Council bosses rule out study on A140 impact of extra lorries taking Norfolk’s waste to be burned in Suffolk

Traffic heads through Long Stratton on the A140. Photograph Simon Parker Traffic heads through Long Stratton on the A140. Photograph Simon Parker

Saturday, July 26, 2014
6:30 AM

The number of lorries which will carry Norfolk waste to be burned in Suffolk is so “insignificant” there was no need for an assessment on how it will affect A140 traffic, council bosses have said.

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

Norfolk County Council has signed a deal with their Suffolk counterparts to send some of the county’s household waste to the incinerator – or energy from waste plant – at Great Blakenham, when it is fully operational at the end of the summer.

Suffolk will take 40,000 tonnes of waste – 20pc of Norfolk’s non-recyclable rubbish – a year for at least two years, which council bosses say will save both authorities £1m a year.

Most of the waste that will be sent to Suffolk is currently sent to Aldeby landfill site near Beccles – and comes from households in north Norfolk and Great Yarmouth.

But from next month, the waste will be sent to the Great Blakenham incinerator and will travel in eight HGVs per day - all of them heading up and down the A140.

That will mean 16 trips, with each lorry able to carry up to 25 tonnes of waste. The journeys are due to start in the first week of August.

The A140 heads through Long Stratton, where there has long been calls for a bypass because of the volume of traffic.

But bosses at Norfolk County Council said they did not feel they needed to carry out an assessment of the impact the extra lorries would have on the A140.

They said the number of lorries is so small, compared with the 2,750 HGVs which currently use the road in both directions, that council officers decided that the increase was “so insignificant” that an assessment of the impact on the road was not necessary.

• What do you think? Write, giving full contact details, to the Letters Editor, Prospect House, Rouen Road, Norwich NR1 1RE.

28 comments

  • 'D' aka 'Inactive Account' complains too much as usual - typical behaviour regardless of which person he logs in as. The EDP mods can see the IP addresses of everyone who posts on here - and guess what? He's the only troll in town!

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Fenscape 2

    Friday, August 1, 2014

  • Guess today's WAG NCCnews knocks DBs commercial incinerator contract into touch, NCC won't be a client, or WNDC. They are looking now in a totally different blank canvassnon burner direction for residential waste. Also no planning permission for Willows as Pickles called in.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Rob Whittle

    Thursday, July 31, 2014

  • Of course it must have been a secret meeting or maybe an unarranged one or it did not take place at all. I wonder which.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    democrat

    Tuesday, July 29, 2014

  • IA.No meeting scheduled on the NCC calendar until Sept, details?

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Rob Whittle

    Tuesday, July 29, 2014

  • Very interesting meeting took place yesterday at NCC. The detail looked innocent enough until the dots were joined up. Nuff said.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Inactive Account

    Tuesday, July 29, 2014

  • Poor old Fen 2 still trying to close down anyone with a different view. The multi named campaigner of a thousand faces is still moaning to the EDP..........

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Del Boy

    Tuesday, July 29, 2014

  • Poor 'D' - back to the old tactic of trying to discredit anyone with an anti-incinerator stance as being just one single person on here despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary - I wonder which nonsensical rant will appear from his IP address next? Word has it that the mods at the EDP are closing in on him and working on a fix to shut him up once and for all......

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Fenscape 2

    Tuesday, July 29, 2014

  • HPA 4 page flimsy said the impact of a modern incinerator was the same of a 5km stretch of motorway with pm2.5 particle spewing HGVs, a Guy Fawkes night comparisons blah blah from Enviros Dr M Brookfield rollout incinerator industry consultants spin. Most Norwich folk know why there is an air pollution container at Castle Mall and bus drivers required to turn their engines off if they park for more than couple of minutes. What HPA didn't compute was the predominant, 5km-10km long term downwind effect such as asthmas, COPD, infant mortalities. They took the concentric affect which assumed emissions disperse equally upwind compared to downwind, which scientifically isn't the case. Also their previous studies where based on COMEAP coefficients, virtual studies which didn,t run long term downwind monitoringexposure studies. This is what this HPA retrashed study is about.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Rob Whittle

    Monday, July 28, 2014

  • The reason for the delays on the proposed incinerator at Kings Lynn are very complex from proximity principle to increased pollution close to a densely populated area. It would make sense to wait for the results of the Health Protection Agency Report on birth and general health defects living close to incinerators and should have been ready March 2014. The HPA have extended this until 2015; I assume the final report will open a can of worms after checks on 22 so called modern well run incinerators. The findings may result in existing incinerators situated close to residential areas being too costly to operate and I assume 24 hour independent air quality monitoring comes into effect will be the final straw. Suffolk council will be searching for new customers when Norfolk’s 2 year contract to burn will come to an end. Next year new EU legislation for glass and plastics will have to be recycled and less feedstock for incinerators.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    wattonlad

    Monday, July 28, 2014

  • Didn't take too much effort to get Fen 2 to pop out did it ? Whilst you were enjoying a fine time at the back of the class a few at the front were paying more attention. They became life’s winners. Now examine your situation.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Del Boy

    Monday, July 28, 2014

  • Zzz. Guess we'll all be waiting an extremely long time then. Power corrupts....and 10years witnessing gives insight, spotting detailed mistakes and likely outcomes. I guess you will remember the council meeting back in Dec 2005 that started this burner business? Perhaps you unwisely took out shares in WRG or Cory, when a night at Yarmouth dogs might have been wiser?

