Council committee and cabinet meetings

Do Cabinet and Council Officers understand the Gunning Principles and do they believe they were correctly applied to the 2024 budget consultation, and specifically Public Services item 3.2?

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Resources Councillor Dacre replied to Gavin Butler [PDF file 8KB]|

Kirklees Council has recently granted Huddersfield Town AFC a 300-year leasehold of the Accu Stadium, allowing the club to assume full operational control while the Coun-cil retains the freehold.

By contrast, Calderdale Council is going ahead with disposing of The Shay Stadium for a nominal value.

Given that the Huddersfield model achieves financial sustainability, investment poten-tial, and continued public ownership, why has Calderdale Council not considered a similar long-term leasehold approach, ensuring long-term security of the stadium ra-ther than an obscure future?

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Resources Councillor Dacre replied to Sam Barnes [PDF file 54KB]|

Concerning the SWIP proposed at Belmont Sowerby Bridge, if the operator submits application (s) to seek to modify permissions granted by the Inspector's decision of the 4th February 2020 references APP/A4710/W/18/3205776 and APP/A4710/W/18/3205783 whether by new application (s) or by Section 73 applica-tion (s) can the Cabinet confirm whether the application (s) will be open to consulta-tion with the local community and in so doing inform all who will be affected by, likely to be affected by, or with an interest in these applications.

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Public Services and Communities Councillor Durrans replied to Andrew Dobson [PDF file 55KB]|

Of those who supported Public Services item 3.2 in the 2024 budget, can you please confirm how many explicitly supported selling the Shay on the open market?

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Public Services and Communities Councillor Durrans replied to Christopher Wilde [PDF file 83KB]|

On the 10/09/25 The Halifax Courier reported that Calderdale Council issued a public statement that attaching flags to lampposts on highway structures is not permitted.

Under section 178 of the Highways Act 1980 such actions are illegal, see also statuto-ry offence of the Highways Act section 132.

My question to the cabinet is why is the Council allowing a significant, regular wide spread and growing number of flags to remain on council property when this is both against Council Policy and illegal?

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Regeneration and Transport Councillor Courtney replied to Paul Hanson [PDF file 22KB]|

The consultation on Item 3.2 (Disposal of the Shay Stadium) presented multiple dis-tinct disposal routes yet only allowed a single 'Support / Do not support' response.

Can the relevant Cabinet Member explain the methodology by which the Council en-sured that the results accurately reflect public support or opposition to each of the three listed disposal options, and specifically how conditional support or opposition was captured?

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

Separate to any land covenant, will the Cabinet confirm what legally binding agree-ments or contractual safeguards will be included in the transfer of The Shay Stadium to Ken Davy to ensure he delivers all promised investments and developments?

If he fails to meet these commitments, what specific enforcement mechanisms will the Council have to hold him accountable?

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Public Services and Communities Councillor Durrans replied to Richard Walsh [PDF file 11KB]|

Thank you for your apology at the Cabinet meeting on Monday 6 October, however, again unfortunately, the response to my 6 October Cabinet question did not answer the question asked. The response seemed to be answering a different question.

My question clearly asked about an unusually low NO2 result for SB1 in December 2024 and missing NO2 results for SBAQ July to December 2024.

Cabinet¿s response referred to:

¿January to March 2024¿ My question did NOT ask about January to March.

and

¿The low result reported in December 2024 is based on data from 2023.¿

My question asked about the low December 2024 NO2 result for SB1 NOT results reported in December 2024 which were gathered in 2023.

and

¿The results from the diffusion tubes are measured over an annual basis so no further results are currently available.¿ It is worrying that the Council believes diffusion tube results are only available annually, a diffusion tube should only be deployed for one month as per DEFRA guidelines.

Published NO2 results for SB1 include: September 2024 52.9, October 2024

52.5 and November 2024 51.9 and NO2 results for SB1 obtained via FOI

include: January 2025 61.4, February 2025 53.3 and March 2025 48.6.

These strongly suggest that the SB1 December 2024 result of 30.1umg was an anomaly.

In light of this will the Council remove the erroneous SB1 December 2024 figure from the 2025 Air Quality Annual Status Report it has published and also correct the 2024 Annual Mean NO2 result accordingly?

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Public Services and Communities Councillor Durrans replied to Jeanette Hunton [PDF file 218KB]|

As per the Local Government Transparency Code 2015 where Councils must publish payments to suppliers, generally those over £500, and details of spending on pro-curement cards, please can the Cabinet advise why the payments to suppliers page on the Council website has been under review for two weeks and when will the infor-mation be available?

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Resources Councillor Dacre replied to Gordon Thorpe [PDF file 9KB]|

The Government Planning Inspector and the Council agreed that the planning ap-plication for the Incinerator (17/00113/WAM) could go ahead subject to approval of the planning application 17/00114/VAR which made relevant adjustments the earlier 2004 approval for the use of the site, which included, amongst other matters, the re-moval of the ban on burning on site.

The two approvals WAM and VAR are thus linked.

It is the stated advice of officers in the Planning Department that the precommence-ment conditions of the approval 17/00114/VAR have not been discharged and the permission has expired.

It has been explained by officers that enforcement action cannot take place until a breach actually takes place on site, such as the commencement of the process of ac-tual incineration, and that any threat of enforcement action could be challenged legally by the operator.

The company appears to be currently investing in the site and may be unaware of the need to restore the validity of Planning Approval 17/00114/VAR. Such an application could take several months to process and could possibly even be refused.

Would it not be prudent and responsible for Council officers or councillors to enter into discussions with the company and explain the situation to them and to the public?

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

In appendix 3 of Inspector Jenkins¿ schedule of conditions, 6), he states that ¿The SWIP shall not be operated in the event that the Drying Plant is not available for use.¿ he also states, 13) (a) ¿ no ¿ operation of the drying plant¿ shall be carried out on the site¿ except between¿ 07.00 hrs and 18.00 hrs¿¿

The RPS approved document Planning Condition 8 states ¿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¿, and this is reiterated in the application for the EP, from RPS, under 1.5.2.

Does this mean that the dryer would operate for 24 hours a day or does the incinera-tor shut down for 13 hours each day?

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

My question is regarding the claim that the Belmont Incinerator will achieve R1 recov-ery status under Condition 8 of the planning consent.

CVSH presents a spreadsheet calculation to prove R1.The data submitted is based on unrealistic assumptions such as, availability of the dryer, incorrect amount of RDF and heat loss through 120m duct.

Planning has said: ¿we have to go with it until it either gets superseded or the annual review shows that R1 has not been achieved¿

It is clear that the calculations submitted do not take into account real world data.

I therefore request that the authority as regulator independently verifies the R1 data and that Condition 8 is complied with and demonstrated by calculation to ensure compliance with the Directive before the incinerator is operational.

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Public Services and Communities Councillor Durrans replied to David Pugh [PDF file 53KB]|

As you know, the people of Sowerby Bridge are very concerned about the possible adverse health effects of the proposed waste incinerator at Calder Valley Skip Hire.

In an answer to a question from Cllr M Hey at full council in February 2025, Cllr Dur-rans reported that she could provide assurance that the permitting decision did con-sider the health of the local population.

There seems to be very little evidence that the health of the local population has been given detailed consideration in the latest permit decision.

The evidence produced by Cllr Durrans seems to be the reliance upon a report from Public Health England from September 2020 (which referred to municipal waste in-cinerators rather than this type of incinerator)

However, in 2023, a government planning inspectors conclusion 46. stated ¿ I have taken into account all other matters raised in the evidence but have found nothing to outweigh the main considerations that lead to my conclusions. I am unable to find that granting an environmental permit for the SWIP would not have an unacceptable ad-verse effect on human health and the environment.¿

What actions were taken by the council after the 2023 refusal to ensure that the health of the population of Sowerby Bridge would not be adversely affected by the in-cinerator when it approved the latest Environmental Permit for this site. Could I also please see the documentary evidence that shows how the impact on human health has been thoroughly considered.

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Public Services and Communities Councillor Durrans replied to Clive Wilkinson [PDF file 55KB]|