Call to scrap Saltaire weir turbine proposals (From Bradford Telegraph and Argus)

Another case of historians stuck in the past.

Couldn't they stick solar panels on salts roof instead? Lots of space up there.

Well if they can stick those silly 'pods' on the roof of Manningham Mills -
I don't see the problem with the water turbines - is not as if they are massive buildings. Wiers are the best way of harnessing free power from the rivers.

"Saltaire History Club feel Bradford Council’s plans for the £1.2 million scheme at the park should be scrapped, and argue deeds from the 1920s state the river should not be interfered with."
Deeds written AFTER the river had been "interfered with" to create the weir!

If this proposal goes ahead it would be an outrage. David Ford is a good chap but on this issue I feel he's got it wrong.

The difference is solar panels on a pyramid in Egypt will work a turbine in Saltaire will not.

I understand that as an ex Green Councillor David Ford will no doubt have political allegiances, but his indignation here and in an earlier letter to the T/A that anyone should dare question something is very upsetting. For people to make an informed decision, they have to be just that - informed. Some local Greens it seems would rather people be kept in the dark as to what this turbone is going to look like and cost and the pitiful return it will give - just 0.5% of the council's current energy usage apparently. The arrogance of the Greens has most certainly been revealed to a lot of us who once voted for them. It is great for people to have ambition and vision; it is a real pity to see it so misplaced. Good luck to the History Club and their supporters.

Surely when it was built, Saltaire and the mill was an attempt to realise a better future?
If Titus Salt had the same attitude as these protesters he'd have stayed in the middle of Bradford in slum conditions and nothing would ever had improved.
The comment about the Pyramids is just ridiculous.

Why is the comment about the pyramids ridiculous ? Would they put something similar at iron gorge? I don't think so. They all share the same status, WORLD heritage sites!

RonnieBarker wrote:
Why is the comment about the pyramids ridiculous ? Would they put something similar at iron gorge? I don't think so. They all share the same status, WORLD heritage sites!

I'm basing that comment on the artist's impression of the scheme on the council's website. Assuming they're accurate you can hardly tell any difference with how it currently looks.

Building a new weir around the back of the mill and all the village is hardly the same as putting solar panels ON the pyramids.
Anyway, last time I visited the pyramids they seemed to be surrounded by major roads.

I think the scheme should go ahead!
the historian is wrong!

What a fool.

What better way to develop Saltaire's INDUSTRIAL heritage into the next generations than to install a screw turbine on the weir.

I work in the industry and they can be installed discretely, will not create any noticeable noise and are pretty easy to maintain.

the only concern i have is whether the forecast total cost of £1.4million is enough. Sounds light given the location and this will increase the pay back period to above 10 years, which in most instances would not be considered viable.

But i am certainly not against the scheme in principal.

Saltaire is living history, not preserved behind a display cabinet. People have to be able to live and develop within that historical setting, not stifled by total resistance to change for the sake of resisting. Visit Bainbridge in the Yorkshire Dales National Park and see the turbine on the river Bain which is a marvellous piece of technology, interesting, efficiently powers the local properties and is finacially viable. Such a structure would be perfectly in keeping with the industrial advances which created Saltaire and would be quite an attraction. The people of this area have to contend with buckled pavements, dangerous road junctions and restrictions inappropriate for modern inhabitants due to this obsessive resistance by self proclaimed protectors of Saltaire. If you want to keep Saltaire back in the nineteenth century, then evacuate it, put a fence round it and a guard on the gate. If you want to preserve it as LIVING history, then allow it to develop and remain fit for purpose in context, which the turbine would certainly be.

I want the plan to go ahead, it might just be 0.5% of council energy cost but it will save the council i.e me money. I have seen the plans and its not a big eye sore like some people suggested. What I dont like is people telling me what i should i should be thinking

Please all who are interested in this topic, read the feasibility study before commenting.
http://www.bradford.
gov.uk/bmdc/the_envi
ronment/climate_chan
ge/Hydro_Power_Schem
e
The report identifies both pros and cons and more importantly provides references to key documentation from which it draws its conclusions.
I haven't seen many balanced arguments coming from those against the scheme, mostly very emotive language which smacks of nimbyism and a narrow field of vision. I appreciate the setting of the proposed turbine is dear to many people's hearts and therefore its not surprising that emotive language is being used, but its been 90 years since the referenced agreement was signed; we've had a world war, been to the moon & Mars and seen the publishing of scores of peer-reviewed, scholarly articles since 1920 acknowledging anthropogenic influences on climate change. The world is a very different place now and hard decisions have to be made.
PS Move 5 yards either way up or down the bank and the key view across the weir remains unchanged - that seems to be the principle argument against the scheme which has a fairly simple answer! Plus the viewing platform would likely make the view more accessible.
I'll stop now.......

beardedclam wrote:
Another case of historians stuck in the past.

NOT TRUE. No one voting against the proposal is against renewable energy. Everyone at the History Club is FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY! But - the proposal is wrong. The research has not been done by the council (they didn't even know that the land was only gifted to them for the purpose of leisure NOT BUSINESS) and they've already wasted TONS OF MONEY on a proposal that is very weak. And if you care about renewable energy - you want it in the right place and you want it to be effective.
And, for anyone that can appreciate heritage - then Saltaire is also not the place for this project. But a WEAK, ILL THOUGHT OUT PROJECT from a Council that rushes into things, wastes money and doesn't have the guts to back track, is not something I'll support. What a waste of everyone's time and money. And shame on Bradford Council.

I urge those who think it will look ok to read the feasibility study (http://www.bradford
.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres
/C2D84C0C-3D48-49AE-
BED3-477D57226990/0/
2011s5535FinalReport
_ISSUED.pdf) which, despite its name, is the Council's plan.

There you will find that the installation will include a trash boom in the river - and it's reasonable to assume that it will catch... trash; that the turbine intake screen, visible from the footbridge, will be 9.5m long, and is designed to intercept... trash; that the 17m long fish ladder will occupy 46 sq m of the river; that there will have to be access routes to the intake for long range excavators.

None of these are featured on the Council's 'visualisation' of the site following construction of the hydro. None of them will enhance the World Heritage Site. Nor will something not mentioned in the Feasibility Study - the necessary safety signs that will adorn the turbine house. There are 8 visible signs on a similar hydro plant at Settle.

I too will stop now...

If the scheme pays for itself in terms of CO2 then great. Perhaps there are better places to put them but probably not in places owned by the CBMDC. (They don't own the roof of Salt's Mill.)

For me a plus is the sympathetic use of modern technology in an area developed by an iconic entrepreneur.

I like dizziebmares comment. ;-)

Anyway, what is happening at Hirst Weir?

Every time I visit Saltair I feel the cars parked outside the residents houses are totally out of keeping with a Victorian heritage site! BAN THEM!.

Whereas water power was one of the drivers for the industrial revolution and is totally in keeping with the Victorian Industrial philosophy!

lesbrook wrote:
I urge those who think it will look ok to read the feasibility study (http://www.bradford

.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres

/C2D84C0C-3D48-49AE-

BED3-477D57226990/0/

2011s5535FinalReport

_ISSUED.pdf) which, despite its name, is the Council's plan.

There you will find that the installation will include a trash boom in the river - and it's reasonable to assume that it will catch... trash; that the turbine intake screen, visible from the footbridge, will be 9.5m long, and is designed to intercept... trash; that the 17m long fish ladder will occupy 46 sq m of the river; that there will have to be access routes to the intake for long range excavators.

None of these are featured on the Council's 'visualisation' of the site following construction of the hydro. None of them will enhance the World Heritage Site. Nor will something not mentioned in the Feasibility Study - the necessary safety signs that will adorn the turbine house. There are 8 visible signs on a similar hydro plant at Settle.

I too will stop now...

One would hope the Council will put in place a regular 'trash' collection routine to help preserve the view. Indeed, the build up of trash would likely reduce the head available to the turbine and therefore decrease its efficiency, therefore it will be in the Council's interest to do so.
With regard to footprint of the scheme, signage and impacts on views, I refer back to my original comment: hard choices have to be made.
The feasibility report acknowledges the World Heritage status, identifies that the development would have to be in keeping with the designation and its setting and therefore I seriously doubt that the council would adorn the generator housing and railings with brightly coloured stickers bought from a local hardware store.

Olicia wrote:

beardedclam wrote:
Another case of historians stuck in the past.

NOT TRUE. No one voting against the proposal is against renewable energy. Everyone at the History Club is FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY! But - the proposal is wrong. The research has not been done by the council (they didn't even know that the land was only gifted to them for the purpose of leisure NOT BUSINESS) and they've already wasted TONS OF MONEY on a proposal that is very weak. And if you care about renewable energy - you want it in the right place and you want it to be effective.
And, for anyone that can appreciate heritage - then Saltaire is also not the place for this project. But a WEAK, ILL THOUGHT OUT PROJECT from a Council that rushes into things, wastes money and doesn't have the guts to back track, is not something I'll support. What a waste of everyone's time and money. And shame on Bradford Council.

