GASIFIER: They need a valid reason to refuse it

Have your say

I have been reading the banter from various parties with some amusement over the last few weeks.

BOTH sides have tried to persuade people to come round to their way of thinking, occasionally by circulating flyers with some, shall we say, dubious “facts”.

With regards to extra traffic going through the village. PREL have stated there will be 36,000 vehicle movements during the 30 month construction period. As with most estimates this is likely to be more like 40,000-50,000. In a recent traffic survey carried out, there was just short of 25,000 vehicle movements through Sutton Bridge in SIX DAYS. So we are looking at two weeks’ worth of extra traffic over a 30 month period. Not a lot really.

As for emissions and all the scientific stuff, I like many others in Sutton Bridge am not qualified to comment and have to trust in those that are, ie the Environment Agency etc.

Now, in response to Mr Blundell’s letter (“The people have said no”), the recent parish poll had a turnout of less than 15 per cent.

Those that did turn out to vote were met at the door of the polling station by some members of BATI (Bridge against the Incinerator) and I believe some complaints were made concerning intimidation.

Yes the majority that voted said no. However, 85 per cent of the population of Sutton Bridge DID NOT SAY NO.

Ms Rome stated at one of the public meetings that if the vast majority of the people voted to say no then they would have to reconsider their application. This did not happen so why should they reconsider?

Much has been said about the fact that most of the jobs would go to people from outside the area.

Surely even if there is only one local person to get a job that is better than none in this current climate.

When all is said and done all the moaning in the world will get us nowhere. The planning authority has to have a valid, legal reason to refuse this application and not just because a few people “don’t want it”.

Alan Barber

Sutton Bridge