Council committee and cabinet meetings

The Local Plan does not have a policy on billboards, because the current Cabinet believes that policy can only be used to control advertisements in the interests of public amenity and safety.

However, planning policy can be used to address public health and environmental impacts, according to the updated NPPF.

A 'presumption against' new outdoor advertising can therefore be used to achieve the public health and environmental goals through the Local Plan.

Will the Council consider updating its 2028 Local Plan with a 'No New Billboards' policy? And will they put pressure on WYCA to improve its advertising policies?

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Climate Action and Housing Councillor Patient replied to Hez Hesmondhalgh [PDF file 70KB]|

Local residents are excited to see the new market in Brighouse, but there are significant concerns around the cost. Can you confirm the total spend on the new market and what has been factored in for maintenance to ensure the new facility doesn't fall into disrepair like the last one?

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Resources Councillor Dacre replied to Mark Kimberlin [PDF file 53KB]|

With the proposed saving of between £161,000 to £500,000 from the sale of the Shay Stadium will Council commit to using some of that that money to reinstating full funding for Christmas trees so communities like Hipperholme and Bailiffe Bridge won't have to self-fund?

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Resources Councillor Dacre replied to Tim Holden [PDF file 51KB]|

Regarding the proposed new leisure centre for Halifax, why wasn't the site currently occupied by Halifax Swimming Pool which is owned by the Council unless it has already been sold, been considered for this new facility?

The Leader Councillor Scullion replied to Michael Bradley [PDF file 48KB]|

In the 2024 budget consultation, Question 3.2 offered three options for The Shay -transfer to a club(s), a community-owned company, or open-market disposal- but excluded the option of the Council retaining the stadium. Respondents could only choose 'Support / Do not support', meaning those opposing open-market sale but supporting a community model were still counted as supporting disposal. FOI responses show only four individuals explicitly supported open-market sale, with Cabinet unable to clarify overall support. Does the Council accept that the consultation prevented clear expression, excluded retention, failed the Gunning principles, and will it withdraw its claim of public support?

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Resources Councillor Dacre replied to Gavin Butler [PDF file 191KB]|

At the July Full Council meeting, the Council resolved to launch a local campaign to raise awareness about the risks associated with Buy Now, Pay Later schemes. Could you please let me know when the campaign was launched and which organisations the Council has worked with so far?

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

Many people in Elland and across Calderdale are concerned about the risk of fly tipping due to the cuts imposed on our waste sites. Given this, will there be monitoring of fly tipping statistics and other such instances to ensure there is no increase given the recent partial closures of Household Waste Recycling Centres?

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Public Services and Communities Councillor Durrans replied to James Cook [PDF file 63KB]|

The Council recently approved 38 new homes on Brow Bottom Lane in Mixenden with no plan for infrastructure.

The local primary school is already at capacity and people are concerned that their children may have to go out of area. The lack of investment in school places is an issue if this housing is for people from outside the area moving in. Can you confirm you will do all in your power to pressure the developer and Together Housing to commit to only allowing Mixenden residents to apply for these properties?

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

In Feb 2020 when planning permission was granted for an incinerator at Belmont, Sowerby Bridge, there was also approval of a variation to a previous permission to allow burning on the site. There were 2 important conditions attached to that variation:

To provide a drainage plan and a woodland management plan. Both of these were to be provided to the council before commencement of the incinerator development.

Why, then, in January 2025, did the council give an environmental permit for an incinerator at this site when neither of the above planning conditions had been satisfied after more than 5 years?

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

The council said it will do everything within its power to prevent any potential health and environmental impacts that the proposed incinerator could have on the local community. The flood risk assessment for the incinerator site was incorrect. The Environment Agency flood risk assessment confirms that the surface water flood risk for HX6 3LL is high risk. The existing Drainage Plan shows no reference to the stream running through the site. As the company has applied for a permit to deal with hazardous waste, does the council agree it is time for a new flood risk assessment for the site?

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Public Services and Communities Councillor Durrans replied to David Pugh [PDF file 45KB]|

I note that on 24th July 2024 the Council unanimously resolved to impose any relevant sanctions should the rules stipulated in the Planning Application be breached. The approvals granted in 2006 and 2020 required a 1.75 m high brick wall to be built to separate the waste sorting site from the River Ryburn, the yard to be concreted and drained to a separating tank and the protected woods to be fenced. It is now 2025 and none of the above has been done and landfill waste is stacked on site and in the woods.

When will the relevant sanctions be imposed?

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

In the last two years there have been eight different directors of CVSH, four directors resigning within the last 11 months. One of the two current directors has been in post for four weeks and three days. In the light of this does the council agree that they should, as requested several times, make sure, as a matter of proactive due diligence, that the company are aware of the conditions that they have to fulfill before the first operation of the Incinerator, and has the company applied for a variation of any of the Planning or Environmental Permit conditions?

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

I have concerns about the way in which the outcomes of motions to Council are handled.

At the Council meeting in September 2024, I proposed a motion on infrastructure works that. was agreed unanimously. This motion proposed that the Council would:

'Call on Cabinet to receive, within the next six months, a report detailing the powers currently available to this Council to regulate infrastructure works¿' before moving on to outline what such a report could consider.

However, I believe that no such report has been discussed at a Cabinet meeting.

Would the Leader therefore tell the Council:

Has the report detailed in the resolution of Council been discussed by Cabinet members or at a Cabinet meeting?

