INCINERATOR: Letter writer is misinformed

Have your say

Regarding Mr Bradon-King’s comments about the proposed incinerator for Sutton Bridge.

He appears to have been misinformed.

The evidence that refutes his assertions and shows that he is unfamiliar with what is proposed all come from PREL’s planning application.

The application states:

Number of Stacks

The buildings required include the main biomass energy building up to 28 metres (max) at the eaves.

The main sedum roofed biomass building has 12 stacks each 80 metres in height, ten of the stacks representing the ten power lines inside the building.

The other two stacks are simply to balance the aesthetics and are non functional.

Definition of biomass


Biomass is material of recent biological origin derived from plant or animal matter.

The biomass used for heat and power is usually from biodegradable waste and other similar material including sewage, sludge, animal manure, waste food from construction, commercial/industrial sources, and food waste that would otherwise be disposed of in landfill.


The average annual daily traffic: 74 HGVs each way on Centenary Way.

These traffic movements do not include other traffic such as staff and then of course there are other vehicles accessing the existing industry on the Wingland site.

PREL gave a much different answer concerning traffic movement at the October public meeting.

I do not object to industry at Wingland but will only support that which will not destroy residents’ quality of life.

I am not a NIMBY – one would be very ignorant to think that pollution will stop on the site. Research shows it can travel over 15km.

Tom Rowe

Bridge House West

Sutton Bridge