Here’s a ‘potted history’ of the campaign activity surrounding the Marley waste incinerator:
Currently in the ‘consultation period with the Environment Agency. The ‘consultation’ ends on 13/12/18.
Endless Energy apply for an Environmental permit, without which the plant cannot operate.
AVAI is refused the right to appeal the JR ruling.
AVAI applies for an Appeal against the High Court of Justice’s dismissal of the Judicial Review against BMDC.
The High Court of Justice dismisses the AVAI Judicial Review which challenged the granting of planning permission for the Marley Incinerator.
AVAI go to the High Court of Justice with their Judicial Review against BMDC for their 2017 planning approval for the Marley incinerator.
Date set for the Judicial Review. This will be held in Leeds on the 15/16th January 2018.
A very well attended public update meeting held to update everyone on the campaign so far and the status of the Judicial Review. Anti-incineration MP for Keighley & Ilkley, Mr. John Grogan also spoke at the event.
At the request of the Bradford Diocese Deanery Synod, we meet with them to update them on our campaign. BMDC and Endless Energy were also invited but they chose not to attend.
Judicial Review application accepted and the case designated as ‘significant’ – this means it is getting the serious attention it deserves.
We hold another site protest which is well covered again by the press, television and social media.
On the 27th of July we feature in a 20 minute feature on waste incineration on the BBC’s ‘Look North’ program.
AVAI’s expert environmental barristers serve their legal challenge to Bradford Council. Bradford Council exceed the 21 day time limit to respond that they are still happy to challenge us in court.
We hold another public meeting at a packed venue to update the public with regards to the campaign and our fundraising efforts.
We sent a ‘Letter Before Claim’ to Bradford Council. This letter states that AVAI intend to legally challenge Bradford Council and offers them the option to rescind the approved 2017 planning application and avoid costly legal proceedings.
Bradford Council indicate that they will not rescind the approved 2017 planning application.
We held a peaceful protest at the site of the Marley incinerator.
The Secretary of State ruled that he would not overturn the planning consent as it did not meet his criteria of being against national interest.
We put in a request to the Secretary of State to ‘call in’ (review) the newly approved application. As a result, the Council were instructed to put the planning permission ‘on hold’ until the Secretary of State made a ruling.
We held a march and rally in protest against the proposed Marley incinerator which was attended by 800 people and was well covered by local newspapers, television and social media.
We hold a public meeting to update the public on the newly passed plans and who we plan to fight them. We also announce our new fundraising goals to fund a ‘Judicial Review.
The meeting was attended by around 150 local residents.
The applicants re-submitted plans for what appears to be a slightly modified version of their 2015 application. Despite opposition from several thousand members of the public and from members of Keighley and Bingley Town Councils, Bradford Councillors voted to approve the application.
The applicants had not started any work on the site, but they submitted new plans for a much larger facility. It was at this time that AVAI was formed. We distributed leaflets informing people of the new plans for a plant which would be 6 metres higher than the approved 2014 scheme. However, it must be noted that the tyre burning plant had been removed from the new scheme. This time around there was much more opposition and the scheme was refused planning permission on the grounds that it was simply too big and would not look right in its surroundings.
Planning permission was granted for an incinerator, a tyre burning plant and a plastics processing facility.
The Council met their legal requirement in notifying residents, by sending letters to 23 households. AVAI argue that they could and should have done more due to the sheer size of the development, potential for pollution and the associated health risks.
Needless to say there was very little public opposition at this time due to the lack of public awareness.