If not, why not?

Will she ensure that the report requested by Council is discussed in the near future? and

Does the Council need to establish a more robust system for tracking whether Council decisions are implemented, or reporting back to members why the actions they have agreed cannot be progressed?

Secondly, Council often resolves to write letters to local MPs, government ministers and departmental officials, for example. These letters, and their replies are rarely seen by members other than Cabinet members. Could not a system be established whereby replies to such letters are shared more widely, at least to leaders of the other party groups?

The Leader Councillor Scullion replied to Councillor Bellenger [PDF file 57KB]|

In 2016 CVSH received a £2,500 grant as well as business rate relief from a business recovery scheme for flood damage, yet their subsequent planning application stated the site had never flooded. Did we verify the company's flooding claims when assessing the planning application and the environmental permit appeal, given our stated commitment to minimise environmental impacts?

What internal procedures do we as a Council use to identify and record conflicting evidence during planning and permitting decisions, and how were those procedures applied in this case?

As Ward Councillor, I have time-stamped photographs showing recent flooding at the site; what steps can we now take to manage the flood risk, considering planning permission and the environmental permit have both been granted?

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Public Services and Communities Councillor Durrans replied to Councillor Webster [PDF file 111KB]|

Can this Council please provide the 'additional air quality modelling' and also the 'additional information provided', (as referenced in a response to a constituents question put to Cabinet during the meeting the took place on the 3rd of November), that informed the 2024 decision to grant the Environmental Permit for a SWIP on the Belmont Industrial Estate.

Does this additional information demonstrate that the site will be in compliance with the Industrial Emissions Directive; thus protecting the health of the public and the environment whilst also addressing the concerns raised by inspector John Woolcock's during the 2023 appeal decision.

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Public Services and Communities Councillor Durrans replied to Councillor Ashton [PDF file 165KB]|

The Renters Rights Act Legislation which comes into force in May 2026, states that local Councils will be responsible for overseeing the new rules.

Fines range from £7,000 up to £40,000 and rent repayment orders can be imposed on landlords who break the law, together with much stronger enforcement powers.

What reassurance can this administration give that we will be adequately staffed for this change and that monitoring methods are robust.

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Climate Action and Housing Councillor Patient replied to Councillor Prashad [PDF file 87KB]|

Ahead of the Full Council Meeting scheduled for 26 November the Conservative Group submitted a Motion with five main aims. These were for:

1) The Council to recognise the importance of peatland in Calderdale, whether for carbon capture, biodiversity, water regulation or other concerns;

2) The Council to recognise the destructive potential of wind farm development on peatland, as seen in the bog slides in Derrybrien in 2003 and Shetland in 2024;

3) The Council to acknowledge both residents' concerns about the destruction of natural landscapes in Calderdale and also the growing expert consensus advising against wind farm development on peatland;

4) The Council to oppose future wind farm development on peatland in Calderdale;

5) And for the Leader of the Council to write to the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero to express Calderdale's opposition to wind farm developments on peatland and to call for policy reform to protect these vital ecosystems.

Unfortunately, our Motion was rejected after the deadline on the grounds that it would 'bypass' planning policy and 'predetermine' planning outcomes. Our counter proposal with amended wording and controls for wind farm size, which highlighted that Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs) are signed off by Government Ministers rather than Councils, was also rejected.

However, as Councillors and officers will be aware, a Motion submitted by Cllr M. Hey was discussed in the Full Council Meeting on 24 September. That Motion aimed to 'end the threat of fracking in Calderdale' and to prevent any future fracking in the Borough. That Motion was carried - bringing clear implications for planning outcomes in the future.

We recognise and appreciate that planning applications must go through the appropriate process. However, the Conservative Group questions why Councillors were allowed in September to debate the detrimental impacts of fracking while being denied in November the ability to debate the potentially disastrous results of wind farm development on peatland and the resulting effects on local infrastructure and communities.

The Group is highly concerned that the ongoing application to build the UK's biggest onshore wind farm on Walshaw Moor, part of a Site of Special Scientific Interest, will not face adequate scrutiny and input from our Borough's elected Councillors.

Robbie Moore MP said in the House of Commons earlier this week that green energy projects built on peatland should be able to demonstrate a net benefit to the environment post-construction and we wholeheartedly agree.

The Leader Councillor Scullion replied to Councillor Blagbrough [PDF file 69KB]|

At the cabinet on 3rd of November, in response to a question from Mr C Wilkinson regarding the threat to the health of people in Sowerby Bridge from the proposed waste incinerator, the cabinet replied that:

'Proper consideration was given to the additional air quality modelling ... to ensure the modelling accurately reflected the tree coverage ... to protect the health of the public and the environment.'

However, in the Bureau Veritas Air Quality Assessment Peer Review (Section 3.1.4) conducted in 2024, it is noted that:

'... as part of CERC's testing ... trees were modelled as buildings. It should be acknowledged that it is considered that there are significant limitations with this approach.'

Questions:

1. When did the cabinet realise that trees had been modelled as buildings and why wasn't this included in the response to Mr Wilkinson?

2. What additional assurance did the Cabinet ask to be undertaken when it knew that the modelling was inadequate prior to the permit being granted?

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Public Services and Communities Councillor Durrans replied to Councillor M Hey [PDF file 114KB]|