"Weak, ill though out project". Could you elaborate pls?

InterestedLocal76 wrote:

Olicia wrote:

beardedclam wrote:
Another case of historians stuck in the past.

NOT TRUE. No one voting against the proposal is against renewable energy. Everyone at the History Club is FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY! But - the proposal is wrong. The research has not been done by the council (they didn't even know that the land was only gifted to them for the purpose of leisure NOT BUSINESS) and they've already wasted TONS OF MONEY on a proposal that is very weak. And if you care about renewable energy - you want it in the right place and you want it to be effective.
And, for anyone that can appreciate heritage - then Saltaire is also not the place for this project. But a WEAK, ILL THOUGHT OUT PROJECT from a Council that rushes into things, wastes money and doesn't have the guts to back track, is not something I'll support. What a waste of everyone's time and money. And shame on Bradford Council.

"Weak, ill though out project". Could you elaborate pls?

Follow this link:

http://www.saltairev
illage.info/saltaire
_history_0035_hydro-
electric_turbine_pro
posal_090912.html

There are questions as to the efficiency of the scheme, the proximity to the children's playground, the actual cost and the actual savings, as well as the Council investing so much money on this proposal without first ascertaining that the land can be used legally.

I would love an efficient scheme - all for renewable power. But it's so silly to waste money like this. Would you invest your savings in a bank for a pathetic return - or go for the highest interest? Saltaire will not yield the highest interest, even disregarding the issue of its Heritage Status.

"Another case of historians stuck in the past."

If you ask the historian he will tell you water power was designed to be used at the other side of the river in New Mill. A far better place to build and hide a hydro-electric power station in a World Heritage Site!

Olicia wrote:

InterestedLocal76 wrote:

Olicia wrote:

beardedclam wrote: Another case of historians stuck in the past.

NOT TRUE. No one voting against the proposal is against renewable energy. Everyone at the History Club is FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY! But - the proposal is wrong. The research has not been done by the council (they didn't even know that the land was only gifted to them for the purpose of leisure NOT BUSINESS) and they've already wasted TONS OF MONEY on a proposal that is very weak. And if you care about renewable energy - you want it in the right place and you want it to be effective. And, for anyone that can appreciate heritage - then Saltaire is also not the place for this project. But a WEAK, ILL THOUGHT OUT PROJECT from a Council that rushes into things, wastes money and doesn't have the guts to back track, is not something I'll support. What a waste of everyone's time and money. And shame on Bradford Council.

"Weak, ill though out project". Could you elaborate pls?

Follow this link: http://www.saltairev illage.info/saltaire _history_0035_hydro- electric_turbine_pro posal_090912.html There are questions as to the efficiency of the scheme, the proximity to the children's playground, the actual cost and the actual savings, as well as the Council investing so much money on this proposal without first ascertaining that the land can be used legally. I would love an efficient scheme - all for renewable power. But it's so silly to waste money like this. Would you invest your savings in a bank for a pathetic return - or go for the highest interest? Saltaire will not yield the highest interest, even disregarding the issue of its Heritage Status.

Ah, the open letter!
The letter (unlike the feasibility study) reports opinion, not fact. Expressing opinion is of course a democratic rite and ultimately a decision on whether the scheme will go ahead should consider public opinion. However, the feasibility study identifies that the UNESCO designation would dictate the need for the scheme to be sympathetic towards its surroundings and doesn’t suggest that the UNESO designation creates a developmentally-impe
netrable bubble over the park. If the development is done sympathetically, it wouldn’t result in a”.. vast and permanent loss” to the region or nation. With regard to the view across the weir, the scheme as presented would make this view more accessible by drawing pedestrians onto the viewing platform directly from the main thoroughfare through the park.
With regard to scare-mongering on public safety, how many people have fallen in the Aire at that spot in recent years? Yes, the scheme would likely draw more people closer to the water, but the Construction Design & Management regulations would dictate that health & safety risk would be central to the final design. I have no concerns in this regard.
The reference to the boom across the river is simply wrong. The study does not report the need for this.
With regard to energy estimate, the signatory of the letter seemingly prefers to hide the source from which he/she has calculated the equivalent number of cars. Why? If the reference and calculation are correct, why not share the reference and let his/her audience make an informed decision on whether the scheme is right or wrong.
With regard to the suggestion of use of Council money to insulate and glaze the homes of the privileged few owners of Salt’s houses, where is the public education and wider ecological benefit of that? A very weak suggestion.
With regard to the agreement between Roberts and the Council, I refer to my previous posting.