Agenda, decisions and minutes

To receive any announcements from the Mayor and Chief Executive.

The Mayor advised that the signatories to the Motions as set out at Agenda Items 14, 15, 16, 17, 22, 23, 24 and 25 had given notice to withdraw the Motions from the order of business in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 14(8).

Group Business Managers to submit any apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received on behalf of Councillors Ahmed, Bamford, Brook, Dad, Daji, Holmes, Lee-Richards, McCarthy, McGrath, H McKerchar, K Pinnock, A Robinson and Simpson.

To approve the Minutes of the Meeting of the Council Meeting held on 12 November 2025.

RESOLVED – That the Minutes of the Meeting held on 12 November 2025 be approved as a correct record.

RESOLVED – That the Minutes of the Meeting held on 12 November 2025 be approved as a correct record.

.

Members will be asked to advise if there are any items on the Agenda in which they have a disclosable pecuniary interest, or any other interests, which may prevent them from participating in the discussion or vote on any of the items.

No interests were declared.

To receive any Petitions from Members of the Council in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 9.

No petitions were received.

Council will receive any petitions and/or deputations from members of the public. A deputation is where up to five people can attend the meeting and make a presentation on some particular issue of concern. A member of the public can also submit a petition at the meeting relating to a matter on which the body has powers and responsibilities.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 10, Members of the Public must submit a deputation in writing, at least three clear working days in advance of the meeting and shall subsequently be notified if the deputation shall be heard. A maximum of four deputations shall be heard at any one meeting.

No deputations or petitions were received.       

To receive any public questions.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11, the period for the asking and answering of public questions shall not exceed 15 minutes.

Any questions must be submitted in writing at least three clear working days in advance of the meeting.

Council received the following written questions in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11;

Question from Tracy Weaver

“Are risk assessments submitted by developers independently verified by the council or an external body, or is the council’s role to accept the consultant’s conclusions at face value?”

A response was provided by the Cabinet Member for Finance and Regeneration (Councillor Turner).

Question from Tracy Weaver

“Can the Council list the non-delegable duties of the Environmental Health Department regarding brownfield sites and protection of existing residents?”

A response was provided by the Cabinet Member for Communities and Environment (Councillor A U Pinnock).

Question from Sharon Taylor

“Does the Council operate any form of approved, preferred, or recommended environmental consultant list for contaminated land assessments, or provide informal signposting to consultants familiar with Kirklees requirements?”

A response was provided by the Cabinet Member for Communities and Environment (Councillor A U Pinnock).

Question from Sharon Taylor

“Has the Council ever rejected a contamination report for failing to assess existing residential receptors?”

A response was provided by the Cabinet Member for Communities and Environment (Councillor A U Pinnock).

Question from Owyn Ibberson

“What measures are in place to guarantee that residents receive clear, transparent explanations of how their environmental or construction-related concerns have been assessed, including what evidence was reviewed and how conclusions were reached?”

A response was provided by the Cabinet Member for Communities and Environment (Councillor A U Pinnock).

Question from Owyn Ibberson

“After having asked a supplementary question in the council, what is the expected timeframe of a written follow-up response, or the fowarding of additional information, if an answer is not given in the council chamber?”

A response was provided by the Leader of the Council (Councillor Pattison).

To receive the Minutes of the Meeting of West Yorkshire Combined Authority held on 16 October 2025.

The Minutes of the Meeting of West Yorkshire Combined Authority held on 16 October 2025 were received and noted.

Comments and questions arising from the Minutes were responded to by the Leader of the Council.

To receive written questions to the Leader, Cabinet Members, Chairs of Committees and Nominated Spokespersons in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 12.

One supplementary oral question will be permitted.

Council received the following written questions in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 12;

Questionfrom Councillor Safdar

“During recent community cleanups a number of volunteers, including Cllr Vickers and I, have noticed quite a few nitrous oxide canisters dumped in residential areas. Many across our town are also concerned about an increasingly high number of road traffic accidents and antisocial behaviour linked to such drug abuse. According to the National Poisons Information Service (NPIS), enquiries about recreational nitrous oxide misuse grew by 144% in 2022–23, with most users being very young (average age ~ 21.8 years) with figures rising ever since. 

We are aware that West Yorkshire Police and local health partners have started to address the rising misuse of nitrous oxide canisters across our communities, particularly the increasing concerns about drivers using nitrous oxide while behind the wheel. What additional enforcement, public-health education, and prevention measures are being considered to protect residents in affected neighbourhoods, reduce antisocial behaviour linked to canister littering, and ensure that West Yorkshire’s roads remain safe for all?”

A response was provided by the Cabinet Member for Communities and Environment (Councillor A U Pinnock).

Questionfrom Councillor J D Lawson

“In April 2025 I was approached by a CIC who wanted to set up a Community Hub on the Walpole Estate and were looking at the possibility of using the now closed former Family Centre as a base. The CIC came with funding and saw, like myself, the need for activities for young people and eventually other community based activity run out of the former Family Centre. Ideas that are achievable and could rebuild a sense of community on Walpole.Walpole at present has nothing bar a corner shop and an infrequent bus service leading to residents feeling it has been neglected and forgotten about by Kirklees.

After contact with a number of different service directors and officers over many months Cllr Alex Vickers, the CIC lead and myself finally got to see inside the building to see if it would be suitable for use in August. After this visit we were informed that discussions were taking place about the long term future of the Centre.

Could the Cabinet Member please update me on the further discussions taking place and outcomes?”

A response was provided by the Cabinet Member for Housing and Transport (Councillor Crook).

Questionfrom Councillor Taylor

“Recently, the Department for Education announced their new initiative: Go All In, featuring 2026 as the national year of reading and restoring reading for pleasure across the nation.

I’ve been asked by the Student Head Librarian at one of the schools in my ward, what the Council are doing in 2026 for the Year of Reading, but also what else the Council thinks school libraries should be doing for the Year of Reading to increase reading for pleasure?”

A response was provided bythe Cabinet Member for Education (Councillor Rylah).

Questionfrom Councillor Taylor

“There are examples of submitted planning applications where third parties such  ...  view the full minutes text for item 114.

To receive the Minutes of (i) Cabinet held on 21 October 2025 and (ii) Cabinet Committee – Local Issues held on 10 September 2025.

Council received the Minutes of (i) Cabinet held on 21 October 2025 and (ii) Cabinet Committee – Local Issues held on 10 September 2025.

(i)             To receive portfolio updates from (i) the Cabinet Member for Finance and Regeneration (Councillor Turner) (ii) the Cabinet Member for Communities and Environment (Councillor A U Pinnock) and (iii) the Cabinet Member for Highways and Waste (Councillor Hawkins).

(ii)            To receive oral questions/comments to Cabinet Members on their Portfolios and relevant Cabinet Minutes;

-       The Leader of the Council (Councillor Pattison)

-       The Deputy Leader of the Council / Housing and Transport (Councillor Crook)

-       Adult Social Care and Corporate (Councillor Dad)

-       Children’s Services (Councillor Kendrick)

-       Communities and Environment (Councillor A U Pinnock)

-       Education (Councillor Rylah)

-       Finance and Regeneration (Councillor Turner)

-       Highways and Waste (Councillor Hawkins)

-       Public Health (Councillor Addy)

(It was proposed by Councillor Hall and seconded by Councillor Marchington that the time allocations as set out in Council Procedure Rule 13(2)(ii) not be applied, and that each portfolio update be restricted to a maximum of five minutes to enable more time to be allocated to questions to portfolio holders. The proposal, upon being put to the vote was carried).

Council received a portfolio updates from the Cabinet Members for (i) Finance and Regeneration (Councillor Turner) (ii) Communities and Environment (Councillor A U Pinnock) and (ii) Highways and Waste (Councillor Hawkins) prior to oral questions to the Leader and Cabinet Members in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 13.

(i)    Corporate Governance and Audit Committee

(ii)   District Wide Planning Committee

(iii)  Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee

(iv)  Personnel Committee

(v)  Strategic Planning Committee

Council received the Minutes of (i) Corporate Governance and Audit Committee held on 26 September 2025 (ii) District Wide Planning Committee held on 4 September and 9 October 2025 (iii) Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee held on 25 July and 12 September 2025 (iii) Personnel Committee held on 22 July 2025 and (iv) Strategic Planning Committee held on 31 July 2025.

-       Appeals Panel (Councillor Longstaff)

-       Corporate Governance and Audit Committee (Councillor Taylor)

-       District Wide Planning Committee (Councillor Ullah)

-       Health and Wellbeing Board (Councillor Addy)

-       Licensing and Safety Committee - including Licensing and Regulatory Panel (Councillor Firth)

-       Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee (Councillor Burke)

-       Personnel Committee (Councillor Pattison)

-       Scrutiny Panel – Children’s (Councillor Ali)

-       Scrutiny Panel – Environment and Climate Change (Councillor Cooper)

-       Scrutiny Panel – Growth and Regeneration (Councillor Amin)

-       Scrutiny Panel – Health and Adult Social Care (Councillor J D Lawson)

-       Standards Committee (Councillor Armer)

-       Strategic Planning Committee (Councillor Homewood)

-       Kirklees Active Leisure (Councillor Sokhal)

-       One Adoption Joint Committee (Councillor Sewell)

-       West Yorkshire Combined Authority (Councillor Pattison)

-       West Yorkshire Combined Authority Transport Committee (Councillor McLoughlin)

-       West Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Authority (Councillor O’Donovan)

-       West Yorkshire Joint Services Committee (Councillor Munir Ahmed)

-       West Yorkshire Police and Crime Panel (Councillor Lowe)

Council received oral questions in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 13(4).

To consider the following Motion in the names of Councillors Scott, H Zaman, Masood Ahmed, Hussain, Moore, A Zaman, Anwar, Darwan and Daji;

“This Council notes:

1)    That the Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee considered updates to the Council’s Procurement Strategy, including elements relating to ethical procurement, on 14 November 2025 (Agenda Item 9), and that these proposals are now scheduled for consideration by Cabinet in December 2025.

2)    That the UK Government and the United Nations have both recognised that human rights due diligence is a core component of responsible business conduct and public sector accountability.

3)    That the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) and the UN Principles for Responsible Investment (UN PRI) provide internationally recognised frameworks for governments for ethical sourcing, investment, and supply-chain due diligence.

4)    That Section 26 and 27 of the Procurement Act 2023 sets out discretionary exclusion grounds.

5)    That several UK local authorities, including Oxford City Council, North Somerset Council and others have strengthened their  investment frameworks to ensure that public funds are not used to support companies implicated in serious human rights violations or breaches of international law.

This Council believes:

1)    That Kirklees Council has a responsibility to ensure that all procurement, commissioning, and investment decisions reflect its stated values on equality, justice and human rights.

2)    That taxpayers’ money must not support organisations or companies that are complicit in, or benefit from, breaches of international humanitarian law or international human rights standards, including (but not limited to) violations occurring in occupied territories, apartheid systems, forced labour contexts, or other internationally recognised abuses.

3)    3. That ethical procurement and ethical investment are not only moral imperatives but also form part of robust risk management, reducing exposure to reputational harm, financial instability, and supply-chain vulnerabilities.

4)    That while Scrutiny has reviewed proposals related to ethical procurement, these do not yet fully align with (i) the UNGPs (ii) the UN PRI (iii) the requirements of the Procurement Act 2023 (iv) modern social value standards (v) net-zero and environmental duties or (vi) contemporary expectations around transparency, due diligence, and supply-chain accountability.

This Council therefore resolves to:

a.    Request that Cabinet review and strengthen the Council’s Investment and Procurement Strategies so that they (i) remain fully compliant with the Procurement Act 2023, including the statutory objectives on integrity, transparency, maximising public benefit, and removing barriers for SMEs and VCSEs and (ii) integrate modern requirements on social value, net-zero commitments, climate impact, and supply-chain transparency.

b.    Request that Cabinet bring forward a fully updated and comprehensive Ethical Procurement and Investment Policy for adoption, to include clear governance arrangements for (i) implementation (ii) monitoring (iii) reporting (iv) supplier conduct checks (v) ethical investment screening and (vi) risk management and escalation processes.

c.     Mandate that all Council contracts, commissioned services and financial investments be reviewed against the updated Ethical Procurement and Investment Policy, with a full progress report brought to Cabinet within six months of its adoption.

d.    Reaffirm this Council’s commitment to transparency,  ...  view the full agenda text for item 119.

Item withdrawn.

To consider the following Motion in the names of Councillors Scott, Anwar, H Zaman, Masood Ahmed, A Zaman, Darwan and Daji;

“Council notes that:

1.    Fireworks are an important part of many celebrations and can be enjoyed safely when used responsibly.

2.    However, councillors across Kirklees continue to receive reports of fireworks being used irresponsibly — late at night, in residential streets, and outside recognised celebration periods — causing significant distress to residents, pets, wildlife and people with sensory or health conditions.

3.    The sale and use of fireworks for private use remains permitted nationally, though many safety and animal-welfare organisations, including the RSPCA, RoSPA and the National Fire Chiefs Council, have called for tighter controls.

4.    Kirklees Council already has Public Space Protection Orders (PSPOs) in place to restrict fireworks in certain public areas, but local powers over retail sales are limited without national legislation.

Council therefore believes that:

1.    Fireworks should primarily be used at organised, licensed public displays and community events.

2.    Restricting general retail sales for private use would help reduce nuisance, distress and risk, while allowing communities to continue celebrating safely.

3.    Stronger local enforcement, clearer public information and national legislative reform are all necessary to improve public safety and wellbeing.

Council resolves to:

1.    Write to the Secretary of State for Business and Trade and the Secretary of State for the Home Department to request consideration of tighter national controls limiting the retail sale of fireworks to licensed organisers of approved public events.

2.    Ask the Cabinet Member for Communities and Safety to review local licensing and trading-standards arrangements to ensure all available powers are being used to regulate sales and prevent nuisance.

3.    Work with West Yorkshire Police, West Yorkshire Fire & Rescue Service, and local animal-welfare organisations to promote a public awareness campaign each autumn on the safe and considerate use of fireworks.

4.    Encourage town and parish councils and community groups to host and promote organised displays as safer, inclusive alternatives to private use.

5.    Request that the relevant Scrutiny Panel consider the inclusion of a review on the local impact of fireworks misuse within its workplan, and report back to Council with recommendations within six months.”

Item withdrawn.

To consider the following Motion in the names of Councillors Anwar, Bramwell, Daji, Darwan, Scott, H Zaman, Hussain, Masood Ahmed and Kahut;

“Council notes that:

• On 29 November 2012, the United Nations General Assembly voted overwhelmingly to grant Palestine non-member observer State status, effectively recognising it as a state within the international community.
• 29 November is also observed annually as the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, established by the UN in 1977.
• The people of Kirklees have a proud record of standing up for peace, justice, and human rights around the world. Our communities are deeply diverse, with many residents who have direct family and cultural ties to Palestine and the wider Middle East.
• Displaying flags in recognition of international days and events has been a longstanding way for Kirklees Council to express solidarity with oppressed peoples and affirm our commitment to universal human rights.

Council believes that:

• Raising the flag of Palestine is a peaceful and symbolic gesture of solidarity with those striving for freedom, equality, and self-determination.
• Such an act reflects our borough’s values of inclusivity, justice, and international cooperation, and aligns with the UK’s own stated support for a two-state solution based on international law.
• Public recognition on this day will send a clear message that Kirklees stands for peace and supports a future where Israelis and Palestinians can live side by side in safety and dignity.

Council therefore resolves to:

1. That in line with the Council’s Flag Flying Policy, the Leader, Chief Executive and Mayor be requested to support the Raising  of the flag of Palestine on all Kirklees Council town halls and civic buildings on 29 November each year, in line with the UN International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People.
2. Issue a public statement reaffirming Kirklees Council’s commitment to peace, justice, and the right of all peoples to self-determination under international law.
3. Encourage community engagement and education around international solidarity and human rights, including opportunities for residents to learn about the significance of this day.”

Item withdrawn.

To consider the following Motion in the names of Councillors Scott, H Zaman, Masood Ahmed, Hussain, Moore, A Zaman and Anwar;

“This Council notes with serious concern:

That the Government has passed the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill, implementing parts of the earlier Pathways to Work Green Paper published in March 2025.

That the original Green Paper proposed wide-ranging reforms to PIP and long-term sickness benefits, including (i) stricter eligibility thresholds (such as the “4 points in one activity” test) (ii) reductions in support for people with mental health conditions and (iii) a shift toward linking disability benefits more closely with work and health treatment.

That while some of these proposals were dropped following public and parliamentary opposition (notably the new PIP scoring rule), others remain in force or are being implemented in stages, particularly those related to Universal Credit, the Work Capability Assessment, and health?related conditionality.

That the Government has confirmed existing PIP claimants will not be immediately affected, but that new claimants from late 2026 onwards may face stricter rules depending on further guidance and secondary legislation.

That changes to Universal Credit include plans to remove or reduce the “limited capability for work-related activity” element for new claimants, especially under-22s, potentially leaving thousands of vulnerable people with significantly less support.

This Council further notes:

That campaigners and expert organisations including Citizens Advice, Health Equity North, and the Resolution Foundation have warned of substantial financial losses and increased hardship under the reforms.

That research by Health Equity North estimates Huddersfield constituency alone could lose £17 million annually under the original package of proposals, with lasting consequences for residents, the local economy, and essential services.

That many of the worst-affected areas are in the North, with longstanding structural inequalities, poorer health outcomes, and stretched public services, including Kirklees.

That local councils like Kirklees are likely to face additional pressures on:
Adult social care, Housing and homelessness services, Welfare support, advice, and crisis payments, Mental health and public health provision, without any clear guarantees of increased funding or capacity.

This Council believes:

That the reforms represent a regressive shift in disability and sickness support, undermining the rights, dignity and independence of people with long-term conditions.

That there is insufficient evidence that the reforms will lead to improved outcomes for disabled people, and growing concern they may increase poverty, reduce access to support, and worsen health inequalities.

That Kirklees has a duty to speak out against national policies that will directly harm its most vulnerable residents and shift costs onto already overstretched local services.

This Council therefore resolves to:

(1)  Formally oppose the changes to Universal Credit and disability benefits as enacted under the Universal Credit and PIP Bill, and any future secondary legislation that restricts access to PIP, particularly for people with mental health conditions or fluctuating needs.

(2)  Write to the Prime Minister, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, and Chancellor of the Exchequer to (i) express the Council’s objection to the enacted reforms (ii) call  ...  view the full agenda text for item 122.

Item withdrawn.

To consider the following Motion in the names of Councillors J C Lawson, Davies, J D Lawson, Cooper, Scott and H Zaman;

“This Council notes:

1)    The statement by the former Minister of State for Local Government and English Devolution, Jim McMahon MP, on the 24^th June 2025 which outlined the Government’s plan to introduce legislation which will ‘simplify governance arrangements’ for local authorities in England and abolish the committee system, requiring all councils to adopt the leader and cabinet system;

2)    Councils in the UK typically operate under one of three governance structures: leader and cabinet, committee or mayoral systems;

3)    Most councils currently operate under a leader and cabinet model. The committee system was the way that councils were governed up until 2000. The Local Government Act 2000 changed the models of governance, introducing the leader and executive (cabinet) and elected mayor and executive models. The Local Government Act 2000 also resulted in the abolition of the committee system in England everywhere (except shire authorities with a population under 85,000). However, as part of the Localism Act 2011, the committee system was re-introduced as an option for all local authorities to adopt;

4)    Typically, under the leader and cabinet model, the full council elects a leader, who then appoints a cabinet (executive), with cabinet members responsible for specific areas of service and the cabinet being the primary decision-making body. Under the committee system model, power is exercised, alongside full council, by a number of politically balanced committees, each with a specific area of responsibility. Under the executive mayor and cabinet model, a directly-elected mayor leads the executive and is accountable to the electorate;

5)    Currently, councils in England can change their governance arrangements and local residents can have a say on the governance model adopted by their local authority via a referendum;

6)    As part of the Government’s plans, councils currently using the committee model, including councils which have recently transitioned to the committee model following a referendum, will be required to transition to the leader and cabinet model;

7)    The Government has argued that the changes are needed in order to improve clarity and accountability in decision-making, enhance efficiency by streamlining governance structures and preventing unnecessary expenditure on governance transitions.

This Council believes that:

1)    Councils across the country use various governance systems, with some favouring the committee system and others preferring executive systems. Councils should have the choice to choose which model of governance best suits the needs of its residents. The details of councils’ internal arrangement should be a matter for local discretion. Although Kirklees Council currently operates a leader and cabinet model, it should be given the opportunity to transition to the committee system if Kirklees residents support this. Local people should be given the power to make the best choice for themselves;

2)    The Government’s plans are at odds with the devolved powers that the Labour party advocates. It should not be a one-size fits all approach. Fundamentally, the Government’s plans to  ...  view the full agenda text for item 123.

RESOLVED – Motion not carried.

It was moved by Councillor J C Lawson and seconded by Councillor Cooper that

“This Council notes:

1)    The statement by the former Minister of State for Local Government and English Devolution, Jim McMahon MP, on the 24^th June 2025 which outlined the Government’s plan to introduce legislation which will ‘simplify governance arrangements’ for local authorities in England and abolish the committee system, requiring all councils to adopt the leader and cabinet system;

2)    Councils in the UK typically operate under one of three governance structures: leader and cabinet, committee or mayoral systems;

3)    Most councils currently operate under a leader and cabinet model. The committee system was the way that councils were governed up until 2000. The Local Government Act 2000 changed the models of governance, introducing the leader and executive (cabinet) and elected mayor and executive models. The Local Government Act 2000 also resulted in the abolition of the committee system in England everywhere (except shire authorities with a population under 85,000). However, as part of the Localism Act 2011, the committee system was re-introduced as an option for all local authorities to adopt;

4)    Typically, under the leader and cabinet model, the full council elects a leader, who then appoints a cabinet (executive), with cabinet members responsible for specific areas of service and the cabinet being the primary decision-making body. Under the committee system model, power is exercised, alongside full council, by a number of politically balanced committees, each with a specific area of responsibility. Under the executive mayor and cabinet model, a directly-elected mayor leads the executive and is accountable to the electorate;

5)    Currently, councils in England can change their governance arrangements and local residents can have a say on the governance model adopted by their local authority via a referendum;

6)    As part of the Government’s plans, councils currently using the committee model, including councils which have recently transitioned to the committee model following a referendum, will be required to transition to the leader and cabinet model;

7)    The Government has argued that the changes are needed in order to improve clarity and accountability in decision-making, enhance efficiency by streamlining governance structures and preventing unnecessary expenditure on governance transitions.

This Council believes that:

1)    Councils across the country use various governance systems, with some favouring the committee system and others preferring executive systems. Councils should have the choice to choose which model of governance best suits the needs of its residents. The details of councils’ internal arrangement should be a matter for local discretion. Although Kirklees Council currently operates a leader and cabinet model, it should be given the opportunity to transition to the committee system if Kirklees residents support this. Local people should be given the power to make the best choice for themselves;

2)    The Government’s plans are at odds with the devolved powers that the Labour party advocates. It should not be a one-size fits all approach. Fundamentally, the Government’s plans to change the way that councils operate is top-down  ...  view the full minutes text for item 123.

To consider the following Motion in the names of Councillors Arshad, Hall and Bolt;

“This Council recognises the vital role that green spaces and natural buffer zones play in shaping the character, setting, and distinct identity of towns and villages across Kirklees. These green boundaries safeguard biodiversity, contribute to climate resilience, enhance residents’ wellbeing, and preserve the historic pattern of our settlements.

Council further notes the increasing identification and use of so-called “grey belt land” for future development and expresses concern that, without clear and enforceable safeguards, such designations risk enabling incremental encroachment into the green boundaries that separate our communities. Council believes such encroachment would undermine the individuality of our towns and villages, increase pressure on local infrastructure, and contribute to unsustainable urban sprawl.

Council therefore resolves to:

1. Reaffirm its commitment to protecting the green spaces, strategic gaps, and natural buffer zones that maintain the physical, visual, and environmental separation between Kirklees towns and villages.

2. Ensure that the emerging Local Plan prioritises brownfield regeneration, vacant buildings, town centres and underutilised land within existing settlements for development.

3. Require that officers incorporate, within the current and subsequent Local Plan reviews, explicit and measurable safeguards to prevent development that would reduce or erode the separation between settlements, including strengthened criteria for assessing applications within strategic gaps.

4. Request that Cabinet brings forward a detailed report setting out:

The policy mechanisms available to reinforce permanent green boundaries between settlements;

How these protections will be applied consistently across Kirklees; and

Recommendations for preventing settlement-coalescence, ensuring each community retains its unique identity and sense of place.”

Item not considered (Meeting terminated in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 16:2).

To consider the following Motion in the names of Councillors Scott, H Zaman, A Zaman, Anwar, Masood Ahmed, Hussain, Darwan and Daji;

“This Council notes that:

1. Kirklees Council has approved a new communal grounds-maintenance service charge for council-housing estates, set at “up to £1 per week” for tenants.

2. This charge applies only to certain households depending on estate layout and tenure, creating a real risk of a two-tier system where some residents pay extra for communal areas while neighbours on the same estate pay nothing.

3. The introduction of this charge marks a major shift in principle, moving long-standing estate maintenance away from the Housing Revenue Account and onto a direct weekly tenant levy for impacted tenants.

4. There is no safeguard stopping future administrations from increasing the charge beyond £1 per week.

5. The garden waste removal service charge rising from £37.50 in 2019 to £56.65 in 2026 (a 51% increase) shows how quickly and quietly new charges can escalate once introduced.

This Council believes that:

1. Any new tenant levy must be fair, transparent and justified, and must not create inequality between residents who share the same estate.

2. Tenants are entitled to full clarity about why a new charge is being introduced, how it is calculated, and what protections exist against future increases.

3. Before the charge is allowed to progress further, the council must be satisfied it does not disproportionately or unfairly impact council tenants.

This Council resolves to:

1. Request that Cabinet initiate an immediate review of the communal grounds-maintenance charge, examining:

   - The fairness of applying the charge selectively to tenants

   - The rationale for removing these services from the HRA

   - Whether the charge should be paused, amended, or withdrawn

   - What protections could be introduced to prevent future increases

2. Request that Cabinet submit the findings of the review to the most appropriate Scrutiny Panel for examination at the earliest available meeting.

3. Ensure that, as part of the review process, tenants are fully consulted, and that their experiences, concerns and preferences directly inform the review and its outcomes.

Item not considered (Meeting terminated in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 16:2).

To consider the following Motion in the names of Councillors A Smith and Burke;

“This Council notes:

1)    In the 2021 Census, Kirklees was home to 8,942 people who reported that they had previously served in the regular UK Armed Forces;

2)    The obligations it owes to the armed forces community within Kirklees, as enshrined in the Armed Forces Covenant; that the armed forces community should not face disadvantage in the provision of services;

3)    That a number of military compensation schemes exist to recognise and compensate service personnel and their families, for the hardship, inconvenience or ongoing impact conditions, such as PTSD, limb or hearing loss;

4)    Whilst some benefits, such as Universal Credit, rightly disregard military compensation as income, others administered by or subject to the discretion of local authorities do not always do so. This means that some veterans must give up part of their compensation in order to access essential support. A 2022 Freedom of Information request by the Royal British Legion showed that nationally, only one in five (19%) of local authorities rightly disregarded all military compensation when assessing local benefit claims for Housing Benefit, Council Tax Support, Discretionary Housing Payments and Disabled Facilities Grants. In Kirklees, Discretionary Housing Payments are currently not disregarded; The Kirklees Armed Forces Covenant focuses on general support, housing, healthcare and integration, rather than explicitly referencing military compensation or its treatment in welfare means tests;

5)    There are over 1 million veterans nationally over the State Pension age with 146,000 estimated to be eligible for Pension Credit. However, current rules may deny them support if their military compensation is counted as income;

6)    Under the Armed Forces Covenant principles and statutory duty (Armed Forces Act 2021), councils must have due regard to these principles in housing, healthcare and education decisions. However, welfare benefit means tests are not covered by the legal duty and currently remain discretionary;

7)    The Royal British Legion ‘Credit their Service’ campaign exists to address the issue in the previous point, demanding an end to the treatment of military compensation as income by welfare benefit means test, as it results in many veterans and their families missing out on thousands of pounds each year. The Royal British Legion argue that it breaches the Armed Forces Covenant principle that veterans should face no disadvantage compared to civilians;

This Council believes that:

1)    No member of the armed forces community should be forced to give up their military compensation to access the same welfare support as their civilian counterparts;

2)    All compensation paid under any of the relevant military compensation schemes should be treated as such and not regarded as income when the local authority assesses applications for benefits over which they exercise discretion: Council Tax Support scheme, Housing Benefit, Discretionary Housing Payments and Disabled Facilities Grants. Rather it should be treated as intended, as a compensatory payment made in recognition of the often significant and life-changing service or sacrifice an individual has made in the course of their  ...  view the full agenda text for item 126.

Item not considered (Meeting terminated in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 16:2).

To consider the following Motion in the names of Councillors Munro and Davies;

“This Council notes:

1)    Violence against women and girls (VAWG) includes female homicide, rape, sexual assault, domestic abuse, stalking, harassment and controlling and coercive behaviour. Some of these are complex crimes which have a devasting and often life-changing impact on victims, their families and friends;

2)    Between 2018/19 to 2022/23, police records of VAWG in England and Wales rose by 37%. In West Yorkshire, domestic abuse related crimes make up 21% of all recorded crimes in region. However, this is the tip of the iceberg, as often abuse is never reported;

3)    It has been reported recently that approximately 2 million women a year in England and Wales are victims of male violence. It’s also estimated that at least 1 in 12 women are victims of violence perpetrated by men, which includes harassment, sexual assault and domestic violence;

4)    According to the Home Office, the national average cost to the UK of violence against women and girls is estimated to be in the region of £37 billion annually (including cost of health, legal and social services). In Kirklees, the Kirklees Joint Strategic Assessment (KJSA) has indicated that the estimated cost of domestic violence/abuse to agencies locally is in the region of £43 million each year;

5)    While victims of domestic abuse are not confined to a particular gender, the evidence shows that the majority of victims are women. Between November 2022 and November 2023, there were 59,681 total reported cases of domestic abuse across West Yorkshire, with 43,691 (73%) of the victims being female.

This Council believes that:

1)    Violence against women and girls is a significant issue on a local, regional and national level. It is a national emergency, and the scale of violence is akin to a public health crisis;

2)    There is a lot of good work being done at a local and regional level to tackle the issue of violence against women and girls and this Council commends the work already being done. For instance, Kirklees Council is a supporter of the White Ribbon campaign, which encourages men to challenge misogynistic behaviour. The Council also has a strategic focus on tackling VAWG through its Kirklees Communities Partnership Plan and focus on multi-agency collaboration and public safety initiatives. At a regional level, the West Yorkshire Combined Authority is also taking a strategic approach through its Safety of Women and Girls Strategy, which includes a commitment to embed healthy relationships education in schools and communities, behavioural change through intervention programmes, improving safety in public spaces and strengthening services for victims and survivors;

3)    While Kirklees Council is actively working to tackle VAWG, there is room to do more, especially in terms of leadership, visibility and long-term investment. The Council should publicly appoint an elected member VAWG Champion – to provide visible leadership, ensure accountability and champion the voices of survivors in policy-making. The Council should also improve public engagement, as there is limited public-facing  ...  view the full agenda text for item 127.

Item withdrawn.

To consider the following Motion in the names of Councillors Burke and J C Lawson;

“This Council notes:

1)    Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) refers to young people who require extra help and support with their learning difficulty and/or a disability that means they need special health and education support;

2)    Private providers play a key role in the Special Educational Needs and Disabilities sector, including early years, alternative provision and specialised independent schools and are often commissioned by councils to provide support and education for children with SEND. In Kirklees, there are 10,098 pupils aged 4 to 16 years with SEND. Of these 9,407 pupils are educated in mainstream schools and settings and 691 in special schools (2022). SEND provision is a key issue for many parents in Kirklees.
Across England, approximately 1.7 million pupils have been identified as having special educational needs, representing around 19.6% of pupils;

3)    There has been a huge surge in the need for SEND provision and, as a result, demand for school places supporting SEND students across the UK. Many state schools are not adequately equipped to meet the increased demand or to support pupils with more complex and challenging needs. This has led to expert providers across the private and charitable school sectors stepping in;

4)    According to House of Commons Library research, commissioned by the Liberal Democrat national party, the top private equity companies providing SEND schooling have seen their annual profits increase as the SEND crisis has worsened, with some making margins of over 20%. Some of the private providers of special needs education are backed by private equity companies based in tax havens or foreign sovereign wealth funds;

5)    The SEND crisis has led to many councils facing exorbitant costs for private provision. This is at a time when local authority budgets are being pushed to the brink, with many facing effective bankruptcy or end service provision for vulnerable groups;

6)    The Liberal Democrat national party has demanded that private providers of special education are subject to an operating profit cap of 8% in order to curb exorbitant profits. The party has called for the Government to cap the profits of these companies to ensure that money is channelled back into the SEND system and not into the pockets of shareholders.

This Council, therefore, resolves to:

Instruct the Leader of the Council to write to the Education Secretary, Bridget Phillipson MP, to express concern that the profiteering from private equity firms is a major driver of the crisis in our SEND system and to cap the profits of these firms at 8%, ensuring that the priority is provision and not profits and helping to cut the excessive profiteering off the backs of disabled children. While the Government’s commitment to reform the SEND system is welcome, profit-limiting controls are needed as a matter of urgency.”

Item withdrawn.

To consider the following Motion in the names of Councillors J C Lawson and Marchington;

“This Council notes:

1)    The Government has published a Green Paper, which includes proposals to change disability and long-term sickness benefits. This includes Personal Independence Payment (PIP);

2)    PIP is claimed by nearly 3.7 million people in England and Wales, which includes residents in Kirklees. PIP is a benefit not linked to being in work or out of work but instead designed to help people with the additional unavoidable costs of having a disability. It is used by people who need daily help because of a long-term illness or disability or mental health condition. Many disabled people rely on PIP to cover the cost of getting to and from work, paying for essential equipment and for meeting their social care charges;

3)    PIP is a non-means tested benefit, meaning that claims are not affected by an individual’s income, capital or savings. It consists of 2 parts: a daily living component and a mobility component. Depending on their assessment, individuals may receive one or both components;

4)    The Government’s Green Paper proposes that PIP will be focused more on those with higher needs and reports suggest that eligibility criteria will be tightened. This may mean that individuals judged to have lower needs will no longer be eligible for the daily living component of PIP. In effect, it may mean that some individuals could lose entitlement to the daily living element of PIP and potentially other entitlements linked to this award. If an individual loses the daily living component, it will directly affect their caregiver, as the carer may become ineligible for Carer’s Allowance or the carer element within Universal Credit. Furthermore, the Government’s Spring Statement indicated that they wish to freeze the health element of Universal Credit for existing claimants until 2030 – meaning it will no longer increase with inflation, resulting in a real terms loss of income for over two million households;

5)    Responding to the Chancellor’s Spring Statement and the publication of the Government’s impact assessment for their planned cuts to disability benefits, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation state that the cuts to health-related benefits risk pushing 250,000 people into poverty, including 50,000 children;

6)    People who struggle to even wash their hair may have their payments reduced by an average of £1,720 per year. It is estimated that 370,000 people with disabilities will no longer qualify for PIP under the Government’s new assessment rules.

This Council believes that:

·       Some of these changes will have a negative impact on the lives of Kirklees residents;

·       These changes amount to nothing less than an attack on those living with disabilities and health conditions – who need PIP payments and health-related Universal Credit, to live independent, dignified lives;

·       Freezing, reducing and removing these payments will have a catastrophic impact on million of households who, due to disability and ill-health, face some of the highest rates of material deprivation in the UK.

This Council, therefore, resolves to:  ...  view the full agenda text for item 129.

Item withdrawn.

To consider the following Motion in the names of Councillors J C Lawson and A C Pinnock;

“This Council notes:

1)    The English National Concessionary Travel Scheme (ENCTS) is a government-backed initiative that offers free local bus travel in England for people over the State Pension age and people with eligible disabilities. However, the scheme is typically only available to individuals with disabilities outside of peak hours, from 9.30am to 11pm on weekdays, and all day on weekends and bank holidays;

2)    Local areas can offer discretionary concessions beyond the rules set by the ENCTS, including extending free bus travel on weekdays before 9.30am. Locally, the ENCTS scheme is administered by the West Yorkshire Combined Authority, but Kirklees and West Yorkshire currently does not offer free travel before 9.30am for most disabled bus pass holders;

3)    The Kirklees Transport Strategy (2025) commits to improving accessibility and promoting inclusive, sustainable transport options for all residents;

4)    Disabled bus pass holders make up about 10% of all concessionary users in England;

5)    The Bus Services (No. 2) Bill is a major piece of legislation which is currently progressing through Parliament, aiming to improve the performance, accessibility and quality of bus services across England. Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament for Harrogate and Knaresborough, Tom Gordon, submitted an amendment to the Bill and called on the Government to give disabled people the freedom to travel at any time. The amendment received support from over 75 MPs, disability charities and campaign groups. However, the proposal to remove the 11pm – 09.30am exception to free travel for Disabled people was voted down.

This Council believes that:

1)    These restrictions disproportionately affect disabled people who need to travel early for work, education, healthcare or caring responsibilities. Disabled people should have the freedom to travel at any time of day, just as non-disabled people do;

2)    Time restrictions on concessionary travel create a postcode lottery and undermine efforts to promote equality, independence, and inclusion;

3)    Removing these restrictions would support disabled residents in accessing employment, education, healthcare, and social opportunities.

This Council, therefore, resolves:

1)    Request that the Leader of the Council write to the Secretary of State for Transport to express disappointment at the Government’s decision to turn their backs on disabled people as part of the Commons vote in September this year. This undermines their commitment to accessibility and equality. The Government needs to rethink their decision and remove the discriminatory restrictions to help create a system that allows everyone to make the journeys they want to. Removing the time restrictions could also open up work and training opportunities for disabled people, allowing them to travel with freedom, ease and confidence.
 

2)    Ask the Leader of the Council to write to the Elected Mayor of West Yorkshire, to ask the West Yorkshire Combined Authority to extend the local ENCTS scheme to allow 24/7 free bus travel for all eligible disabled passholders across the region.”

Item withdrawn.