A rallying cry was issued at a public meeting yesterday in a bid to prevent a waste incinerator being built on a former airfield in north Suffolk.

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

More than 200 people turned out to the Eye Airfield Industrial Estate to find out more from local MPs and campaign groups Eye Say No to Waste and the Suffolk Preservation Society.

A 81ha (200 acres) site, off the A140, could be earmarked for a “strategic waste facility” as part of a plan by Suffolk County Council for the next 15 years, although only five hectares (12 acres) would actually be used.

Almost 90 people submitted their objections to the Eye proposals during a county council public consultation last year but at the meeting protesters said this was flawed and the real number was a lot higher. Around 250 people have currently signed a petition on the council’s website objecting to the plans at Eye.

Speaking at the meeting Central Suffolk and Ipswich North MP Daniel Polter said he would fight “tooth and nail” with those who were against the incinerator.

“I think it’s very important when we do hear talk of waste disposal we do hear what the people say and have openness and transparency. We’re 100pc behind people if the plan comes in,” he said.

Director of the Suffolk Preservation Society, Simon Cairns, said he believed the land would better used to create employment for future generations and incinerators should be located at the points of origin of the waste.

“If we were in the middle of a busy urban area then we would be have to deal with it but this is far away from where the waste will come from,” he said.

“A lot of the site could be used for quality agriculture and to not use it for that purpose in this day and age seems bonkers.”

Proposals have already been submitted for an incinerator at Great Blakenham, near Ipswich, which would burn more than 200,000 tonnes of household waste a year and power 30,000 homes. However, campaigners fear that the Eye Airfield could become home to a non-domestic waste incinerator capable of processing 100,000 tonnes a year.

Last month a week-long EDP series highlighted a similar incinerator planned for Kings Lynn.

Norfolk County Council believes up to 170,000 tonnes of waste a year could be burned at the plant, instead of going into landfill, however campaigners claim emissions will cause health problems.

Suffolk MP David Ruffley said the concerns about the Eye incinerator were threefold and included a possible increase in traffic, pollutants and the need for democracy by listening to constituents.

His comments echoed much of the public feeling.

Robert Moore, 64, who attended with his wife Lesley, 62, from the nearby village of Stuston, said: “I know these things have to go somewhere but there are more suitable places I think.

“It’s going to clog the A140 up terribly and that road is a lifeline to Norfolk. You don’t want it blocked up with heavy and dirty lorries. We want to know if they’re going to listen to all these people.”

A final decision is expected to be made by Suffolk County Council on March 17.

rebecca.gough@archant.co.uk

3 comments

  • http:www.youtube.comwatch?v=ioQCupfm7xA This issue is not just local but its international. The policy is clearly wrong. We should be investing in the recycling of our critical resources now, it is simply not sustainable. It is inevitable that we have to recycle, whatever the cost. Its incredible that Eye was considered, the location just yards next to a school and hospital. To consider industrial waste pumping out into the atmosphere, dioxins, the most dangerous chemicals known to man, and heavy metals such a mercury and led, at the very least, that can't be filtered safely, being fed to our local community. There is evidence by worldwide waste experts that the monitoring systems are ineffective with the most dangerous emissions not being monitored at all, i.e. below 10 microns. These enter our lungs and cause cancer and other major health problems, heart, respiratory, etc.. Those that are monitored, are done by the waste operators, rather than an independent source!!. Its a win win for waste operators, and a lose lose for the tax payer!. We have to a guarantee their income irregardless of whether waste is available to burn in mass quantities, so our rates bills will rise year on year. So given technology in future, and more effective recycling, or indeed when the resources run out which is inevitable, particularly given the mass increase in wealth in Asia and mass population growth, the local taxpayer will foot the bill for the term of the contract, typcially 15-25 years! The Government needs to rethink this policy. Lets not repeat the problems of led and asbestos. There are experts on both sides of the fence, and when the stakes are so high, cancer, surely the right thing to do is to err on the side of caution. Lets protect jobs, CO2 emissions, our health,our resources, the planet, in preference to the profitability of the waste incinerator operators. These are spreading country wide and its not a solution for the 21st century. Its time industry took accountability for its pollution and the Government opened their eyes to alternative waste expert views!. The USA have listened to their people, experts, evaluated the incineration from energy, and concluded that it is not energy efficient, they are real health threats, its not economic, , and bad solution for the 21st century. From 2007 onwards no further incinerators are being built in the USA. I think they have learnt from the past, they have real issues with pollution.

    Report this comment

    worzal

    Monday, February 28, 2011

  • 'Non domestic' is a code for industrial and hazardous waste. Ipswichs concrete manufactureres are already allowed to burn liquid industrial waste, thinners, paint residues and old oil in their incinerator, releasing volatile organic compounds, dioxins and other chemicals in undiscolsed and unregulated quantitites. It is not just an issue for Eye, it is also an issue for South Norfolk who will bear the brunt of the emissions from Sole to Hoxne and Harleston. Incinerators do nothing for recycling and if Cambridge can recycle 71% of its waste, so should Suffolk abnd Norfolk.

    Report this comment

    ingo wagenknecht

    Monday, February 28, 2011

  • http:www.youtube.comwatch?v=ioQCupfm7xA This issue is not just local but its international. The policy is clearly wrong. We should be investing in the recycling of our critical resources now, it is simply not sustainable. It is inevitable that we have to recycle, whatever the cost. Its incredible that Eye was considered, the location just yards next to a school and hospital. To consider industrial waste pumping out into the atmosphere, dioxins, the most dangerous chemicals known to man, and heavy metals such a mercury and led, at the very least, that can't be filtered safely, being fed to our local community. There is evidence by worldwide waste experts that the monitoring systems are ineffective with the most dangerous emissions not being monitored at all, i.e. below 10 microns. These enter our lungs and cause cancer and other major health problems, heart, respiratory, etc.. Those that are monitored, are done by the waste operators, rather than an independent source!!. Its a win win for waste operators, and a lose lose for the tax payer!. We have to a guarantee their income irregardless of whether waste is available to burn in mass quantities, so our rates bills will rise year on year. So given technology in future, and more effective recycling, or indeed when the resources run out which is inevitable, particularly given the mass increase in wealth in Asia and mass population growth, the local taxpayer will foot the bill for the term of the contract, typcially 15-25 years! The Government needs to rethink this policy. Lets not repeat the problems of led and asbestos. There are experts on both sides of the fence, and when the stakes are so high, cancer, surely the right thing to do is to err on the side of caution. Lets protect jobs, CO2 emissions, our health,our resources, the planet, in preference to the profitability of the waste incinerator operators. These are spreading country wide and its not a solution for the 21st century. Its time industry took accountability for its pollution and the Government opened their eyes to alternative waste expert views!. The USA have listened to their people, experts, evaluated the incineration from energy, and concluded that it is not energy efficient, they are real health threats, its not economic, , and bad solution for the 21st century. From 2007 onwards no further incinerators are being built in the USA. I think they have learnt from the past, they have real issues with pollution.

    Report this comment

    worzal

    Monday, February 28, 2011

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

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Homes24
Jobs24
Drive24
MyDate24
MyPhotos24
FamilyNotices24
Weddingsite

loading...
Click here to read more of our digital publications

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT