Norfolk’s rubbish could be heading down the A140 to Suffolk, if councils can strike a deal

An artist's impression of the new incinerator which is due to open in Great Blakenham this summer. An artist's impression of the new incinerator which is due to open in Great Blakenham this summer.

Tuesday, May 6, 2014
8:10 AM

Rubbish from Norfolk looks increasingly likely to be heading for Suffolk to be burned, with council leaders set to agree a deal for waste to be incinerated over the border.

To send a link to this page to a friend, you must be logged in.

Norfolk County Council last month voted to pull the plug on the contract for an incinerator to be built and run at King’s Lynn, after officers said it no longer offered value for money.

That has left the council looking for alternative ways to deal with its waste. Talks had already taken place with Suffolk County Council over whether it could be burned at the Great Blakenham incinerator, which is due to open this summer.

And, at a meeting of the controlling Labour/Liberal Democrat cabinet next week, councillors will be asked to push ahead with an attempt to strike a deal with Suffolk.

Officers want councillors to give them the green light to try to enter into an agreement which would see a maximum of 50,000 tonnes a year sent to Suffolk to be burned.

The council is looking to send 35,000 tonnes of waste to Suffolk - which would mean about 50 lorry trips a day up and down the A140.

The initial term of such a deal would be limited to no longer than three years and any agreement would have to save Norfolk County Council more than £10,000 a year.

The cost per tonne would be based on a combination of Suffolk County Council’s actual costs, a proportional share of the council’s overheads and the cost of getting the rubbish to Great Blakenham.

Officers state that Suffolk County Council would not be able to generate a profit from dealing with Norfolk’s waste and acknowledge that such a deal will hinge on whether it would be commercially and contractually viable.

The Great Blakenham incinerator has capacity for 269,000 tonnes of waste a year and a commitment from Suffolk to send 170,000 tonnes a year.

Norfolk produces 210,000 tonnes of rubbish a year, so the Suffolk solution would not be a complete one.

Norfolk currently sends waste to Kent to be burned, to landfill and has a contract for waste to be dealt with at a mechanical biological treatment plant in Cambridgeshire.

A spokeswoman for Norfolk County Council said: “This gives the green light to work on the detail that could lead to a formal arrangement and it sets out the criteria for such an agreement.

“If those details proved to be acceptable, this type of solution with a neighbouring authority would definitely give us more options and flexibility for dealing with some of the household waste that is generated in Norfolk every year after we’ve recycled.”

Norfolk County Council’s cabinet will make its decision on Monday.

• Do you have a story about a local council? Call public affairs correspondent Dan Grimmer on 01603 772375 or email dan.grimmer@archant.co.uk

48 comments

  • I've given up trying to find the infinitesimal differences between the three big parties Maryjane. Their colours should be a sludgy mix of red, blue and yellow to match their politics. Perhaps we can buy a tie in that colour for Gnobbs as a retirement present. It might persuade him not to bare his chest and frighten the horses.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    alecto

    Sunday, May 11, 2014

  • Norfolk and Suffolk Councils have been working together on this for well over a year, initially it was to cover the time Saddlebow was being built. This is nothing new, ask Anne Gibson and Mark Allen.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Honest John

    Saturday, May 10, 2014

  • Dear Alecto-your little homily reminds me of the nursrey rhyme -Little Boy Bue......perhaps it is relevant except that being a LIb Dem perhaps it should be Little Boy Yellow?

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    maryjane

    Saturday, May 10, 2014

  • Now that it is Spring surely he will be getting his cows out onto green pasture. Very busy time of year. Surprised he has the time to do this. Anyway, having spent years with cows he will now have to put up with a load of bull.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    alecto

    Saturday, May 10, 2014

  • Oh come on Mary Jane don’t be so hasty, it’s only been 4 weeks since his appointment!! NCC don’t want anything looked into too closely do they, 8 weeks to do it, 4 weeks before he starts, part time of course and on his own, that ought to be enough time for Henry, Liz, Eric and Borat to get the blame.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Honest John

    Friday, May 9, 2014

  • Hats off to Fly Tipper for showing complete ignor.ance of how incinerator companies make a profit or one of the carrots they used to entice gull.ible councils. If you hadn’t been quite so r.ude I would have explained it in detail. I would say best go off and find out, but after all these years down the road without bothering, chances are you won’t now.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Honest John

    Friday, May 9, 2014

  • ....."Sita have publicly admitted they will make £1 billion over the contract life"....so that works out at a profit of £150 per tonne of processed waste. Even working at full capacity 247 at a gate price of £150 would not generate this sort of profit, so where did you pluck this fanciful figure from, the anti-incineration book of inflated facts? Perhaps they have factored in councils like Norfolk (without incineration) having to pay premium rates.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Fly Tipper

    Friday, May 9, 2014

  • Has anyone found out where Steven Revell is-not a word since his appointment as Grand Inquisitor.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    maryjane

    Friday, May 9, 2014

  • Has anyone found out where Steven Revell is-not a word since his appointment as Grand Inquistitor.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    maryjane

    Friday, May 9, 2014

  • Nimbyism hey Daisy, 66% of Parish Councils objected to the incinerator, are you implying they were all in West Norfolk? Blakenham is the same size as that proposed for Saddlebow, treating the same amount of Suffolk’s waste as intended for Saddlebow, and the same 100,000 tpa spare capacity for non-contract waste in order to make a profit, which can be brought in from anywhere, just as Saddlebow. Sita have publicly admitted they will make £1 billion over the contract life, and CW would have done the same. I was told last November when I visited Blakenham that it needed both Norfolk and London waste to make a profit, and the Gnobbs is echoing their generous attempts to help Norfolk out! What a j.oke. Our waste has been going to Nottingham and Kent’s incinerators because they too have been desp.erate for it, supply and demand keeps the non-contract price down, but NCC have no negotiating skills, and according to Monsoon paying the top end price in the UK of over £100 per tonne. West Norfolk has all the landfill sites because the rest of Norfolk wish to remain unspoilt, I’d call that gross nimbyism. As for railways for transport, jumped on by the imp.ostor post, West Norfolk has what, 15 miles of rail track going south to Cambridge? What about Gt Yarmouth’s recycling rates, and don’t go blaming E.Europeans, we have far more than you here, but our local council has managed to increase WN rates to almost double those of Yarmouth, who have sat back and done nothing, happy for taxpayers to fund the unnecessary costs of it going to landfill or the incinerator across the other side of the county. Gt Yarmouth councillors should be asha.med of themselves!

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Honest John

    Thursday, May 8, 2014

  • Whilst I feel sorry for those along the A140 I cant help but laugh at Alison Thomas, one of the twits who allowed this contract to be signed without planning permission in place. Serves you right and as Fenscape says, it's come back to bite you.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    alecto

    Thursday, May 8, 2014

  • Fen, I see the leader of Breckland -after Nu.nn left office- is sque.eling like a stuck pi.g because his district may have to pay towards CW's seeming uncontested maximum com.pensation claim. If his council, and John Ful.lers sth Norfolk, had not signed Mur.phys template letter beg.ging Sp.elman to release the PFI credits because of their districts full support the pfi would not have been granted, the contract would not have been signed CW would have moved to pastures new and all of us would not have to gift over 30 million to CW. All district councils, other than West Norfolk and Norwich, who fully supported Mur.phy are as much to blame as NCC as they all co.nspired to persuade Spe.lman that there was county wide support for the pet project.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Canary Boy

    Thursday, May 8, 2014

  • The distances between Norwich and Great Blakenham and Norwich and King`s Lynn are virtually the same. Hence as most waste is produced in Norwich (and the east) it would actually be less polluting to move it to Great Blakenham. In any event this is only a temporary solution whilst Norfolk looks at modern, cleaner forms of waste disposal. Why continue to harp on about The Willows incinerator when it will not be built? Time to move on.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    democrat

    Thursday, May 8, 2014

  • Not at all.... the unfortunate truth is that NCC are determined to incinerate waste come what may, despite what they keep getting told by the electorate to the contrary. By the by I would also point out that Councillor Thomas smugly thought that incineration was a wonderful idea when she was a cabinet member and she wholeheartedly supported the idea of having all of Norfolk's waste ferried along the A47 to Lynn through various villages along the way. Amazingly enough, the same Councillor Thomas is on record as begging NCC to build a bypass around Long Stratton not two months ago when all that waste was diverted past her front door en route to Suffolk instead. How surprising. On top of that, we now have to listen to Cllr John Fuller adding his voice to the pro-bypass lobby - the same Cllr Fuller who sent off a letter to Caroline Spelman (on Derrick Murphy's say so) without his council's mandate saying that he also thought that an incinerator over the other side of the county would be a great idea... be careful what you wish for John as it seems to have come back to bite you!!!

