The battle over plans for a vast new wind farm on Walshaw Moor has intensified.

The developer has released its EIA Scoping Report for Calderdale Energy Park — a scheme of up to 41 turbines, plus battery storage, roads and cabling, spread across 2,352 hectares of moorland designated as SSSI, SAC and SPA.

At the same time, one of the UK’s leading peatland experts, Richard Lindsay of the University of East London, has used our podcast to challenge Calder Valley MP Josh Fenton Glynn to publish the evidence he is said to have seen showing that wind farms can be built on peat without harm.

Campaign group Save and Restore Walshaw Moor reported on their blog that, during a recent meeting, the MP told them he had been shown data proving there would be no effect — but that he could not share that data. Lindsay’s response:

“We should be allowed to see all of these data and the data should be available for scientific scrutiny for scientific review. It’s just environmental data. If the claim is that all these data are commercial and confidence, then that’s a complete nonsense.” - Richard Lindsay

Josh Fenton-Glynn did not respond to Calderdale Inside Out’s request for comment.

Share

Why peat here is not just “soil”

Lindsay describes the vegetation growing on peat bog as a natural flood barrier:

“If you imagine a thick Persian rug placed on a flat table… the water is going to take some time to filter through the rug before it pours off the table. You take that rug away… the water will just shoot straight off the table and down into our valleys.” - Richard Lindsay

Roads cut across that carpet, drying out moss downslope and funnelling water through drains. In his words: “The main infrastructural element… are obviously the roads… because they cut across the entire peatland hydrology.”

Hebden Bridge flood risk

The moor drains directly into the Calder Valley, where the Hebden Bridge Flood Alleviation Scheme (FAS) is already under development. Lindsay says the interaction must be explicitly modelled:

“If I were in charge of any flood relief scheme, I would be very interested in having data to show me exactly what the implications are for my flood relief scheme.” - Richard Lindsay

“Floating” roads and fixed buffers

The scoping report suggests “floating” roads and fixed hydrology buffers of 100–250m. Lindsay is sceptical:

“Floating roads is a misnomer… these roads don’t float. They sink.”

“100 metres is just a figure plucked out of the air… just using one number works everywhere is a nonsense.” - Richard Lindsay

Carbon payback under doubt

Lindsay cites the Aberdeen University carbon-calculator team’s later peer-reviewed conclusion:

“Construction of a wind farm on relatively undisturbed peat produces no net carbon benefit.”

While Walshaw has been degraded by burning, much of it remains active peat, meaning the carbon balance here is still a live question.

The evidence gap

In our interview, Lindsay was blunt:

“I’ve seen everything from utter catastrophe… through to minor impacts and everything in between. I would love to see that evidence [showing no effect].”

Richard Lindsay

Without published monitoring data, he argues, the debate is being conducted in the dark.

The scoping report stresses the national policy need for renewable energy and commits to:

• a full Environmental Impact Assessment and Habitats Regulations Assessment,

• management plans for peat, lighting, traffic, restoration and monitoring,

• and off-site compensation/BNG.

It also notes turbine bases and cables may remain in situ at decommissioning stage

Who is Richard Lindsay?
Richard Lindsay is Head of the Environmental and Conservation Research Group at the University of East London. He has more than 40 years’ experience studying peatlands, has advised governments and conservation bodies on restoration and climate policy, and is recognised internationally as one of the UK’s foremost authorities on peat hydrology, carbon and biodiversity

Coming soon on Calderdale Inside Out

Earlier this year Calderdale Borough Council granted permission for a highly controversial scheme - the Belmont Waste Incinerator in Sowerby Bridge. Have all the right safeguards been put in place to protect the local population?

Subscribe and get our next episode as soon as it lands.

The developers of the proposed Calderdale Energy Park have just released their scoping report — the first official step in the planning process for what could become one of England’s biggest onshore wind farms.

Their chosen site? Walshaw Moor — a protected blanket bog above Hebden Bridge. A place that stores carbon, regulates water flow, and plays a crucial role in protecting the Calder Valley from floods.

