GASIFIER: Incinerator would cost us all

No Caption ABCDE
No Caption ABCDE
Have your say

Reading the letter from Peter Bird in the Lincs Free Press of August 12, and his disbelief regarding South Holland District Council planners not understanding what they were being asked to approve when discussing the Spalding Gateway application and yet still approved it.

I said to myself, “Goodness, the residents of Sutton Bridge have the same disbelief!” We in Sutton Bridge are threatened with a ‘gasifier’ or incinerator, for want of a better word, which will adversely affect the surrounding area.

When South Holland District Council planners nodded through the developer’s application for the first time, some councillors openly admitted that they ‘did not understand the technical issues’. They were ignored by those who thought they knew better. They didn’t.

A lady from Sutton Bridge, Mrs Shirley Giles, who is also a parish councillor, sought her own legal advice and decided to take SHDC to judicial review. Before it got to that stage, the court ruled that SHDC’s grant of permission was ‘unlawful’ and quashed the application.

The developer, Energy Park Sutton Bridge, has now submitted another application, hardly changed, for the same plant which by their own admission is only 30 per cent efficient.

After investigation, it’s been found that the figure could actually be as low as 18 per cent. That means that around 330,000 tonnes of the wood burned each year in the incinerator will be wasted. Not exactly an advertisement for “green energy”.

Would anyone buy a boiler from a salesman if he told you it would be as inefficient as 30 per cent, let alone 18 per cent?

No, we don’t want to buy one either. This incinerator will cost us all, in health, risks of fire and explosion, smells, noise, dust, traffic chaos and lower property prices.
Tom Rowe

Sutton Bridge