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Fenscape

    Thursday, May 8, 2014

  • democrat- Moving waste around the country simply moves the problem elsewhere and increases pollution in the process. Many of the arguments against incineration in Norfolk were that waste disposal by EFW was harmful to health and the environment. It's ironic then that it'll still be burnt and the pollution caused will be added to by unnecessary transportation from Norfolk into Suffolk. Lets, just hope that the wind doesn't carry some of the pollution back into Norfolk or is that too much of an inconvenient truth?

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Bad Form

    Thursday, May 8, 2014

  • Off you go then D.icky - put your money where your mouth is and do something about it.... Maybe you might like to start your own opposition group and lobby NCC if you don't like it. And the very best of luck to you too - maybe you'd like to start up a 'dodgy poll' of your own eh? Sauce for the goose and all that.....

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Fenscape

    Thursday, May 8, 2014

  • ....and of course Bad Form, the rubbish would have made its own way to King`s Lynn!

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    democrat

    Wednesday, May 7, 2014

  • I seem to remember that a lot of the opposition to the incinerator was made on the basis it wan't green and that the risks were to health by incineration were too high? Well, the transportation of waste from Norfolk to Suffolk, if it goes ahead, will invariably involve lorry loads of the stuff being moved every day. 'If' the trendy green's who were in opposition to the incinerator were as well versed with what causes pollution and ill health they'd know that diesel fumes and particulates from burning diesel is implicated in cancer, heart and respiratory disease. Still, I suppose the thousands of extra lorries on the roads to Suffolk will be out of sight and away from Kings Lynn for most of the journey, so that's OK!

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Bad Form

    Wednesday, May 7, 2014

  • Nimbyism hey Daisy, 66% of Parish Councils objected to the incinerator, are you implying they were all in West Norfolk? Blakenham is the same size as that proposed for Saddlebow, treating the same amount of Suffolk’s waste as was intended for Saddlebow, and the same 100,000 tpa spare capacity for non-contract waste in order to make a profit, which can be brought in from anywhere, just as Saddlebow. Sita have publicly admitted they will make £1 billion over the contract life, and CW would have done the same. I was told last November when I visited Blakenham that it needed both Norfolk and London waste to make a profit, and the Gnobbs is echoing their generous attempts to help Norfolk out! What a joke. Our waste has been going to Nottingham and Kent’s incinerators because they too have been desperate for it, supply and demand keeps the non-contract price down, but NCC have no negotiating skills, and according to Monson paying the top end price in the UK of over £100 per tonne. West Norfolk has all the landfill sites because the rest of Norfolk wish to remain unspoilt, I’d call that gross nimbyism. As for railways for transport, jumped on by the impostor post, West Norfolk has what, 15 miles of rail track going south to Cambridge? What about Gt Yarmouth’s recycling rates, and don’t go blaming the E.Europeans, we have far more than you here, but our local council has managed to increase WN rates to almost double those of Yarmouth, who have sat back and done nothing, happy for taxpayers to fund the unnecessary costs of it going to landfill or the incinerator across the other side of the county. Gt Yarmouth councillors should be ashamed of themselves!

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Honest John

    Wednesday, May 7, 2014

  • ...and before Daisy starts chuntering too, the reason that NCC didn't submit any supporting info for that sheet is because the PR people working for CW told them not to as they were worried it might backfire on them. (The email confirming this has been in the public domain for a while now.) Still, it's a good yarn for the folks down the pub to say otherwise I suppose.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Fenscape

    Wednesday, May 7, 2014

  • Back again D.icky? Let's stick to the facts shall we? The Inspector has not 'dismissed' anything in her report and the poll was conducted under the gaze of the Electoral Commission. You're just sore because the vote didn't go the way you wanted it - no wonder you're calling foul.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Fenscape

    Wednesday, May 7, 2014

  • The so called 'poll' was dodgy because it went out with a sheet telling people which way to vote which is unlawful. For example it would be the same as an election and Daubney sending out polling cards with a letter advising them to vote Tory. That is why it has been dismissed by the Inspector in her report.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Lyn from Lynn

    Wednesday, May 7, 2014

  • Daisy.The `dodgy poll` was run by a well known and respected company who are frequently involved with opinion polls at all scales and levels within the UK. The very high turn out was partly due to it being a postal vote and also because most folk here thought the issue to be very important. Norfolk could have run its own poll if needs be, which judging by parish council votes and individual opinion polls from years ago would also have been anti-incinerator. Why should the campaign continue, as you suggest, if it`s now been cancelled? These are now irrelevant issues as the debate has moved on. What the county does with the waste is now relevant and there should be a look at what and why things went wrong. This should NOT be done internally within Norfolk. There must be safeguards to stop something similar taking place again.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    democrat

    Wednesday, May 7, 2014

  • Those who say that more lorry movements on the roads of the county (whichever) are absolutely right. The only sensible solution is to use rail. It makes sense to do so at off peak times in order not to compromise the passenger traffic during the peak. Let's hope that our highly competent county councillors will have the sense to specify use of rail to transport the waste to whatever destination they end up deciding upon.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Honest John

    Tuesday, May 6, 2014

  • A few observations; a councillor from a quiet hamlet just off the A140 was pro-incinerator for Kings Lynn. The day of the meeting when the burner contract was ripped up, she had concerns if waste is sent to Suffolk burner the Lorries would a problem as they would disturb her voters! NIMBY! 35000 tonnes to Suffolk would be less intrusive visibility and pollution value than 170000 plus tonnes to Kings Lynn and 1100 lorry movements per week. This councillor does not realise residents of Kings Lynn would have to endure living with an overpriced substandard incinerator. As well as the extra thousands of Lorries nestled in an area of poor air quality. I wonder if MR D Roots another NIMBY lives along the A140 corridor as he has been very knowledgeable about this area in the EDP over the past few years.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Interpol

    Tuesday, May 6, 2014

  • Our neighbours are desperate for our rubbish. It is the only way that they can run this thing without losing money. So if the Norfolk incinerator had been up and running if there hadn't been a little local unrest in Kings Lynn they would have both been in a financial muddle.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    alecto

    Tuesday, May 6, 2014

  • Indeed canaryboy and they have, by their decision increasaed the dumping of hazardous substances such as paints and asbestos. Zero waste sites should be backed up by a gas plasma plant, which will reduce landfill, because when it has not much household waste to deal with, it can use landfill waste to make gas, to drive cars, to make electricity, to heat homes. And its cheaper than what was proposed. It also sorts the compost from the metals which are both instant returns, it is emission free. NCC is refusing to re visit the 2006 landfill survey and start investigating our landfill sites, its not doing JS at present, apart from slowing down an Inquiery by an underqualified person for the task.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    ingo wagenknecht

    Tuesday, May 6, 2014

  • I have been reading loads of Suffolk CC communication documents this morning and think it is really interesting to see how much more careful they are than their counterparts in Norfolk. Particularly interesting is that prior to going ahead and charging their residents to dispose of waste at rural household waste recycling centres, Suffolk the more professional council, applied to the government asking that for a legal change to allow HWRC charging to be a local decision. The government refused!! Norfolk, as we all know, have started charging at our rural Household Waste Recycling Centres even after Brandon Lewis pointed out it would be illegal to do so. Anyone surprised that once again NCC's leg.al department have been left wanting as has the Director of Environment Transport and Development and cabinet member for waste -how appropriate- David Harrison. Anyone think the taxpayer may have to either compensate anyone paying the fee or a fine from the government for charging when they are not allowed too? If you have paid at one of these centres I would hang on to your receipts.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Canary Boy

    Tuesday, May 6, 2014

  • Dumping our rubbish on our neighbours is wrong. It is our problem so we should be able to come up with a solution. As Daisy states. You cannot recycle everything so you are left with landfill ot incineration. Use incineration to generate power and you have a double win. As far as accidents county wide are concerned there are a number of councillors elected locally and they are there to support and represent their constituents. I don't hear North Norfolk or West Norfolk calling in support of a by pass in South Norfolk. If we are now transporting our waste throughout the county we need to consider better use of railways to avoid polluting all our villages.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Andy T

