permission that are having a detrimental effect on the quality of life for those in neighbouring properties. Due to lack of resources in Planning Enforcement it can often be weeks or months before an officer is available to even con-sider these complaints during which time building often continues. A lack of planning enforcement also emboldens others and so the problem increases exponentially.

Could the Cabinet member please clarify the staffing position in Planning Enforcement and outline the triage process that Planning Enforcement uses to assess the merits of a complaint, or confirm if they are dealt with 'as and when' they come in? Could the council consider using Temporary Stop Notices more effectively, so allowing time for investigation without further building work exacerbating the problem?

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Climate Action and Housing Councillor Patient replied to Councillor White [PDF file 74KB]|

I understand that the position of Principal Environmental Health Officer has been filled following David Dunbar's departure from the role six months ago.

Can the Cabinet confirm what action has been taken to ensure that the new incumbent to the role is the best person for the role such as when and where the position was advertised with how many applicants applying resulting in how many being interviewed and that the successful applicant held all the relevant professional qualifications required.

The Leader Councillor Scullion replied to Andrew Dobson [PDF file 49KB]|

I welcome the announcement in the amended motion at the recent Full Council Meeting confirming that Calderdale Council has adopted the updated fines under the Anti-social Behaviour Action Plan. Please could you confirm whether any of these new fines have been issued, specifically how many were issued for fly-tipping at the maximum level of £1,000 and for littering at £500, and outline what the Council plans to do with the additional revenue.

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

I am very concerned that the officers, cabinet and council are going to allow the Incinerator to operate without enforcing the three conditions, 6,7&8, which, Inspector Jenkins stipulated, must be in place BEFORE the first operation of the SWIP.

With regard to condition 6, the dryer, Jenkins states that 'approved details of the Drying Plant and the connections to it from the SWIP shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority'. Condition 6 also states that 'The Drying Plant and the connections to it shall be completed in accordance with the approved details before the first operation of the SWIP'. This has not been done.

Can you tell me if you have received approved details and specifications for the proposed drying plant and dryer, other than in the document of 07.04.2021, which contains very little information, and if so, what or where are they, and also, has anyone within CMBC received a section 73 application to request any changes or variations to Inspector Jenkins planning conditions for the Belmont incinerator and if so, what are they?

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

Regarding the granting of an Environmental Permit for an incinerator in Sowerby Bridge.

In June a Claimant applied for a reconsideration of the judicial review application at an oral hearing following the refusal to grant permission on a review of the written application.

The date for the Renewal Hearing has now been set for Thursday 4 December 2025.

The Renewal Hearing allows the Claimant's barrister to present the case for permission to be granted.

The Council, as the Defendant to the Judicial Review, has stated it intends to attend the hearing to make representations opposing the grant of permission. They have instructed a leading barrister (Reuben Taylor KC) to attend on this occasion.

As the Council has no legal obligation to attend the Renewal Hearing, the fact they have chosen to do so demonstrates that despite any statements to the contrary, the Council are not taking a neutral stance in this matter but are once more actively supporting incineration on this site and using public money to do so. This is disappointing when so many in the community are against the proposal.

Could I ask who authorised the instruction of a barrister and why?

And also what is the likely cost going to be to the council tax payers of Calderdale?

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