Harrogate Spring Water's £17m expansion claim covers wider regional spending

Harrogate Spring Water's £17m expansion claim covers wider regional spending

Harrogate Spring Water says its proposed factory expansion will generate an additional £17 million in annual supplier spending, but only around half of that increase is expected to go to Harrogate, North Yorkshire and Leeds combined.

Responding to questions from The Harrogate Informer, the company confirmed that the £17 million represents projected additional annual spending once the expansion is fully operational, rather than its total annual supplier expenditure.

A spokesperson said the remaining increase would benefit businesses across the wider northern economy, including elsewhere in Yorkshire.

The company has not provided a separate figure for the amount of additional spending expected to benefit Harrogate itself.

Harrogate Spring Water said the expansion was also expected to create more than 50 additional jobs in Harrogate, with most site workers living in or near the town.

The company added that Leeds-based suppliers, less than 20 miles from the factory, could see their annual spending increase by 89% to just over £16 million.

New pipeline connects a new borehole

Harrogate Spring Water has confirmed that its new pipeline from Killinghall connects the factory to a new borehole rather than directly replacing an existing connection.

The company said the project would not increase its existing abstraction limit. Its Environment Agency licence permits it to abstract up to 464 million litres of water annually from local underground sources, although the company has previously said it does not extract the maximum permitted amount.

Asked what operational limitation or risk had prompted the new pipeline, a spokesperson said there was no single specific factor behind the decision.

A spokesperson for Harrogate Spring Water said: It is standard practice when managing a natural source to prudently manage the use of connections to a range of boreholes.

The company said it had paid for the pipeline and associated works. It did not provide further details about the operational circumstances that led to the project, or disclose the ownership arrangements for the relevant land.