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Rob Whittle

    Monday, July 28, 2014

  • "A commercial burner contract won't happen at KL for the reasons given. Additionally Norman Lambs mate Vince Cable will call it in."..........Spoken like someone who is in power. Problem is you are not. Wait and see the flaws in your argument show in the next few weeks.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Del Boy

    Sunday, July 27, 2014

  • Will Vince still be in power though ? Probably not.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Canary Brain

    Sunday, July 27, 2014

  • A commercial burner contract won't happen at KL for the reasons given. Additionally Norman Lambs mate Vince Cable will call it in. Probability for the Willows is a recycling centre or a material worksother technology facility of a much reduced size.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Rob Whittle

    Sunday, July 27, 2014

  • Yep. Only a few lorries so no probs. Even less probs sending it to the new facility in Lynn in 2 years time. Nothing like evidence.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Del Boy

    Sunday, July 27, 2014

  • Sending waste the same weight of 2 invincable aircraft carrier 40-50 miles south does have an significant impact. Its not obviously sustainable. Common sense tells this. OK its a necessary 2 year stop gap. Officers should be earning their coin getting in 70% recycling NWP strategy and better smaller modularised residual technology for about 100,000tpa county wise that is a possible residual target for Norfolk. Currently officers have gone to ground on long term solutions.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Rob Whittle

    Sunday, July 27, 2014

  • I'm with you Mick B, incidiously boring and tedious link that. I'm sure that Cllr. Thomas has the time to do her own study, with extra spin added, thats what she does. I would not want to waste money on a study when I know that vital services to the elderly, children and disabled are cut.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    ingo wagenknecht

    Sunday, July 27, 2014

  • Yarmouth may have voted in favour of incineration citizen but when the question was posed on radio a while back the councillor who agreed Gt. Yarmouth would be happy to have an incinerator was promptly voted out of office at the next election! Now who are the nimby's?

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Sandy.L

    Saturday, July 26, 2014

  • Better still, what about the biomass plants proposed for Yarmouth Outer Harbour? Why not take Norfolk's household waste to Yarmouth and burn it there? American biomass plants burn household waste (11%) so why not do it here? And Yarmouth District Council voted in favour of incineration so they won't object!

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Citizen of EUSSR

    Saturday, July 26, 2014

  • It's ridiculous to take Norfolk's waste to Suffolk. Why don't we just build an incinerator on the Council owned Coltishall airfield site and burn everything there?

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Norfolk and Good

    Saturday, July 26, 2014

  • And to think Councillor Thomas demanded a bypass for Long Stratton if waste from Norfolk was to travel down the A140 to Suffolk! Bless her little cotton socks.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Canary Boy

    Saturday, July 26, 2014

  • Indeed Albert. NIMBY's are fine with burning waste in Suffolk. Just not in their back yard.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    christoph

    Saturday, July 26, 2014

  • In the scheme of things of course it is "insignificant" - that big grain shipment last year from the Yarmouth Outer Harbour required 100 lorries to fill one vessel.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Mick Castle

    Saturday, July 26, 2014

  • I agree with MickB1 about the stupid banner that occupies the lower part of the screen. Because the EDP has such a slow and clunky website it often takes a while before the content is settled enough to close this annoying pop-up.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    JCW

    Saturday, July 26, 2014

  • I don't understand why the waste from Thetford, Long Stratton, Diss, Harleston and other places nearer the Suffolk border will not be carted to Great Blakenham in preference to waste from further north. Cuts mileage, reduces cost, lowers pollution, and increases safety.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    JCW

    Saturday, July 26, 2014

  • A Total Farce !! Its fine to burn rubbish in Siffolk but not in Norfolk !

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Albert Cooper

    Saturday, July 26, 2014

  • I AM FED UP WITH THE POLLPAY .CO.UK POP UP ON “EVERY SCREEN I VISIT ON EDP WEBSITE” TAKE IT OFF EDP

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    MickB1

    Saturday, July 26, 2014

  • Good, no point wasting money on unnecessary things.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    christoph

    Saturday, July 26, 2014

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

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Norfolk Weather

Partly Cloudy

Partly Cloudy

max temp: 20°C

min temp: 13°C

Five-day forecast

loading...

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT