Blow to campaign against contentious Calderdale incinerator as judicial review refused

Malcolm Powell – who had successfully been given permission for a review of a previous permit granted by Calderdale Council to Calder Valley Skip Hire for its Sowerby Bridge site – had sought permission again from the High Court to apply for a review of the latest decision.

But Mr CMG Ockelton, sitting as a judge of the High Court, has refused his leave to apply.

Posting on social media, ward councillor Adam Wilkinson (Lab, Sowerby Bridge) said: “A high court judge has refused permission for a judicial review into the granting of an environmental permit for an incinerator at Calder Valley Skip Hire’s Belmont site.

“The claimant can make a request for reconsideration.

“This is undoubtedly a huge blow to the Sowerby Bridge community following a decade long fight against these plans.

“As ward councillors, we will be meeting with local campaigners to better understand the reasoning behind the decision and discuss next steps.”

The council’s decision was made by officers using delegated powers, while opponents of the incinerator had pressed for it to be made by cabinet councillors.

Applicant Mr Powell sought the permit to be quashed, arguing the council had failed to give “adequate and intelligible” reasons for its decision and failed to reach a conclusion on many of the issues raised.

But Mr Ockelton said: “In my judgement it is wholly unarguable that the defendant’s decision-making process does not meet public law requirements of giving adequate reasons."

Mr Ockelton said the matters underlying the decision “clearly” entitled the defendant – the council – to make the decision it did.

“It undertook the necessary assessments and took into account all the relevant material available, as the decision documents demonstrate,” he said.

“It was for the defendant, not the consultant, to decide what weight to give each element of any competing factors, and whether to grant or refuse the permit.

“Nothing identified by the claimant discloses any reason why the defendant should not have granted the permit.

“In reality, the grounds merely seek to press for consideration points that were made earlier, and evaluated by the officer and the decision-maker, but not considered weighty enough to count against granting the permit.”