    Tuesday, May 6, 2014

  • This is further evidence that South Norfolk Tories have lost the internal power battle within the Conservative party.After ceeding the Tory leadership to North Norfolk,they now face opposition for increased traffic movements.The South Norfolk Tories are losing their grip.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Peter Watson

    Tuesday, May 6, 2014

  • Just had to take the weedki.ller to the front garden our lawn is literally covered in daisies if we just mow them, rather than destroy the roots, the dratted things just keep popping up all over the place time.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Canary Boy

    Tuesday, May 6, 2014

  • Just had to take the weedkiller to the front garden our lawn is literally covered in daisies if we just mow them, rather than destroy the roots, the dratted things just keep popping up all over the place time.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Canary Boy

    Tuesday, May 6, 2014

  • Does anyone know the whereabouts of Steven Revell, inquisitor extrordinaire, has he moved to Suffolk?

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    maryjane

    Tuesday, May 6, 2014

  • No NIMBYist comments from Councillor Thomas yet? I am surprised! What did she demand if this was to happen, oh yes, a bypass for Long Stratton. We have witnessed several fatal accidents around the village of East Winch in recent months but Cllr Thomas was not calling for a bypass for that tiny village, or Middleton which is equally tiny with the A47 seperating the main residential area from the school, when we were in line for hundreds of lorries containing many more thousands of tonnes of norfolk waste going through their villages. Watch out for the NIMBYs streaming out of other parts of Norfolk now.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Canary Boy

    Tuesday, May 6, 2014

  • Please calm down ladies and gentlemen - other readers don't like it when you start getting personal and abusive. Transferring Norfolk residual waste to the Suffolk incinerator seems sensible. I should just like to know whether arrangements can be made for as much as possible to go on the railway. With a few strategic consolidation sites it should be possible to draw up an economical scheme that avoids clogging the roads up with waste trucks returning empty.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    JCW

    Tuesday, May 6, 2014

  • Daisy roots, you keep peddlin' this idea that we have never been asked, we have been asked as to what waste hirarchy we would like to see in future and we have given our answer in 2000, a long term mandate to reduce, re-use and recycle waste. That you want to add incineration now and cost Norfolk taxpayers a few hundred thousands to have a definite NO to that question, is a ludicrous expense to ask for. You are not only on a different page, you are reading a book on 'expensive gardening' by the sound of it.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    ingo wagenknecht

    Tuesday, May 6, 2014

  • Democrat, no one outside of the Lynn anti campaign could look at the extent of the geographical area covered by the poll ( greater I think than any other district council in Norfolk would have) and the response in comparison with turnouts at elections to think the poll was dodgy. That and the fact that the whole of Norfolk, the people paying for the waste disposal, did not get a say. If the opposition was to an incinerator on principle then I would expect to see the campaign continuing, with head quarters in Lynn. And Ingo, we have been batting posts on enough boards for long enough for you to know I am not a councillor nor a budgie-just not on the exact same page as you on this issue

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Daisy Roots

    Tuesday, May 6, 2014

  • Sweet Cheeks remains blissfully ignorant of the original reason for commissioning the incinerator-the EU landfill tax. That and a shortage of landfill spaces. And the truth that not everything can be recycled. And the lack of transparency about the cost of so called green waste treatment. Someone told me recently that they had seen great heaps of plastics sitting in places in SE Asia-reputedly imported from Europe for recycling but not doing anything. This is the equivalent of shipping waste to Suffolk-but on a global scale. We need an independent review of the truths around recycling-when it is effective, cost and environmentally and energy wise. If burning waste for power produces more energy than recycling would save then that is what we should do. If recycling does conserve non renewable resources then we should do that. Biomass-paper, food, garden waste, should in my opinion, be seen as a valuable energy source. Oh well, I see a new quarry is opening up between Middleton and East Winch-maybe that will solve landfill problems until Norfolk gets its act together.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Daisy Roots