In our next episode, we sit down with Richard Lindsay, one of the UK’s leading peatland scientists as he responds to the scoping report’s approach to meeting the challenge of building on peat.

- He warns that infrastructure like roads and turbine foundations are never truly temporary — once you cut into peat, the damage is chronic.

- He explains why hydrological data from Walshaw Moor should be built into the Hebden Bridge Flood Alleviation Scheme — because changing the sponge on the hilltop could change flood risk in the valley.

- And he responds to Calder Valley MP Josh Fenton-Glynn, who recently told campaigners it can be acceptable to build turbines on protected peatland, based on evidence he says he has seen but cannot release.

This is more than a technical planning debate. It’s a clash between political assurances and scientific warnings, with consequences for climate targets, local democracy, and the safety of homes and businesses in the Calder Valley.

Make sure you are subscribed to Calderdale Inside Out to get the full story when it lands.

(photo credit: Folk and Honey)

Hebden Bridge’s Trades Building is a cherished community icon. For decades it’s been home to the much-loved Trades Club, but recently revealed land-registry documents and newly filed party accounts confirm the building is owned by the Labour Party for the benefit of the Calder Valley Constituency Labour Party (CVCLP). It’s also headquarters of CVCLP and served as campaign headquarters for Josh Fenton-Glynn during his 2024 election campaign.

As reported by the BBC in February, for over two decades that ownership, and the rental income it generates never appeared in the local party’s returns to the Electoral Commission. Only this year on 28 March 2025, after informal queries from the regulator, did the CVCLP hurriedly file accounts for 2023 and 2024 admitting the Trades Building in Hebden Bridge is a Labour-owned asset which they now value at £191,157 generating income of £13,445 in 2023, and £14,262 in 2024.

Two months after Labour filed those accounts the Electoral Commission confirmed it had opened a formal investigation into whether the branch breached Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which requires accurate disclosure of assets and income.

That investigation is ongoing.

Public grants unlocked by a phantom Community Interest Company

But Calderdale Inside Out can now reveal more regulatory woe for the Labour Party.

In August 2021 Hebden Royd Town Council’s Community Funding Committee approved a £10,803 grant for an accessibility project in the Labour-owned Trades Building.

The Hebden Royd Town Council funding committee that waved through the £10,803 grant in 2021 included three Labour councillors. Council minutes record no declarations of interest—despite all three councillors voting to fund a building owned by their own political party.

Under the Localism Act 2011, councillors must declare any financial interest in decisions where they—or their party—may benefit. While political affiliation alone does not automatically trigger a statutory declaration, experts say the approval of public funds for a party-owned building would meet the test for a perceived conflict. No declarations were made.

“We risk being crucified in the press”

Town Council Funding Committee minutes from August 2021 state the applicant was “a constituted voluntary community group with aspirations to gain CIC status; interest has been registered with Companies House.”.

That assurance matters because forming a Community Interest Company (CIC) would have created a legally accountable entity with statutory duties to act in the public interest. It would have provided councillors with a clear governance framework for how the grant would be managed, limiting private or political gain. Without a CIC in place, and with no legal separation from the Labour-controlled Building Management Committee, the safeguards councillors may have assumed existed were never actually established.

And when we checked, Companies House confirmed there is no mechanism to simply lodge an interest to create a CIC. The Community Interest Company promised never materialised, and we’ve seen evidence showing the grant cash was paid into the account of the Building Management Committee, a group made up, according to constitution documents seen by Calderdale Inside Out, entirely from members of Calder Valley Constituency Labour Party which manage the Trades Building on behalf of the Labour Party.

Hollow promises of independence

Calderdale Inside Out has also seen an internal email sent by the BMC to the council clerk relating to the grant application in which assurances were given about how an independent organisation had been created and how funds would be ringfenced.

The email promises that a separate organisation called “Trades Community Space” had been formed and the grant monies would be for the benefit of this organisation.
But the email, dated 6 July 2021, also acknowledged that no lease was in place, saying

“In terms of leasing, there currently is not a suitable leasable space for the TCS to occupy. The BMC will enshrine a commitment to offer a lease to the TCS as soon as is practicable.”

The promises continued:

“The BMC is committed to holding in ring-fenced trust any grant funding received on behalf of the TCS,”

But the funds were paid into the account of the Labour-run BMC, and a lease for the refurbished ground floor area was granted to Northern Powerhouse Boxing (a Community Interest Company) in 2024 who have since successfully raised over £300,000 to complete renovations on the Trades Building ground floor and are set to open their doors next month (September 2025).

Misrepresentation in charity bid

In September 2021, Calderdale-based charity the Community Foundation for Calderdale (CFFC) awarded the BMC £4,700 towards an accessibility project in the Trades Building. The bid, published on the charity’s website, stated:

“With the assistance of professional support, we’ve established a CIC, prepared a funding strategy for the wider scheme, and developed a deliverable timed package of work to ensure the project is achievable and viable.”

Yet once again Companies House has no record of any such Community Interest Company. Records seen by Calderdale Inside Out show grant monies were paid into the account of the Building Management Committee, which states its objectives as:

“The Management Committee shall ensure that the Trades Club is used in accordance with the aims and ideals of the Labour and Trades Union movements and to serve the social needs of the people of the area.”

Far from being an independent, community-led initiative, the bid was managed by the same Labour-controlled body that owns the building.

Share

Why this matters

Under charity law, funds must be used exclusively for charitable purposes.
The Charities Act 2011, along with Charity Commission guidance (CC9), prohibits the use of charitable funds to confer more than incidental benefit on a political party. In this case, the public money enhanced a building owned by a political party, and the rent generated from that upgrade now flows into a party-controlled bank account.

Nigel Cliffe, Chair of CFFC said:

“the CFFC’s grant guidelines do not require that applicants be registered as a CIC or such like legal entities, but rather that registration is noted as preferable….

…. We are confident that the process used to assess the grant was thorough, fair, and accurate which has resulted in the successful completion of the access works requested by the Trades Community Space/Buildings Management Committee. No false claims were identified during our due diligence, but we note that the Trades Community Space/Buildings Management Committee had confirmed at the time that they were a CIC which we now understand is not the case…. this will not affect its eligibility to receive the grant as an unincorporated association.”

We contacted The Charity Commission with our findings, and they confirmed to Calderdale Inside Out they had issued CFFC with “regulatory advice and guidance about the rules for charities on political activity and ensuring appropriate due diligence is undertaken when awarding grants.”

The Labour Party and Hebden Royd Town Council have been approached for comment.

Subscribe now

(This article is based on our latest podcast episode)

The Leader of Calderdale Council’s Liberal Democrat group has called on the Deputy Leader of the Council, Cllr Scott Patient, to step down from his post, following revelations about political influence over public consultation and officer communications.

Speaking in an interview for the Calderdale Inside Out podcast, Cllr Paul Bellenger said:

“He’s been hiding things. He’s been silencing officers… I don’t think he’s the right person to be deputy leader or portfolio holder. If I was Scott, I’d be stepping down.”

His comments follow a growing row over the Council’s handling of a proposed parking scheme on Fallingroyd — a stretch of the A646 between Mytholmroyd and Hebden Bridge.

What’s happening at Fallingroyd?

The Council's plan was to remove around 80 free roadside parking spaces and install a segregated cycle lane. A revised version later proposed retaining parking but charging for it.

Local residents, canal boat dwellers, commuters and businesses raised concerns about the impact. One of them, artist and teacher Winston Plowes, said:

“On both sides of the road there's lots of people. They all park on this bend — because it's the nearest free space to where they live. And they've got nowhere else to go.”

