Deal signed to burn Norfolk waste at new Suffolk incinerator

Great Blakenham Incinerator Great Blakenham Incinerator

Thursday, July 17, 2014
8:48 AM

Thousands of tonnes of waste from Norfolk is to be burned at a new incinerator in Suffolk it has been confirmed.

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

The scene at County Hall where the decision was announced to scrap the incinerator. Council leader George Nobbs. Photo: Bill SmithThe scene at County Hall where the decision was announced to scrap the incinerator. Council leader George Nobbs. Photo: Bill Smith

Earlier this year, the EDP revealed that Norfolk County Council was in negotiations with Suffolk 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.

Now a deal has been signed between the two authorities for Suffolk to take 40,000 tonnes of waste – 20pc of Norfolk’s non-recyclable rubbish – a year for at least two years.

It is expected to save both councils about £1 million a year – with Norfolk paying less in landfill tax and Suffolk seeing economies of scale from the plant burning more waste.

The incinerator is currently starting operations in Great Blakenham and is designed to handle up to 269,000 tonnes of waste each year. The operator of the Great Blakenham plant, SITA UK, is seeking further contracts to make sure it runs to maximum efficiency.

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.

The waste will, instead, be transported to Suffolk from next month, and will arrive in eight HGVs per day, using designated lorry routes.

The contrast between the Suffolk and Norfolk incinerators could not be greater – while that in Blakenham has now started operating, Norfolk’s proposal for a plant at Kings Lynn led to years of controversy before the plans were finally abandoned at massive cost earlier this year.

George Nobbs, Norfolk County Council’s leader, said: “It has been a pleasure to work with my fellow leader in Suffolk and set up this new and historic way of sharing services between our two counties.

“This deal demonstrates unequivocally that local authorities like us have the determination, the will, the ability and the maturity to share their services where such arrangements will bring mutual benefits.”

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

50 comments

  • I would imagine you have a lot in common, D.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Fenscape 2

    Thursday, July 24, 2014

  • I know that bloke. Joined one party then another then another and then ended up in something called UKIP. They call him Revolving Doors. He's about as sharp as putty.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Del Boy

    Monday, July 21, 2014

  • Don't think William has the brains to work that much out or write his name or even speak properly. More likely he is a campaigner. Certainly has all the credentials.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Stanley T

    Monday, July 21, 2014

  • I know the one you're on about watton.lad - he was up in the dock not so long ago. Nast.y business - no wonder the Tories did the right thing and ejected him out into the political wilderness. I'd imagine that would give him quite an axe to grind with the likes of Da.ubney and Long, wouldn't it?

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Fenscape 2

    Monday, July 21, 2014

  • I know the one you're on about wattonlad - he was up in court not so long ago. Nasty business - no wonder the Tories did the right thing and ejected him out into the political wilderness. I'd imagine that would give him quite an axe to grind with the likes of Long and Daubney, wouldn't it?

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Fenscape 2

    Monday, July 21, 2014

  • According to you D, MP`s aren`t intelligent, Norfolk County Councillors aren`t intelligent, ant-incinerator campaigners aren`t intelligent and so on. Presumably you are intelligent. I`ve nothing better to do so, I thought I`d write to you. After all, for you, that`s what it`s all about. Isn`t it?

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    democrat

    Monday, July 21, 2014

  • Heres another good un. why don’t we campayners get a few mps to back us up. all ya have to do is give them vote worries by telling them we have fousands of supporters. Thems mps wont know no different and they is not that smart anyways so easy enough to trick i reckons. with a couple o them with us we have more chances right. that way we can do what we want by keeping up the price of our houses so we can sell them at the right money and the mps will think they have all the votes. all of us is winners right.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Local Yokel

    Monday, July 21, 2014

  • ...and I love the way that the local politicians are being side-stepped by a much larger one.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    democrat

    Monday, July 21, 2014

  • Glad to see they decided to burn it somewhere at last. Shows it was the best solution all round. Can't bury it and sorting it out into neat little piles for the Greens to dance around with joined hands dressed as Morris Men is too useless for words. A nice big burner in Lynn is the answer and after a couple of years using this other one it will be proof enough. I love the way those campaigners were side stepped by the local politicians. Priceless.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    John Fisher

    Monday, July 21, 2014

  • Local Yokel eh D? A suitable moniker.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    democrat

    Monday, July 21, 2014

  • watton lad. If you are on about Bill then your info is wrong. He could not bear to be in the same room as him let alone be his best mate. In fact he has no one to call a best mate at any level of office because he is known to say one thing while doing the opposite and no one knows where they are with him. This campaign lot think he is on side but they are in for a shock.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Canary Brain

    Sunday, July 20, 2014

  • Canary Brain. There was a Tory Councillor who was Brian Longs best buddy. Not sure of his name, his nickname was Dianna and moved on to UKIP.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    wattonlad

    Sunday, July 20, 2014

  • Sorry about the delay in responding D, I've spent the entire day laughing. The mere suggestion that I somehow managed to rig any sort of poll must have had you headbutting the keyboard for months - what a fantastic realm you live in. Back on topic though, I find it funny that you are posting under the name of Brian Long considering how much of an axe you have to grind with KLWNBC - another bunch of people that you've tried to manipulate that fell by the wayside I guess? The list of people you don't like must be as long as your arm and it must be difficult to sleep over the sound of your teeth grinding 24-7. Poor you.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Fenscape 2

    Sunday, July 20, 2014

  • Brian had a 'best mate' ? Funniest thing I have every heard. Please put a name to this work of fiction.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Canary Brain

    Sunday, July 20, 2014

  • What bugs me is Brian Long is an excellent councillor and his ex best mate at every opportunity bad mouths him. Brian listened to public concerns and implemented Tory party manifesto policy on localism.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    LynBin

    Sunday, July 20, 2014

  • Come on EDP. This is now a farce. Do something about D. You are letting him get away with murder. Ban him altogether until he can behave in a sensible manner. We need to look at RECYCLING and other GREENER ways of disposing of our waste. This should be the discussion. At least NCC has accepted that incineration, anywhere in the county, will now not take place. They are at long last looking at viable alternatives, but a warning, they shouldn`t take too long to make a decision. This will not be acceptable.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    democrat

    Sunday, July 20, 2014

  • Back on topic indeed. What bugs me most is the anti incinerator lobby group coming on here using councillors names to make their point which shows desperation indeed. Perhaps they will now cease with this silly tactic.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Brian Long

    Sunday, July 20, 2014

  • back to the topic. Cllr. Castle failed to offer any alternatives apart from his hearts desire to burn perfectly recylable resources. The exercise is to reduce landfill and its £3 million annual charges, a perfectly amicable goal that can be accomplished. Lanfill resources can be reused and whats left turned into gas compost and other inert compounds usable in the building industry. I have nop problems with fenscape, whatever number, its the derogatory remarks and sexist names, used in desperation to deflect a debate, with the tacid support of the EDP, that are making these debates a laughing stock. Fenscape merely wants to see a viable option for OUR resources.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    ingo wagenknecht

    Sunday, July 20, 2014

  • I was originally against the incinerator but having read here the terrible attacks and insulting comments by campaigners on others who have opposing views I changed my mind. Nothing wrong with bit of humour to lighten the mood but as we see below the same anti campaigner under yet another guise pops up with a negative. Transparent as thin glass.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Magwitch

    Sunday, July 20, 2014

  • I have been in favour of the incinerator but I must say it is disappointing the way those who have been opposing it are being treated on these websites by posters who are nothing more than Im posters, and whoever is behind this Local Yokel im poster thinks it is funny to make fun of those who have difficulty reading or writing. If the poster Mick Castle is the councillor chap then perhaps we can see why this Labour administration has led the county backwards for the last year and wants it to remain in the dark ages. Councillor Nobbs really should take a leaf out of that young Coke chap's book because he seems to have his head screwed on.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Jeff Reread

    Sunday, July 20, 2014

  • D is interesting because he annoys us even though we all know that he (and his other monikers) talk rubbish (no pun intended). He seems to have a major problem given that the incinerator is not now going to be built. Can`t he lose graciously? Like the Black Knight of Holy Grail fame he sees his limbs cut off one by one, and eventually will probably try to plead a draw. Back to reality. Transporting waste to any incinerator is only a short-term solution. I`m pleased to see that at long last a group of county councillors are now seriously looking at alternatives. We are moving on, albeit slowly. Unfortunately for some the government will require an explanation for past behaviour. I can assure you D - this is not going to be allowed to go away.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    democrat

    Saturday, July 19, 2014

  • Saturday night at home instead of the Con Club btw? Have all the blue rinses issued restraining orders at long last?

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Fenscape 2

    Saturday, July 19, 2014

  • I cannot help the fact that my popularity causes others to attempt to imitate me. As for the tired old argument about differences of opinion, I am happy to debate with anyone but you, under all your different guises, do not wish to engage in such activity - you just attack local campaigners because they very wisely ignored your approaches and spotted you from the off. Do feel free to go bleating to the moderator about your right to free speech once again. In the meantime, have you tried Candy Crush Saga or Plants vs Zombies as something else to keep you gainfully occupied instead?

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Fenscape 2

    Saturday, July 19, 2014

  • Is that why he has so many usernames, "George"? *cough cough* It's pretty obvious that the tactic is to try and debunk the overwhelming public opinion against an incinerator at Saddlebow using every low method at his disposal. Like I said before, the EDP just need to limit multiple posts from the same IP address and the trolling will stop, giving us all the peace we so richly deserve from his idiotic ranting and misinformed bile.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Fenscape 2

    Saturday, July 19, 2014

  • I think every notice is taken of what he writes which is something that clearly bugs someone with less credentials.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    George Peters

    Saturday, July 19, 2014

  • Dic.kens, as nothing you have forecasted to date has materialised, precious little notice is taken of what you write. Of course there are still those left in key positions at County Hall who are des.perate for CW’s incinerator for their pen.sion pot, but the game has changed, bigger players with bigger powers are now involved, and their telescopic sights are now firmly set on key individuals. The end game for some has nothing to do with an incinerator, they’re watching the replay, noticing the offsides and the fo.uls that have been com.mitted, not just at County Hall but higher up the food chain.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Honest John

    Saturday, July 19, 2014

  • Ickens, I see where your coming from but many components needed to run a cost effective incinerator have been removed. Supposed Customers queuing up to buy energy from waste from the rejected burner have been conspicuous by their absence. Glass needed to bind (IBA) bottom ash will be recycled soon as instructed by the European commission. Next year plastics of all quality will have to be recycled. This will make virtually all incinerators in Europe working under capacity. County Councils will be in the realms of paying penalties to incinerator companies for not supplying enough waste. Any incinerator companies contracted to supply energy to industry and residential heating will have a shortfall of residual waste to burn. Amsterdam wanted to treat Norfolk’s residual waste before the new EU legislation on recycling. I can see councils unfortunate to sign up to incinerators will change to recycling after their incinerator contracts terminate. Close to termination of contracts Shareholders will move money away from incinerator companies as seen in the USA. Cory Wheelabrator have been one of the worst offenders for violations for pollution since the bottom fell out of the market in the USA. They must be strapped for cash and unable to maintain their incinerator plants.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Interpol

    Friday, July 18, 2014

  • Like a game of chess the only difference is the end game was some time ago and now the match is played for public consumption. A short 2 year contract with Suffolk gives enough time to build the new facility in Lynn and then argue the common sense case for using it having adopted the technology elsewhere. Transport costs, rising landfill fees, bills paid to SCC, jobs. A new contract will follow that very short argument.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Dickens

    Friday, July 18, 2014

  • We have the final pieces falling into place. The new unit at Saddlebow will take around 2 years to construct during which time a short interim contract with Suffolk will demonstrate the need for an incinerator. Transport costs, rising charges for landfill and the overall bill for incineration fees at Suffolk will be cited as good reasons to re enter into a contract with the new development. Odd that those who created the situation almost a decade ago have sold the illusion that they are blameless and managed to shift responsibility to new faces that were not in power when the debacle began. The most interesting part being that those who stood for election on a soap box preaching about scrapping the entire scheme are actually the ones who have quietly and secretly worked on the current plan to ensure the schemes every success. The campaigners were out manoeuvred at every turn. Politics is a very dirty business.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Dickens

    Friday, July 18, 2014

  • I'll give these losers who can't even recycle in their own back yard six month to come up with a solution to reduce landfill and its charges. Then I will front a campaign to withdraw all valuable resources such as Aluminium, paper and valuable plastics form the green bin stream, Why should NCC handle my waste for profits, when it can't forward recycling to its next logical level. Burning fuel to cart it to Suffolk or Kent is lazy and unsustainable.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    ingo wagenknecht

    Friday, July 18, 2014

  • It would be interesting to see how much Norfolk is paying the Suffolk incinerator company compared to how much we would have been paying Cory Wheelabrator per ton. Mind you, with Norfolk CC's history of negotiating contracts, it might be a meaningless exercise.....

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Barking

    Friday, July 18, 2014

  • Suffolk was always bragging, when Blakenham was being built, that they would take rubbish from Norfolk. It was one of the reasons they put forward to make having an incinerator at Blakenham such a good deal. At the same time Norfolk was bleating that they had to have an incinerator because they had nowhere to send their rubbish. Double counting or what?

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    alecto

    Friday, July 18, 2014

  • The GNobbs allows the contract to be signed by officers a week before the new Waste Advisory Group meets, no change there then George.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Honest John

    Friday, July 18, 2014

  • Rhombus - the Cantley CHP plant uses waste from the beet already being delivered to provide heat that's reused in the processing. This reduces the road traffic because they then don't need as many lorries delivering coaloil. As you said previously, the beet is delivered in a short period so it's not a year-round series of lorries.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    So_Many_Haters!

    Friday, July 18, 2014

  • ...."50 lorries a day would use the roads nearby" wow that many!....mind you the Cantley sugat beet incinerator incinerates sugar beet at a rate of16 times the rate of the proposed waste incinerator at Saddlebow. So why didn't the lorries supplying Cantley incinerator bring Norfolk to a standstill?

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Rhombus

    Thursday, July 17, 2014

  • Would anyone be surprised if the total bill for the Willows fiasco isn't known for another year or two? £50 million made up of compensation, lost savings, new procurement costs, public consultation,and further legal costs when appeals are made wouldn't surprise me. Let us wait and see.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    bedoomed

    Thursday, July 17, 2014

  • Andy T: basic maths. 8 lorries per day being 10% of the waste, so 80 per day for all the rubbish. 259 days of working (eg Sat for a week with a bank holuday to catch up, except for Christmas week) means 20,270 lorry loads per year.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    So_Many_Haters!

    Thursday, July 17, 2014

  • Andy T. The waste that is going to be transported to the Suffolk incinerator is only 20% of Norfolk`s non-recyclable rubbish, hence only 8 lorries a day are involved. As all non-recyclable rubbish was due to be sent to King`s Lynn, then it is fair to suggest that at least 50 lorries a day would use the roads nearby.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    democrat

    Thursday, July 17, 2014

  • @SMHaters. hundreds of lorries... Hmmm! Apparently its not that many - eight right. So we have the anti incinerator groupies who are happy to incinerate in Suffolk, and pay extra for the privilege. Couldn't make it up. And George, thanks for doing the shirt up.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Andy T

    Thursday, July 17, 2014

  • "....certain rubbish should be dumped at sea...." . Certainly the case with most of your posts .

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    LARSON.E. WHIPSNADE

    Thursday, July 17, 2014

  • Do not know what all the fuss is about. There is years of landfill available and certain rubbish should be dumped at sea.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Johnny Norfolk

    Thursday, July 17, 2014

  • Cllr Castle, in light of the cancellation of the incinerator contract, do you now intend to introduce any measures to increase the recycling rate (26%) in your ward?

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    LynnLegend

    Thursday, July 17, 2014

  • Do us all a favour GNobbs and stop faw.ning over your chums in Suffolk, using Blakenham has always been on the cards as a temporary measure while Saddlebow was being built, and they need 100,000 tpa of non-contract waste to survive. It may be better than using Allington, but had the focus been on reducing waste and increasing recycling for the last decade, instead of artif.icially creating a need for Saddlebow to s.well certain pockets, it would have been much better for Norfolk’s taxpayers. As for planning permission, Costessey’s ADMBT plant glided through without a murmur, that’s what happens when the right proposal and the right site is chosen. We heard the same excuse that contractors wouldn’t want to get involved with NCC after the first incinerator was cancelled in Norwich, and that didn’t happen did it, so why drag it up again? Having the same people who have now been responsible for 3 failed waste contracts still holding their job is beyond comprehension, but having them involved in rescuing Norfolk from a decade of their mess, just shows what a safe haven County Hall is for fa.ilu.res. Lessons learned, absolutely none.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Honest John

    Thursday, July 17, 2014

  • @So Many Haters. You can recycle more stuff, but so long as you rely upon the market to set the costs there will always be a cut-off point at which it is (on paper) cheaper to bung it in the ground than recycle it. So unless a council pays over the odds to get someone to recycle it, they will have to do something with it. Upping the costs of landfill (penalties, more expensive licences) can distort the market towards recycling but that doesn't make recycling cheaper - just less expensive. And there will be some irreduceable minimum of waste that cannot be recycled but needs to be incinerated to be disposed of safely. For the moment - apart from paying more somewhere in the system - there doesn't seem to be an ideal answer.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    G_of_Norwich

    Thursday, July 17, 2014

  • Why is it that we're building incinerators when EU rules mean we have to increase recycling? Incinerators need certain amounts rubbish in order to work, so the contracts are written to penalise councils if they don't supply the volumes needed - a costing that Norfolk CC conveniently failed to mention. Also, Kings Lynn is way over at the edge of the county, along a notoriously bad road. Did you really want hundreds of lorries transporting rubbish from Great Yarmouth along the A47 to Kings Lynn? The interim measure is to send some rubbish to Suffolk and some to Holland where they're crying out for it to fulfil their contractual obligations to their own incinerators. Meanwhile we need to look at what we can do to effectively recycle a lot more, aiming for at least 75%. Once effective recycling is in place, some of the old tips can be mined for recyclables and then reused for the non-recyclables (which will be a lot less).

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    So_Many_Haters!

    Thursday, July 17, 2014

  • In the circumstances this is a good deal for Norfolk residents. In recent years much of this has had to be sent to Energy from Waste plants in Kent - even further by road. It seems extremely unlikely that Norfolk will have a new Waste Strategy agreed by all partners within 6 months - the last one took many years to put together. I can't see planning permissions being readily granted for lots of new waste facilities all over the County (particularly in some of our more NIMBY outposts) and I can't see major contractors wanting to get involved following the County failing to honour its contact with Cory Wheelabrator. It is a good job we have an Energy from Waste plant in Suffolk to use.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Mick Castle

    Thursday, July 17, 2014

  • Why is Beccles to Gt Blakenham 42 miles, whilst Beccles to King's Lynn is 63 miles some may ask.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    LynnLegend

    Thursday, July 17, 2014

  • Why burn waste from Norfolk in another County and pay for the privilege many will ask ? Why a contract for only 2 years some may ask ? Why not spend 2 years building our own incinerator and save the cost of transporting it all elsewhere a lot of politicians will ask ? Why not use a facility built in King’s Lynn that solves all of the above and creates jobs and income for Norfolk a certain investor will ask. Is it all dropping into place yet I ask ?

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Dickens

    Thursday, July 17, 2014

  • And now for the urgent public consultation on how to minimise the losses which are occurring due to the Willows debacle? Don't hold your breath,Big Brother Defra is still preferring incineration. Any news from Mr Pickles?

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    bedoomed

    Thursday, July 17, 2014

  • This can only be an interim measure, incineration is not the answer.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    LynnLegend

    Thursday, July 17, 2014

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

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Norfolk Weather

Rain

Rain

max temp: 10°C

min temp: 4°C

Five-day forecast

loading...

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT