Agenda and minutes

To receive apologies for absence from those Members who are unable to attend the meeting.

Apologies for absence were received on behalf of Councillor Will Simpson

To approve the Minutes of the meeting of the Panel held on  7^th January 2026

The Panel considered the Minutes of the meeting of the Panel held on 7^th January 2026.

                RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the meeting held on 7^th January 2026

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

Councillor David Longstaff declared a ‘other’ interest in the agenda item as a resident of a flood zone (Minute No. 34 refers).

Most agenda items take place in public. This only changes where there is a need to consider exempt information, as contained at Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972. You will be informed at this point which items are to be recommended for exclusion and to be resolved by the Panel.

All agenda items were considered in public session.

The Panel 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.

No public questions were received.

The Panel will consider the report ‘Annual Review of Flood Risk Management Activities’.

Contacts:

Paul Farndale, Strategic Partnership Lead for Flood Management and Drainage

Mathias Franklin, Head of Planning & Development

The Panel considered the report ‘Annual Review of Flood Risk Management Activities’ which was presented by Paul Farndale, Strategic Partnerships Lead. Illyas Ramjan, Head of Major Projects, Martin Stepherson, Principal Flood Risk Planner and Jason Hanks, ER Project officer were also in attendance. It was highlighted that:

• The annual update covered flood risk avoidance, asset management, natural flood management and community resilience and outlined progress on the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment and how the approach linked to the Local Plan.
• Moving in the direction of integrated flood management was bringing changes for the authority.
• Trash Screens – Operational Issues and Improvements:

• • Trash screens were required to stop large objects getting lodged, and prevented risk from flooding, however, poorly maintained trash screens collected debris and posed a flood risk themselves.
  • The approach to maintenance of the Trash Screens utilised the principals of asset management to review trash screens based on the risk of blockages by location.
  • This involved balancing risk against budget and operational requirements.
  • It was noted that privately owned trash screens, particularly in new developments, could be neglected and created additional burdens.
  • Work was being undertaken to use section 106 agreements so that management companies were responsible for the maintenance.
  • Confirmation had been received that a funding bid for improving and redesigning trash screens had been passed to a regional stage.
  • Proposed upgrades addressed access issues and revised bar spacing, supported by a Grant in Aid bid of up to £670k alongside Council?funded schemes.
  • Future considerations included reassessing clearance frequency, exploring remote observation, reviewing whether to deliberately retain water in some circumstances, and integrating OSAMS (the new asset management system in Highways).
• Natural Flood Management (NFM) Activities:
  • NFM work including design and landowner engagement for schemes such as Ludhill Dike and various catchment clusters was ongoing.
  • Interventions under consideration included tree planting, hedgerows, attenuation basins, leaky dams and fascines.
  • Progress continued on Council?owned land, including works at Woods Mount, Mellor Woods and Rectory Park.
  • Partnership work progressed to secure further funding for several “spade?ready” schemes within the Honley area.
• Community Resilience and Mental Health:
  • The West Yorkshire Flood Innovation Programme’s work to improve mental health and wellbeing in flood?risk communities continued.
  • National evidence highlighted significantly higher rates of mental health issues among residents affected by flooding.
  • The programme aimed to strengthen resilience through improved mental health support and targeted interventions.
• Progress Since Previous Year:
  • Funding had been secured and initial scoping work had taken place to understand current conditions within flood?risk communities.
  • Partnership development work had continued, and Mental Health First Aid Training had begun.
• Mental Health First Aid Training:
  • A training programme had been developed in partnership with Emergency Planning and the Severe Weather Plan.
  • 100 frontline staff had been trained, improving awareness and daily wellbeing support for communities and staff.
  • ‘Green  prescribing’ was a particularly helpful technique, and this could have dual -benefits of supporting tree planting.
• Academic Research Partnership:
  • A formal research partnership with the University of Huddersfield had been established  ...  view the full minutes text for item 42.

The Panel will consider the presentations, ‘White Rose Forest Delivery’ and ‘Kirklees Woodland Creation.’

Contacts:

Iwan Downey, Programme Director (White Rose Forest)

Joe Robertson, Woodland Development Manager

The Panel considered presentations in respect of Woodland Creation which were presented by Paul Thompson, Programme Manager (White Rose Forest) and Joe Robertson, Woodland Development Manager. The Panel were advised that:

White Rose Forest – Programme Delivery and Context

• Monitoring of delivery figures for the 2020–2028 programme had demonstrated consistent annual planting contributions.
• Benefits were reported across accessible woodland provision, carbon capture and flood mitigation.
• Financial valuations of these benefits had been provided both for the wider White Rose Forest area and specifically for Kirklees.
• Total programme investments and expenditure distributions across outturn grants, asset development, legacy team costs and revenue/capital allocations had been presented.
• The expected TfC allocations for 2026/27 to 2029/30 had been outlined, including reduced revenue availability.
• increased capital funding would require a capitalisation approach to sustain team costs.
• WRF were working with the Woodland Trust and National Trust and awaited a new grant funding agreement in March/April 2026.
• The 2025–2050 White Rose Forest Strategic Plan had been shared, outlining long?term woodland creation ambitions.
• The programme was currently mainly funded by DEFRA but work was being undertaken to diversify funding streams.
• A new programme, RESTORE, had been proposed to bring more woodlands into long?term management, although funding was not yet in place.
• It was noted that TfC funding would reduce team capacity for the next 15–20 years.
• Key outcomes included;
  • The success of the Trees for Climate programme and the establishment of a stronger national profile for WRF.
  • Benefits to communities across Kirklees and wider Yorkshire had been emphasised.
  • Work was underway to broaden funding sources and maintain a sustainable partnership model.

Kirklees Woodland Creation Programme 2021–2026

• A review of the 2021–2025 planting seasons including Volunteer engagement figures, including numbers of volunteers, schools (including Huddersfield University), scouts, community groups and public sessions, had been presented for the 2023/24 and 2024/25 seasons.
• 2025–2026 planting season (in progress)
  • Data up to January 2026 showed continued strong volunteer participation, particularly from schools, scout groups and community groups.
  • Public sessions and delivery partner engagement remained consistent with previous years.
• Aftercare approach
  • All woodland creation sites were funded for 15 years of aftercare.
  • This included alternating annual condition checks, restocking activities and planned thinning between years 10–15, subject to growth conditions.
  • Work was underway to expand volunteer involvement in aftercare activities.

The Panel noted the presentation and, during the subsequent discussion, raised the following questions and points.

·       In response to questions from the Panel in relation to failure rates, it was explained that different sites experienced varying levels of tree loss. They reported that the programme worked on the basis that 10–20% losses were considered acceptable and expected, but restocking continued up to year five when tree guards were removed. Officers confirmed that reasons for failure were assessed on a site?by?site basis.

·       In response to questions from the Panel in relation to the aftercare period, officers confirmed that a 15?year aftercare programme was in place and that the Council was working with the White Rose Forest to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43.

The Panel will consider its Work Programme for 2025/26

Contact:

Jodie Harris, Principal Governance and Democratic Engagement Officer

The Panel reviewed its Work Programme for 2025/26 and the following items were put forward for inclusion.

RESOLVED: The Panel noted the Work programme.