    Tuesday, May 6, 2014

  • Off course cllr. daisy, we have an alternative in our pockets, ready to be whipped out for when you demand it. You are more responsible for Norfolks mishaps than others on here, for you to bluster againsty the so called anti's is false, shout at your mirror if you don't mind. Off course it is ludicrous to ferry our waste down to Suffolk, via Cllr. Allisons patch, she'll be spitting dice, wholly unsustainable at every turn, but look at who is governing us, have they even invited alternative companies for an open day at council to educater cllrs.? NO, instead they are trying to fix their computers so they can talk to each other, plotting schemes for Coltishall and whistling in the wind. Where is the debate about alternatives? Bedoomed makes a good point, Blackbourough end has spare capacity, but its too far from yarmouth's unrecycled waste, no thanks tot cllr. castle, he has proven his incompetence on this matter many times and his lack of expertise shows in his comments. NCC is more concerned with the debt repaym,ent than the environment, let CW whistle for it, they haven't done anything and can wait for the rest of the compensation they do not deserve.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    ingo wagenknecht

    Tuesday, May 6, 2014

  • So by the logic of some pro-incinerator comments here it is unacceptable to send 50 lorry movements a day down the A140 - which i agree with actually. But it was perfectly OK to send many more than that up and down the clogged, dangerous and fatal accident ridden A47? Hhhmmmm.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    d, west lynn

    Tuesday, May 6, 2014

  • `Dodgy polls`. Daisy, I was unaware that you were a Mick Castle supporter. If incineration is as safe as you claim it is, then you presumably think it`s OK that Norfolk waste finds its way to Suffolk for a while, as an interim solution of course. There are plenty of other solutions which solve the problem of rubbish disposal, in a more modern and far less damaging way. It`s a pity that these have never been explored by NCC in the past. One has to wonder why.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    democrat

    Tuesday, May 6, 2014

  • Agree Bed.oomed. Norfolk's rubbish should not be going to Suffolk - we need to find our own 'clean' solutions. I do feel though, that this is more for the benefit of Suffolk than Norfolk as they now have to find enough waste to fulfil the quota at their 'pig in a poke'.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    disolushund

    Tuesday, May 6, 2014

  • Who is this 'spokeswoman' for NCC?

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    maryjane

    Tuesday, May 6, 2014

  • Why should Suffolk have to take Norfolk's rubbish? even if Norfolk does pay Suffolk for the privilege, If Suffolk Council has its head screwed on properly they should make a high charge and make.some good money out of it. just because the local of Kings Lynn didn't want an incinerator on their doorstep. If you go to Eye in Suffolk they have an incinerator at a power station on the side of the A140 which burns chicken manure which surely is worse than burning residental waste.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Lyn Flatt

    Tuesday, May 6, 2014

  • This just proves how useless this council really is, why are they so hell bent on burning things. Why can't they take a year out and look at other solutions of how to handle black bin waste.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Sweet cheeks

    Tuesday, May 6, 2014

  • Many councillors didn't want to see the rubbish burnt in the first place, because of the toxic emissions. So I suppose it doesn't matter if it's burn't in Suffolk does it? Does no one live there? What a bunch of hypocrites.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Old Long Balls

    Tuesday, May 6, 2014

  • Just waiting now for Daubney and all the West Norfolk objectors who whipped up " Green" opposition to the Saddlebow project with all the arguments about Norfolk waste not polluting the environment, to raise their voices against it being burned in Suffolk and to launch a campaign . Raging hypocrites the lot of them. The opposition was only ever about NIMBYism, with a bin full of bad science , dodgy polls and hysteria used to support their campaign which has ended up costing us money.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Daisy Roots

    Tuesday, May 6, 2014

  • To my mind this is just as bad as the Amsterdam idea,although that waste could have gone by ship.Use Blackborough End with the capacity there, just store it not landfill it, until Norfolk based facilities are built.This is Norfolk's mess,why should Suffolk suffer? Not to mention the people living along the roads to Great Blakenham.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    bedoomed

    Tuesday, May 6, 2014

The views expressed in the above comments do not necessarily reflect the views of this site

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Homes24
Jobs24
Drive24
LocalSearch24
MyDate24
MyPhotos24
FamilyNotices24
Weddingsite

loading...

Classifieds, browse or search them online now

The Canary magazine
Order your copy of The Canary magazine

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT