Alterations are made to clean energy site plans for Keighley

Changes are being made to a £120 million scheme for a ‘clean energy’ complex in Keighley.

But those behind the pioneering project, which could create about 500 jobs, say the proposed amendments will not affect the initiative hugely.

Permission is being sought from Bradford Council – which is still to rule on the original planning application – to move a chimney stack and reduce an office block from four to two storeys, to conform with health and safety requirements.

“These are the final changes, and we can then move forward with the scheme,” said agent John Steel, of JO Steel Consulting.

“The reduced size of the office block will mean us cutting employee numbers there from about 150 to 100, but the changes will not make any difference to the operation of the plants or their output.”

Three plants for recycling waste are proposed on the derelict former gas works site in Airedale Road, alongside the Aire Valley trunk road at Marley.

The scheme would also include an education and visitor centre, parking and landscaping.

A data storage centre and offices would be built on land in nearby Dalton Lane.

The full planning application should go before the council’s regulatory and appeals committee in April. If the project gets the green light, work could start in the autumn, with the complex operational by the end of 2016.

Comments (21)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

4:42am Wed 26 Feb 14

G_Firth says...

At first glance it looks like they want to make Keighley the rubbish tip of BMDC catchment region. Isn't that a flood risk area as well. What about water contamination from spillage, airborne detritus that could reach the Green Belt as well as the town, and what about the smell also. not forgetting that property prices close by would drop through the floor. Agreed it would bring much needed jobs to the town but is this what we really want, when we have so many other places of industry lying dormant that just need a bit of a boost to bring them back to life.
At first glance it looks like they want to make Keighley the rubbish tip of BMDC catchment region. Isn't that a flood risk area as well. What about water contamination from spillage, airborne detritus that could reach the Green Belt as well as the town, and what about the smell also. not forgetting that property prices close by would drop through the floor. Agreed it would bring much needed jobs to the town but is this what we really want, when we have so many other places of industry lying dormant that just need a bit of a boost to bring them back to life. G_Firth
  • Score: 0

11:06am Wed 26 Feb 14

pjl20 says...

Time to ditch Bradford Council and safeguard the interests of the residents of Airedale & Wharfedale by forming a new district council and protecting the whole area from a blight such as this.

Keighley and it's environs are not a dumping ground for Bradford waste, even with a 'clean energy' complex.

Plans for the new incinerator at Allerton, near Harrogate have now been scrapped, as a result of much protest. Don't let Keighley get saddled with this new complex either.
Time to ditch Bradford Council and safeguard the interests of the residents of Airedale & Wharfedale by forming a new district council and protecting the whole area from a blight such as this. Keighley and it's environs are not a dumping ground for Bradford waste, even with a 'clean energy' complex. Plans for the new incinerator at Allerton, near Harrogate have now been scrapped, as a result of much protest. Don't let Keighley get saddled with this new complex either. pjl20
  • Score: 1

11:28am Wed 26 Feb 14

Katiery says...

Sorry but I disagree. The proposed site is an absolute mess and this will regenerate it. There is nothing wrong with burning waste to create energy.

We do not need a new Council area.

Two people saying exactly the same thing is a bit odd too!
Sorry but I disagree. The proposed site is an absolute mess and this will regenerate it. There is nothing wrong with burning waste to create energy. We do not need a new Council area. Two people saying exactly the same thing is a bit odd too! Katiery
  • Score: 0

1:03pm Wed 26 Feb 14

pjl20 says...

Katiery wrote:
Sorry but I disagree. The proposed site is an absolute mess and this will regenerate it. There is nothing wrong with burning waste to create energy.

We do not need a new Council area.

Two people saying exactly the same thing is a bit odd too!
Katiery

Well done for disclosing the opinion of the 'cavetowners'.

I should consult one or two elected BMDC councillors first, like I have.
[quote][p][bold]Katiery[/bold] wrote: Sorry but I disagree. The proposed site is an absolute mess and this will regenerate it. There is nothing wrong with burning waste to create energy. We do not need a new Council area. Two people saying exactly the same thing is a bit odd too![/p][/quote]Katiery Well done for disclosing the opinion of the 'cavetowners'. I should consult one or two elected BMDC councillors first, like I have. pjl20
  • Score: 0

1:53pm Wed 26 Feb 14

G_Firth says...

I would of thought it be more prudent to build such sites as these on existing refuse sites than create new refuse sites.
I would of thought it be more prudent to build such sites as these on existing refuse sites than create new refuse sites. G_Firth
  • Score: 1

3:07pm Wed 26 Feb 14

MarkPullen says...

pjl20 wrote:
Time to ditch Bradford Council and safeguard the interests of the residents of Airedale & Wharfedale by forming a new district council and protecting the whole area from a blight such as this.

Keighley and it's environs are not a dumping ground for Bradford waste, even with a 'clean energy' complex.

Plans for the new incinerator at Allerton, near Harrogate have now been scrapped, as a result of much protest. Don't let Keighley get saddled with this new complex either.
Obviously you've not submitted your nomination papers as a candidate for the 2015 elections yet so not obliged to comment on this story - yet happy to do so.

How selective .... how quaint.

You do realise that this doesn't matter to your prospective electorate from ower t'hill in Ilkley where you are standing in the May elections on BMDC?
[quote][p][bold]pjl20[/bold] wrote: Time to ditch Bradford Council and safeguard the interests of the residents of Airedale & Wharfedale by forming a new district council and protecting the whole area from a blight such as this. Keighley and it's environs are not a dumping ground for Bradford waste, even with a 'clean energy' complex. Plans for the new incinerator at Allerton, near Harrogate have now been scrapped, as a result of much protest. Don't let Keighley get saddled with this new complex either.[/p][/quote]Obviously you've not submitted your nomination papers as a candidate for the 2015 elections yet so not obliged to comment on this story - yet happy to do so. How selective .... how quaint. You do realise that this doesn't matter to your prospective electorate from ower t'hill in Ilkley where you are standing in the May elections on BMDC? MarkPullen
  • Score: -3

3:10pm Wed 26 Feb 14

MarkPullen says...

pjl20 wrote:
Katiery wrote:
Sorry but I disagree. The proposed site is an absolute mess and this will regenerate it. There is nothing wrong with burning waste to create energy.

We do not need a new Council area.

Two people saying exactly the same thing is a bit odd too!
Katiery

Well done for disclosing the opinion of the 'cavetowners'.

I should consult one or two elected BMDC councillors first, like I have.
Yet you fail to discuss enlarging the district council with parish councillors in Haworth, Cross Roads, Stanbury, and Oxenhope - how novel!

More than a little hypocritical on your part Paul.

By the way - I didn't realise that Katiery was a member of Cavetown Council !
After breaching the T&Cs of this site by disclosing her name I would have thought that you'd be staying out of mischief Paul.
[quote][p][bold]pjl20[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Katiery[/bold] wrote: Sorry but I disagree. The proposed site is an absolute mess and this will regenerate it. There is nothing wrong with burning waste to create energy. We do not need a new Council area. Two people saying exactly the same thing is a bit odd too![/p][/quote]Katiery Well done for disclosing the opinion of the 'cavetowners'. I should consult one or two elected BMDC councillors first, like I have.[/p][/quote]Yet you fail to discuss enlarging the district council with parish councillors in Haworth, Cross Roads, Stanbury, and Oxenhope - how novel! More than a little hypocritical on your part Paul. By the way - I didn't realise that Katiery was a member of Cavetown Council ! After breaching the T&Cs of this site by disclosing her name I would have thought that you'd be staying out of mischief Paul. MarkPullen
  • Score: -3

3:11pm Wed 26 Feb 14

MarkPullen says...

G_Firth wrote:
I would of thought it be more prudent to build such sites as these on existing refuse sites than create new refuse sites.
Surely using an existing brownfield site ticks the boxes?
[quote][p][bold]G_Firth[/bold] wrote: I would of thought it be more prudent to build such sites as these on existing refuse sites than create new refuse sites.[/p][/quote]Surely using an existing brownfield site ticks the boxes? MarkPullen
  • Score: 0

3:19pm Wed 26 Feb 14

jimmy k says...

looks like ukip are a bunch of nimbys although as i don't know where these two live i couldnt say for definite.all i can say is anything that helps bring any sort of permanent jobs into the town at the moment has to be a good thing.
looks like ukip are a bunch of nimbys although as i don't know where these two live i couldnt say for definite.all i can say is anything that helps bring any sort of permanent jobs into the town at the moment has to be a good thing. jimmy k
  • Score: -1

3:22pm Wed 26 Feb 14

MarkPullen says...

jimmy k wrote:
looks like ukip are a bunch of nimbys although as i don't know where these two live i couldnt say for definite.all i can say is anything that helps bring any sort of permanent jobs into the town at the moment has to be a good thing.
The following link (part of the Ukip/UKIP Yorkshire Dales website) provides part of the answer:

http://ukipyorkshire
dales.co.uk/contact-
us.html
[quote][p][bold]jimmy k[/bold] wrote: looks like ukip are a bunch of nimbys although as i don't know where these two live i couldnt say for definite.all i can say is anything that helps bring any sort of permanent jobs into the town at the moment has to be a good thing.[/p][/quote]The following link (part of the Ukip/UKIP Yorkshire Dales website) provides part of the answer: http://ukipyorkshire dales.co.uk/contact- us.html MarkPullen
  • Score: -2

3:43pm Wed 26 Feb 14

G_Firth says...

jimmy k wrote:
looks like ukip are a bunch of nimbys although as i don't know where these two live i couldnt say for definite.all i can say is anything that helps bring any sort of permanent jobs into the town at the moment has to be a good thing.
I live in Keighley myself so am more than aware that this would bring much needed jobs to the region and did clearly state that above.
But there are times you need to compare that to also the impact upon the region with, increased road traffic, noise and air pollution, high contamination risks because of placement, devaluation of properties close by and many more aspects.
[quote][p][bold]jimmy k[/bold] wrote: looks like ukip are a bunch of nimbys although as i don't know where these two live i couldnt say for definite.all i can say is anything that helps bring any sort of permanent jobs into the town at the moment has to be a good thing.[/p][/quote]I live in Keighley myself so am more than aware that this would bring much needed jobs to the region and did clearly state that above. But there are times you need to compare that to also the impact upon the region with, increased road traffic, noise and air pollution, high contamination risks because of placement, devaluation of properties close by and many more aspects. G_Firth
  • Score: 0

3:48pm Wed 26 Feb 14

jimmy k says...

G_Firth wrote:
jimmy k wrote:
looks like ukip are a bunch of nimbys although as i don't know where these two live i couldnt say for definite.all i can say is anything that helps bring any sort of permanent jobs into the town at the moment has to be a good thing.
I live in Keighley myself so am more than aware that this would bring much needed jobs to the region and did clearly state that above.
But there are times you need to compare that to also the impact upon the region with, increased road traffic, noise and air pollution, high contamination risks because of placement, devaluation of properties close by and many more aspects.
oh well lets just shut all business down then as i cant think of one example where a business does not add to the problems you've stated.
[quote][p][bold]G_Firth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jimmy k[/bold] wrote: looks like ukip are a bunch of nimbys although as i don't know where these two live i couldnt say for definite.all i can say is anything that helps bring any sort of permanent jobs into the town at the moment has to be a good thing.[/p][/quote]I live in Keighley myself so am more than aware that this would bring much needed jobs to the region and did clearly state that above. But there are times you need to compare that to also the impact upon the region with, increased road traffic, noise and air pollution, high contamination risks because of placement, devaluation of properties close by and many more aspects.[/p][/quote]oh well lets just shut all business down then as i cant think of one example where a business does not add to the problems you've stated. jimmy k
  • Score: -2

3:50pm Wed 26 Feb 14

MarkPullen says...

G_Firth wrote:
jimmy k wrote:
looks like ukip are a bunch of nimbys although as i don't know where these two live i couldnt say for definite.all i can say is anything that helps bring any sort of permanent jobs into the town at the moment has to be a good thing.
I live in Keighley myself so am more than aware that this would bring much needed jobs to the region and did clearly state that above.
But there are times you need to compare that to also the impact upon the region with, increased road traffic, noise and air pollution, high contamination risks because of placement, devaluation of properties close by and many more aspects.
The land in question was already contaminated and some "cleansing" took place.

This location is actually better placed than the waste sites in the area as they are further into the built up areas which would increase traffic through the local urban network.
[quote][p][bold]G_Firth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jimmy k[/bold] wrote: looks like ukip are a bunch of nimbys although as i don't know where these two live i couldnt say for definite.all i can say is anything that helps bring any sort of permanent jobs into the town at the moment has to be a good thing.[/p][/quote]I live in Keighley myself so am more than aware that this would bring much needed jobs to the region and did clearly state that above. But there are times you need to compare that to also the impact upon the region with, increased road traffic, noise and air pollution, high contamination risks because of placement, devaluation of properties close by and many more aspects.[/p][/quote]The land in question was already contaminated and some "cleansing" took place. This location is actually better placed than the waste sites in the area as they are further into the built up areas which would increase traffic through the local urban network. MarkPullen
  • Score: -1

3:53pm Wed 26 Feb 14

G_Firth says...

MarkPullen wrote:
G_Firth wrote:
I would of thought it be more prudent to build such sites as these on existing refuse sites than create new refuse sites.
Surely using an existing brownfield site ticks the boxes?
How on earth does that even compare because there is more than enough room at existing refuse sites to build such plants as this through out the country and not just locally, that would leave these brownfield sites free for new light industry and even here would be a prime site for much needed housing that could be stilted housing because of the flood risk.
[quote][p][bold]MarkPullen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]G_Firth[/bold] wrote: I would of thought it be more prudent to build such sites as these on existing refuse sites than create new refuse sites.[/p][/quote]Surely using an existing brownfield site ticks the boxes?[/p][/quote]How on earth does that even compare because there is more than enough room at existing refuse sites to build such plants as this through out the country and not just locally, that would leave these brownfield sites free for new light industry and even here would be a prime site for much needed housing that could be stilted housing because of the flood risk. G_Firth
  • Score: 0

3:58pm Wed 26 Feb 14

MarkPullen says...

G_Firth wrote:
MarkPullen wrote:
G_Firth wrote:
I would of thought it be more prudent to build such sites as these on existing refuse sites than create new refuse sites.
Surely using an existing brownfield site ticks the boxes?
How on earth does that even compare because there is more than enough room at existing refuse sites to build such plants as this through out the country and not just locally, that would leave these brownfield sites free for new light industry and even here would be a prime site for much needed housing that could be stilted housing because of the flood risk.
But if you move to sites away from the locality that generates the waste you have additional transport costs, pollution, etc

The waste sites in the area tend to have evolved from old landfill "tips" and the land cannot be built upon due to the decaying content underneath.

To my knowledge (my family lived in Stockbridge for generations) that particular area wasn't prone to flood - even when the Aire broke it's banks in recent times and the 70s.
[quote][p][bold]G_Firth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MarkPullen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]G_Firth[/bold] wrote: I would of thought it be more prudent to build such sites as these on existing refuse sites than create new refuse sites.[/p][/quote]Surely using an existing brownfield site ticks the boxes?[/p][/quote]How on earth does that even compare because there is more than enough room at existing refuse sites to build such plants as this through out the country and not just locally, that would leave these brownfield sites free for new light industry and even here would be a prime site for much needed housing that could be stilted housing because of the flood risk.[/p][/quote]But if you move to sites away from the locality that generates the waste you have additional transport costs, pollution, etc The waste sites in the area tend to have evolved from old landfill "tips" and the land cannot be built upon due to the decaying content underneath. To my knowledge (my family lived in Stockbridge for generations) that particular area wasn't prone to flood - even when the Aire broke it's banks in recent times and the 70s. MarkPullen
  • Score: -1

3:59pm Wed 26 Feb 14

G_Firth says...

jimmy k wrote:
G_Firth wrote:
jimmy k wrote:
looks like ukip are a bunch of nimbys although as i don't know where these two live i couldnt say for definite.all i can say is anything that helps bring any sort of permanent jobs into the town at the moment has to be a good thing.
I live in Keighley myself so am more than aware that this would bring much needed jobs to the region and did clearly state that above.
But there are times you need to compare that to also the impact upon the region with, increased road traffic, noise and air pollution, high contamination risks because of placement, devaluation of properties close by and many more aspects.
oh well lets just shut all business down then as i cant think of one example where a business does not add to the problems you've stated.
I'm basing it on the 23 articulated lorry loads of refuse needed per day to run this complex on it's minimum output
[quote][p][bold]jimmy k[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]G_Firth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jimmy k[/bold] wrote: looks like ukip are a bunch of nimbys although as i don't know where these two live i couldnt say for definite.all i can say is anything that helps bring any sort of permanent jobs into the town at the moment has to be a good thing.[/p][/quote]I live in Keighley myself so am more than aware that this would bring much needed jobs to the region and did clearly state that above. But there are times you need to compare that to also the impact upon the region with, increased road traffic, noise and air pollution, high contamination risks because of placement, devaluation of properties close by and many more aspects.[/p][/quote]oh well lets just shut all business down then as i cant think of one example where a business does not add to the problems you've stated.[/p][/quote]I'm basing it on the 23 articulated lorry loads of refuse needed per day to run this complex on it's minimum output G_Firth
  • Score: 1

4:05pm Wed 26 Feb 14

G_Firth says...

MarkPullen wrote:
G_Firth wrote:
MarkPullen wrote:
G_Firth wrote:
I would of thought it be more prudent to build such sites as these on existing refuse sites than create new refuse sites.
Surely using an existing brownfield site ticks the boxes?
How on earth does that even compare because there is more than enough room at existing refuse sites to build such plants as this through out the country and not just locally, that would leave these brownfield sites free for new light industry and even here would be a prime site for much needed housing that could be stilted housing because of the flood risk.
But if you move to sites away from the locality that generates the waste you have additional transport costs, pollution, etc

The waste sites in the area tend to have evolved from old landfill "tips" and the land cannot be built upon due to the decaying content underneath.

To my knowledge (my family lived in Stockbridge for generations) that particular area wasn't prone to flood - even when the Aire broke it's banks in recent times and the 70s.
This isn't just Keighley waste we are talking about here but the entire waste from Bradford and beyond.
One would even bet that this is an alternative location picked from the already refused site at Allerton, near Harrogate.
[quote][p][bold]MarkPullen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]G_Firth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MarkPullen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]G_Firth[/bold] wrote: I would of thought it be more prudent to build such sites as these on existing refuse sites than create new refuse sites.[/p][/quote]Surely using an existing brownfield site ticks the boxes?[/p][/quote]How on earth does that even compare because there is more than enough room at existing refuse sites to build such plants as this through out the country and not just locally, that would leave these brownfield sites free for new light industry and even here would be a prime site for much needed housing that could be stilted housing because of the flood risk.[/p][/quote]But if you move to sites away from the locality that generates the waste you have additional transport costs, pollution, etc The waste sites in the area tend to have evolved from old landfill "tips" and the land cannot be built upon due to the decaying content underneath. To my knowledge (my family lived in Stockbridge for generations) that particular area wasn't prone to flood - even when the Aire broke it's banks in recent times and the 70s.[/p][/quote]This isn't just Keighley waste we are talking about here but the entire waste from Bradford and beyond. One would even bet that this is an alternative location picked from the already refused site at Allerton, near Harrogate. G_Firth
  • Score: 1

4:21pm Wed 26 Feb 14

MarkPullen says...

G_Firth wrote:
MarkPullen wrote:
G_Firth wrote:
MarkPullen wrote:
G_Firth wrote:
I would of thought it be more prudent to build such sites as these on existing refuse sites than create new refuse sites.
Surely using an existing brownfield site ticks the boxes?
How on earth does that even compare because there is more than enough room at existing refuse sites to build such plants as this through out the country and not just locally, that would leave these brownfield sites free for new light industry and even here would be a prime site for much needed housing that could be stilted housing because of the flood risk.
But if you move to sites away from the locality that generates the waste you have additional transport costs, pollution, etc

The waste sites in the area tend to have evolved from old landfill "tips" and the land cannot be built upon due to the decaying content underneath.

To my knowledge (my family lived in Stockbridge for generations) that particular area wasn't prone to flood - even when the Aire broke it's banks in recent times and the 70s.
This isn't just Keighley waste we are talking about here but the entire waste from Bradford and beyond.
One would even bet that this is an alternative location picked from the already refused site at Allerton, near Harrogate.
It surely can't be worse that the "smelly trucks" that are allowed to drip waste onto the roads already!
[quote][p][bold]G_Firth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MarkPullen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]G_Firth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MarkPullen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]G_Firth[/bold] wrote: I would of thought it be more prudent to build such sites as these on existing refuse sites than create new refuse sites.[/p][/quote]Surely using an existing brownfield site ticks the boxes?[/p][/quote]How on earth does that even compare because there is more than enough room at existing refuse sites to build such plants as this through out the country and not just locally, that would leave these brownfield sites free for new light industry and even here would be a prime site for much needed housing that could be stilted housing because of the flood risk.[/p][/quote]But if you move to sites away from the locality that generates the waste you have additional transport costs, pollution, etc The waste sites in the area tend to have evolved from old landfill "tips" and the land cannot be built upon due to the decaying content underneath. To my knowledge (my family lived in Stockbridge for generations) that particular area wasn't prone to flood - even when the Aire broke it's banks in recent times and the 70s.[/p][/quote]This isn't just Keighley waste we are talking about here but the entire waste from Bradford and beyond. One would even bet that this is an alternative location picked from the already refused site at Allerton, near Harrogate.[/p][/quote]It surely can't be worse that the "smelly trucks" that are allowed to drip waste onto the roads already! MarkPullen
  • Score: 0

6:11pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Katiery says...

pjl20 wrote:
Katiery wrote:
Sorry but I disagree. The proposed site is an absolute mess and this will regenerate it. There is nothing wrong with burning waste to create energy.

We do not need a new Council area.

Two people saying exactly the same thing is a bit odd too!
Katiery

Well done for disclosing the opinion of the 'cavetowners'.

I should consult one or two elected BMDC councillors first, like I have.
I despair with you pjl20. I am not a cavetowner and even if I were they are all able to speak for themselves. I have my own opinions and will express them as I wish, just like you do.

I have no idea what your last sentence means, it's senseless.
[quote][p][bold]pjl20[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Katiery[/bold] wrote: Sorry but I disagree. The proposed site is an absolute mess and this will regenerate it. There is nothing wrong with burning waste to create energy. We do not need a new Council area. Two people saying exactly the same thing is a bit odd too![/p][/quote]Katiery Well done for disclosing the opinion of the 'cavetowners'. I should consult one or two elected BMDC councillors first, like I have.[/p][/quote]I despair with you pjl20. I am not a cavetowner and even if I were they are all able to speak for themselves. I have my own opinions and will express them as I wish, just like you do. I have no idea what your last sentence means, it's senseless. Katiery
  • Score: 0

6:15pm Wed 26 Feb 14

jimmy k says...

23 lorries a day doesn't seem excessive to me ,and what is this "light industry"you speak off thats going to spring up?there are already massive amounts of vacant land available if your argument is the businesses are just waiting for the land.
23 lorries a day doesn't seem excessive to me ,and what is this "light industry"you speak off thats going to spring up?there are already massive amounts of vacant land available if your argument is the businesses are just waiting for the land. jimmy k
  • Score: 0

9:59pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Mixter says...

How is the Plant going to impact on the kiddie nursery about 100 yards further down the road? There is going to be emissions and the wagons going past its door to access the site.

I suppose as long as Bradford gets rid of its crap somewhere else, thats all that matters.
How is the Plant going to impact on the kiddie nursery about 100 yards further down the road? There is going to be emissions and the wagons going past its door to access the site. I suppose as long as Bradford gets rid of its crap somewhere else, thats all that matters. Mixter
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree