BACKGROUND

On 5th July 2023 the application by Calder Valley Skip Hire (CVSH) for an Environmental Permit to be granted for a small waste incinerator was rejected on appeal by the Inspector appointed by the Government.

The Inspector concluded “I am unable to find that the necessary measures have been taken to ensure that waste management would be carried out without endangering human health, without harming the environment and, in particular without risk to air, in compliance with Article 13 of the Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC.”

Neither CVSH or Calderdale Council challenged that decision through the legal means available.

On 26 January 2024 CVSH submitted a new application for the same small waste incinerator. On the 28th November 2024 Calderdale Council issued a draft Environmental Permit decision approving the Environmental Permit for the CVSH waste incinerator proposed at the Belmont site at Sowerby Bridge. The Council granted the final permit on the 27 January 2025.

The first environmental permit for this incinerator was quashed through a judicial review action which I brought against the Council in 2021.

CURRENT LEGAL CHALLENGE

I sent the Council (copied to CVSH) a Judicial Review Pre-action Protocol Letter to challenge the grant of the latest environmental permit on 16th January 2025. Richard Harwood OBE, KC, has been instructed to advise on this matter once again. The letter stated that the Council’s decision and the subsequent issue of the permit was unlawful on the following grounds

(i) The Council failed to give adequate and intelligible reasons for its decision

(ii) The Council failed to reach a conclusion on many of the issues raised

The Council was invited to agree: (a) to the quashing of the permit; (b) to pay the Claimant’s costs.

COUNCIL’S RESPONSE

The Council have responded saying that they will not agree to the quashing of the permit. CVSH have not responded.

It is disappointing that the Council has not accepted its failures in its handling of this matter. It appears that, once again, the Council would rather fight against the community than stand with it.

As the Council’s response does nothing to alter the view that there is a strong case for the decision to grant the permit to be quashed, the next step will be to issue a Judicial Review (JR) claim form and supporting documentation seeking permission of the Court to proceed with the claim. If permission is given, then the matter proceeds to a substantive hearing which will incur additional costs.

JUDICIAL REVIEW

Permission will only be given if the Court is satisfied that there is an arguable ground for JR with a realistic prospect of success. Permission will not be given if the Court consider that the outcome for the claimant would not have been substantially different if the conduct complained of had not occurred.

Whilst we are doing as much as we can without incurring costs, we will however not be able to bring the claim or proceed without the continued assistance of Richard Harwood OBE,KC. Richard was involved in the previous Judicial Review which was successful.

COSTS OF JR

The cost of the Pre-Action Letter (£4,800) has been supported by donations from a small group of residents who feel as many do that to grant the permit is the wrong decision. I have paid a further £900 in legal fees for the Council’s response to be reviewed.

In order to pay for the legal work to issue the Judicial Review claim up to the permission stage I am seeking contributions to meet a target of £10k. Going forward if permission is granted the additional costs will be in the region of £30K.

If the claim is unsuccessful, as well as my own costs, then I could be ordered to pay up to £5,000 of the Councils costs. If the claim is successful, the Council could be ordered to pay up to £35,000 of my costs.

HOW YOU CAN HELP

Whilst I strongly believe the decision of the Council should be challenged for the benefit of the community and am happy to undertake the considerable work that is involved in doing so, I would hope that others would want to share the risks of the costs to do so. We know that there are many people who are opposed to the incinerator and who were dismayed by the decision and who want to support the best possible outcome for the future air quality in Sowerby Bridge. We have already shown that by coming together we can spread the load of getting the best possible advice we can and taking the action needed to challenge the Council’s decision.

I will be happy to post copies of receipted fee invoices as the matter progresses. In addition, if there is community funding left over or recovered if I am successful, then as with the last judicial review, I will be looking to spend it in the best way possible with regard to this matter. It is likely that at least in the immediate future, it may need to be recycled for further legal advice or other technical advice in relation to further consideration of the permit application or in the worst case, the operation of the incinerator. If after a time it is clear that it is not needed, I would look to donate it to a local charity.

CONTACT ME

I know some people would prefer alternative ways of making contributions, and you can contact me to discuss this and receive details through this page or: trianglevillage@btinternet.com

UPDATE

Whilst the initial £10k target was reached to issue the claim through this page and direct contributions. If permission is granted by the Court to proceed, and the Council do not concede and the matter has to go to a substantive hearing, then further funds will be needed. I am leaving this page open for now and will update the target again if needed.

Look for campaign updates on FaceBook:

“SAY NO TO WASTE INCINERATION IN RYBURN VALLEY”