Council committee and cabinet meetings

FOI response 53680 confirms that the Council holds no internal legal advice, risk as-sessments, officer briefings, guidance, or analysis demonstrating that the 2024 budg-et consultation on disposal of The Shay complied with the Gunning principles. It also confirms that consultees were not offered the option of retaining the stadium, and that opposition to open-market sale but support for community or club models was rec-orded as support for ¿disposal¿.

On what documented basis did Cabinet conclude that the consultation was genuinely formative, sufficiently informative, and demonstrated public support for disposal, and will it now correct or withdraw any public statements claiming such support if no such evidence exists?

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Public Services and Communities Councillor Durrans replied to Gavin Butler [PDF file 92KB]|

Given your answer was that The issue of transcribing was ongoing during the period you have referred to, this being July 2024 through to December 2024, you have confirmed that the 2025 Air Quality Annual Status Report was incorrect in stating that Before improvements were made in March 2024, it was common for site codes to be incorrectly transcribed and that the response to my FOI EIR request reference EIR 53221 was also incorrect in stating the process of assigning some measurements to the best estimate of the Site IDs stopped in March 2024 and described the improvements made in March 2024 as The data sheets are all now computer generated rather than hand written so there can be no discrepancies of location. Tube numbers now always remain the same for each location rather than changing.

Can you confirm that the statement made in the 2025 Air Quality Annual Status Re-port and the response I received to my FOI EIR were incorrect and whether the 2025 Air Quality Annual Status Report will be corrected?

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Climate Action and Housing Councillor Patient replied to Jeanette Hunton [PDF file 90KB]|

FOI 53680 confirms that the Council holds no equality impact assessment, no risk assessment, and no internal briefing explaining why the option of retaining The Shay was excluded from the 2024 budget consultation, despite retention being the status quo and a materially different option from all three disposal routes presented. It also confirms that no analysis was undertaken to assess how this omission might af-fect consultees¿ ability to express their views.

On what documented reasoning did Cabinet base its decision to exclude re-tention from the consultation, and how did it assure itself that omitting the status quo option did not predetermine or bias the outcome?

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Public Services and Communities Councillor Durrans replied to Richard Walsh [PDF file 94KB]|

FOI 53680 confirms that the Council holds no legal advice, risk assessments, officer briefings, analysis of consultation sufficiency, or records explaining how responses to Item 3.2 were interpreted or presented to Cabinet. It also confirms that consultees were not offered a retention option and that conditional or qualified views were re-duced to a single binary Support / Do not support outcome.

Given this, what assurance was Cabinet provided with at the time of decision-making that the consultation complied with the Gunning principles and accurately reflected public views, and in light of the FOI response, will Cabinet now review whether its de-cision to approve the disposal of The Shay was taken on the basis of incomplete or potentially misleading consultation evidence?

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Public Services and Communities Councillor Durrans replied to Sam Barnes [PDF file 92KB]|

FOI 53680 confirms that the Council holds no records showing how consultation re-sponses on Item 3.2 were analysed, interpreted, or presented to decision makers, and no evidence that Cabinet received disaggregated data distinguishing support for each disposal route. It also confirms that free text comments were summarised with-out any documented codebook or methodology.

Given this absence of analytical records, what evidence did Cabinet rely upon to un-derstand the pattern of public views on each disposal option, and how did it assure itself that the reported consultation findings were accurate, balanced, and not misleading?

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Public Services and Communities Councillor Durrans replied to Malcolm Walker [PDF file 91KB]|

I recently became aware of a 2022 planning application which had conditions attached for the application to start within three years subject to the provision of electric vehicle charging stations.

¿The Assistant Director (Strategic Infrastructure) ¿ Highways was consulted on the application and made the following comments:- ¿There are no highway objections to this application as submitted subject to condition, requiring a revised parking layout to incorporate electric charging points.¿

Attempting to understand what was C.M.B.C. position on the provision of such facilities I discovered in their New.Calderdale.gov.uk website (September 2025) that Our Electric Ve-hicle Policy /Strategy as ¿This will be published here, but we are still working on it.¿.

Given the general take up of EV¿s including C.M.B.C¿s own vehicle estate, does the responsible Cabinet Officer concur with me that this lack of Local Authority direction belies its statements on Climate Change, Netzero, Air Quality and consequent Public Health?

Also, ¿A Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) will be issued to: vehicles not classified as an electric taxi that are parked in taxi only bays. The semantics escapes me here, does this mean that an ICE taxi will be served a PCN if parked in a taxi bay by virtue of it not being electric?

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Climate Action and Housing Councillor Patient replied to Ed Greenwood [PDF file 178KB]|

I would like to thank the Regeneration and Strategy Team for their comprehensive update on the acquisition of land for the Clifton Business Park project and for their comprehensive report for Item 14.

While it is unfortunate that negotiations with landowners were unsuccessful, I recog-nise that it is sometimes necessary for councils to pursue compulsory purchase ac-tion when all other options have been exhausted.

Could I ask:

1) at what point the Council reached the view that the window for negotiation with landowners had closed, leaving a compulsory purchase order as the only remaining option;

2) whether we might expect any additional unplanned costs in the form of solicitors¿ fees given the potential for complications down the line, for example; and finally

3) whether the Council anticipates any risks of delays to delivery at this stage?

I appreciate that some details will not be able to be confirmed until after the CPO is submitted or finalised but thank Members and Officers for their insight on these mat-ters.

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Climate Action and Housing Councillor Patient replied to Councillor Blagbrough [PDF file 89KB]|

I attended the court hearing in December regarding a potential Judicial Review into CMBC's granting of an Environmental Permit for an incinerator in Sowerby Bridge.

The subsequent press release issued by the council confirming that it would quash the permit doesn't seem to accurately reflect the tenor of what happened at the hear-ing.

In the interests of transparency to both councillors and the public will the council ob-tain and publish a full transcript of the court hearing?

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Public Services and Communities Councillor Durrans replied to Clive Wilkinson [PDF file 82KB]|

Is the cabinet aware of the meeting between Kate Ryley and Calder Valley Skip Hire and have they seen the minutes and outcomes of the meeting?

(The meeting being referred to is was on December 16th with Calder Valley Skip Hire at the Belmont site)

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Public Services and Communities Councillor Durrans replied to David Pugh [PDF file 112KB]|

Will cabinet guarantee that they will take any future decision on the Incinerator and not delegate to officers?

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Public Services and Communities Councillor Durrans replied to Jane Pugh [PDF file 81KB]|

Thank you for your answer to my question to Cabinet on 3 November 2025

In general terms, i.e. received from any operator or applicant, within which categories detailed within tables Table 3.1 Types of Planning Applications and Table 3.2 Publicity Arrangements for Planning Applications of the Council¿s adopted Statement of Com-munity Involvement

(SCI) ¿ Part 3 do Section 73 applications belong?

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Climate Action and Housing Councillor Patient replied to Andrew Dobson [PDF file 90KB]|