No local data, no bus company input

In August 2024 when Councillor Sarah Courtney, Cabinet Member for Transport, asked officers for the evidence justifying the removal of the parking, she was given a 600-word briefing. It referenced:

• Government transport policy (Gear Change, Bus Back Better)

• A 2012 academic study using a driving simulator

• General statements about traffic flow

There was no traffic modelling from Hebden Bridge. No parking data. No records of local congestion.

The document did cite issues with bus delays between Halifax and Todmorden — but First Bus, who operate the route, have confirmed to Calderdale Inside Out:

“We are not aware of a consultation or have reported problems with our services, but would be willing to participate if asked.”

What did residents say?

In a non-statutory consultation held in August 2024, 86 people objected to the plans. Just 8 supported them.

Minutes from a Council officer group (TRO) — the governing body responsible for assessing new traffic proposals — stated in the meeting minutes:

“It was unanimously agreed to defer a decision… subject to further investigations into the issues raised from the consultation.”

But that decision was not communicated publicly, and no update was provided until late Autumn.

The instruction not to reply

In October 2024, Machpelah Neighbourhood Watch contacted the Council again — asking what had happened.

An internal email later released under FOI shows the Council’s Neighbourhood Liaison Officer forwarded the message to a colleague, writing:

“I am continuing to receive letters on this matter, which at present — adhering to Councillor Patient’s instruction — I am generally not responding to at the moment.”

This directive — from a senior councillor to a non-political officer — is now central to the growing political fallout.

Share

Bellenger: “He’s hiding things from the public”

Reacting to the emails, Cllr Paul Bellenger said:

“It’s wrong because at the end of the day… he’s stopping that officer from basically telling the truth…..He’s been silencing officers to prevent them from telling you what is actually happening…”

“If I was Scott, I’d be stepping down — or I’d be asking for him to be stepped down.”

Calderdale Inside Out requested an interview with the political leadership at Calderdale Borough Council (we didn’t receive response to that request), but when asked about why Councillor Patient issued the instruction not to engage with residents Calderdale Council said:

“The instruction was to ensure the appropriate officer responsible for dealing with the matter was involved in any response.”

Where things stand

In February 2025, the Council suggested it would mark out bays on Fallingroyd and introduce parking charges. But no further details have been shared, and no parking strategy has been published.

If you have a story you’d like us to look into then get in touch – email us: calderdaleinsideout@icloud.com.

In this episode of Calderdale Inside Out we talk peat, flooding, and explore an alternative solution for windfarm development.

Walshaw Moor isn’t just any landscape. It’s part sponge, part carbon vault, part natural defence system. And it’s the proposed site of England’s largest onshore wind farm.

“If you destroy that Sphagnum carpet, you are left with bare peat. There’s nothing to stop the water just flowing straight off.”
— Mr Richard Lindsay

Share

In this wide-ranging interview, Mr Lindsay — one of the world’s leading peatland ecologists — lays out the risks of building turbines on deep peat. And it’s not just about the carbon loss (although that’s a big one). It’s about what happens downhill.

From bog slides in Ireland to long-term shrinkage and cracking, he explains why disturbing peat doesn’t just harm the land — it may increase flood risk for communities in the Calder Valley.

Richard Lindsay’s conclusion? This isn't just a bad idea. It’s a long-term gamble.

We also touch on the economics. The bit the wind industry doesn’t always advertise.

Build turbines in windy places.
Plug them into a grid that can’t take the power.
Then get paid to switch them off.

That’s called a constraint payment — and last year, the UK taxpayers spent close to £2 billion making them.

COMING SOON

We step behind the scenes of one of Calderdale’s most controversial parking schemes, and examine a cache of internal emails.

In late 2024, Calderdale Council said it was listening.

A consultation was held. The public responded — overwhelmingly against the proposed removal of parking on a stretch of road just outside Hebden Bridge. Then something strange happened.

The results weren’t shared.
A public meeting cancelled.
And council officers stopped replying to residents.

Internal emails obtained through Freedom of Information reveal:

• A council officer saying she was instructed not to engage with the public

• A councillor describing a public meeting as a “shouting shop”

• An internal document justifying a cycle lane with no local evidence

And yet, the plan rolled on.

This isn’t just a story about parking. It’s a story about how decisions get made — and how consultation can appear to become a performance.

Coming soon: The Fallingroyd Files — where we explore the intersection of local democracy, political influence, and public trust.

We begin with a stretch of road in Hebden Bridge. But the questions raised go much further.

Subscribe now

“We’re building windfarms to stop carbon emissions — by disturbing our best carbon store. It’s Kafkaesque.”
— Dr Richard Lindsay

A Saudi-backed consortium wants to build one of the largest onshore windfarms in England. The proposed site? Walshaw Moor — a vast, windswept peatland above Hebden Bridge.

On paper, it looks like progress. Clean energy. Thousands of homes powered. Carbon saved.

What if disturbing that bog not only destroys a rare habitat, but releases more ancient carbon into the atmosphere than the proposed development will save?

In the next episode of Calderdale Inside Out, I sit down with Dr Richard Lindsay, one of the world’s leading peatland experts, who has spent over four decades advising governments, the UN, and conservation agencies across the world.

His conclusion is blunt: building windfarms on deep peat may be undermining the very climate goals they’re supposed to serve.

Subscribe now

In this conversation, we explore:

• What peat actually is — and why it's “the failed compost heap that saves the planet”

• How roads and drainage destabilise bogs for centuries

• The hidden risk of peat slides — including one in Ireland so big it led to EU court action

• How developers are being paid record amounts when turbines are switched off — even when it’s too windy to run them

• And could building a wind farm on Walshaw moor increase the Calder Valley flood risk

This isn’t just a niche environmental debate. It’s a larger question about how we do climate action — and whether we’re prepared to sacrifice one environmental asset in pursuit of another.

“Once the roads go in, they’re in forever,” Dr Lindsay warns. “You can remove the turbines. You can’t remove the damage.”

Share

HOW TO LISTEN

This exclusive interview will be landing later this week.

The episode will be available only to subscribers of Calderdale Inside Out — and it’s free to subscribe.

If you care about the climate, about the uplands, or about how decisions are being made — this is a conversation worth hearing.

Share

The Electoral Commission has today (28th May 2025) confirmed it is investigating the Calder Valley Constituency Labour Party (CVCLP) for potential breaches of electoral law. The investigation focuses on whether the local party failed to keep proper financial records and whether its treasurer may have committed an offence by failing to submit required accounts on time, and followed an assessment period lasting just over six months.

In a letter seen by Calderdale Inside Out the Commission said:

“Our decision is to commence an investigation into the CVCLP accounting records and compliance with statement of accounts reporting requirements under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA).”

What the Commission Is Investigating

The Commission has identified two specific areas of concern under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA):

1. Section 41(1):
   Whether CVCLP failed to maintain accounting records “sufficient to explain the transactions” of the local party unit.
   ▸ This is classed as a prescribed contravention — a civil matter that can result in fines or formal warnings if proven.

2. Section 47(1)(b):
   Whether the treasurer of the local party “without reasonable excuse” failed to deliver the party’s annual statement of accounts on time.
   ▸ This is a criminal offence under UK electoral law.

What Does Section 47(1)(b) Actually Mean?

Under Section 47(1)(b) PPERA, it is a criminal offence for a party treasurer to fail — without reasonable excuse — to submit the party’s annual statement of accounts to the Electoral Commission by the legal deadline.

This provision applies to national parties and also to accounting units like constituency Labour parties. While most enforcement actions are resolved with civil penalties, serious or repeated failures may be referred for criminal prosecution. The Electoral Commission retains the discretion to escalate where it believes there has been intentional or negligent non-compliance.

Why It Matters

Financial transparency is important, and goes to the heart of public trust in democracy. This investigation into CVCLP raises important questions not just about paperwork, but about accountability, competence, and whether political rules are being applied evenly — regardless of party.

It’s worth stressing: the investigation is ongoing. No finding of wrongdoing has been made.

CVCLP has been approached for comment.

EXCLUSIVE: Calderdale Council has received a formal complaint alleging that the current battery energy storage system (BESS) proposal at Holmfield may be part of a single development that has been split into two planning applications to avoid full scrutiny — a tactic sometimes referred to in planning law as “salami-slicing.”

The complaint, handed by an insider to Calderdale Inside Out, raises concerns that the Calderdale BESS (application 24/01306/FUL) and a parallel application submitted to Bradford Council (24/02801/FUL) represent two halves of a functionally interdependent project, with shared infrastructure, ownership, and phasing.

That claim is now attracting attention — not just from residents, but from legal observers — because if the Council proceeds with approval at planning committee, it could face significant legal risk and financial exposure. And let’s face it, the last thing Calderdale Council needs right now is a massive legal bill.

Here’s the problem

A Shared Project Across Council Boundaries

The Holmfield BESS in Calderdale would install 462 lithium-ion battery containers capable of storing and exporting 500 megawatts of electricity to the National Grid.

However, documents submitted to Bradford Council confirm that the point of grid connection for that side of the project is located within Calderdale. A letter from the developer’s agent, submitted to Bradford in March 2025, explicitly states:

“The proposed BESS will connect into the existing 33kV [line] south of the site… The point of connection will be in Calderdale.”

This suggests that the Bradford batteries depend on the grid infrastructure within Calderdale to function. A legal agreement in Calderdale’s planning file also confirms the route and point of connection into the National Grid.

If both sides of the project are required for either to operate, they may be considered in law as a single interdependent project.

Legal Precedent and Case Law

Calderdale Inside Out has been talking to legal experts and UK precedents are clear: there are established principles around the treatment of linked developments (such at the Holmfield site). In the 2019 case Wingfield v Canterbury City Council, the High Court set out the conditions under which two separate applications must be treated as one “project” for the purposes of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). These include:

• Common ownership or promotion;

• Functional interdependence (i.e., one cannot operate without the other);

• Whether each part has a standalone justification.

More recently, in Ashchurch Rural Parish Council v Tewkesbury Borough Council (2023), the Court of Appeal ruled that a council acted irrationally and unlawfully when it approved a road bridge without considering the full impact of the housing development it was meant to serve. The court found that public benefits were being counted, but associated harms were not — and that the council had failed to assess whether the project required EIA.

In short, the law does not forbid cross-boundary applications — but it does require local authorities to assess them holistically, where there is a clear link.

And in this case there is: common ownership; functional interdependence; and standalone justification is arguable.

What the Calderdale Council Planning Officer’s Report Says

The officer report for application 24/01306/FUL makes no reference to the Bradford application. It states that the grid connection works are not part of the application and will instead be secured under permitted development rights.

It also states that the development can be considered “independently”, and no Grampian condition has been recommended — a mechanism commonly used in planning to prevent development from proceeding until external dependencies are in place.

No Environmental Impact Assessment has been carried out, and no formal cumulative impact assessment appears to have been undertaken to examine how the Calderdale and Bradford proposals might interact.

And that lack of cumulative assessment could create further legal problems for Calderdale, especially if a judge decides such an assessment is justified.

What the Complaint Says

The complaint received by Calderdale Council outlines what it describes as “salami-slicing” — the act of splitting one development into two or more parts to avoid triggering environmental assessment or deeper scrutiny.

It highlights:

• Shared ownership and access routes;

• Coordinated phasing and use of common infrastructure;

• Interdependence in functionality.

The complainant argues that failure to treat the two BESS projects as a single development could lead to a flawed decision and potential legal challenge.

The Cost of Legal Action

If the Council proceeds with approval and is subsequently subject to a judicial review, the potential costs could be significant.

Judicial review is a legal process that examines whether a public body — such as a local council — has acted lawfully. It does not consider the merits of the planning application itself, but whether the decision-making process was flawed.

Possible grounds for challenge based on Calderdale Inside Out’s investigation include:

• Failure to consider a material planning consideration (i.e., the existence of and dependency on the Bradford application);

• Failure to properly screen the development for EIA;

• Failure to assess cumulative environmental impacts.

If a judge agrees, they can quash the planning permission, requiring the council to go back and reconsider the application.

Defending a judicial review could cost the council £30,000 to £100,000 or more, particularly if it is required to cover the claimant’s legal costs.

The Council has discretion in how it makes its planning decisions. But the law requires that discretion to be used rationally, transparently, and with all relevant facts in view.

The presence of a complaint, the evidence from the Bradford application, and established legal precedent all suggest that proceeding in isolation could expose the Council to unnecessary legal and financial risk, potentially amounting to many thousands of pounds.

Whether that risk materialises depends on the outcome of the vote — and whether a future claimant decides to test the process in court. And correspondence supplied by our insider suggests a judicial review is very much on the cards if Calderdale Planning Committee approves the application on May 27^th.

Calderdale Council has been approached for comment.

Coming soon….

The Fallingroyd Files

Another Calderdale Inside Out exclusive: we go behind the scenes of a contentious Calderdale parking plan unveiling the truth behind the consultation.

Subscribe now

Calderdale Council is on the verge of approving a major battery energy storage system (BESS) in Holmfield, Halifax, even as safety experts and residents sound the alarm. Critics fear the council is giving the green light now and only figuring out fire safety later.

Is Calderdale’s Planning Committee set to gamble with public safety?

Find out more from the latest Calderdale Inside Out podcast.

Click here to listen now on Spotify

Coming soon…

The Fallingroyd Files.

Calderdale Inside Out investigates the consultation behind one of Calderdale’s most controversial parking schemes, and unearths a cache of internal emails sent by the council’s senior political leadership.

The catch?
There’s no confirmed fire safety plan.

West Yorkshire Fire Service say the water supply isn’t enough. Experts warn of toxic smoke, firefighting delays, and the risk of approving before it’s safe.

In this episode, we ask:
Why is fire safety being deferred?
What happens when the fire service has no legal right to stop a high-risk development?
And is this really how local planning should work?

With expert insight from fire safety consultant Arnold Tarling.

Subscribe to Calderdale Inside Out for more local stories that deserve scrutiny.

Proposals for making the stretch of road between Fallingroyd and Hebden Bridge safe for cyclists and motorists, by removing all car parking, caused a fair degree of community angst. On the surface councillors claimed they were listening, and the whole scheme (a live issue since 2018) was kicked into the long grass.

But in the background, something else was happening.

A cache of internal Calderdale Borough Council emails obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by Calderdale Uncovered suggest a very different story:

• Was a local consultation (despite overwhelming public opposition) spun 180 degrees?

• Why did the council’s neighbourhood liaison officer note she was not responding to public letters, due to what she described as an “instruction” from a political leader?

• And why a local neighbourhood watch group was left wondering why they never received any replies to their detailed concerns.

This isn’t just a story about a cycle lane or a speed limit. It has become a window into a larger set of questions:

What happens if local consultations are managed more like PR campaigns than democratic conversations?
When councillors start directing what officers can say to the public — who’s really in control?
And if public meetings are cancelled and reframed as drop-ins, is the goal accessibility — or containment?

🎧 Coming Soon a new podcast for Calderdale…

Calderdale Uncovered (S1E1): The Fallingroyd Files

In the first episode of this new podcast, we begin where most people wouldn’t: with parking bays, dropped meetings, and a quiet policy delay — and we ask what those small moves might really reveal about the health of our local democracy.

Is it a scandal? Is it a conspiracy? Is it a disturbing pattern of behaviour?

If you’re interested in power, public trust, and the difference between being heard and being managed — subscribe now to get the first episode as soon as it lands.

📥 Hit subscribe to get it straight to your inbox.