READERS’ LETTERS: A selection of readers’ letters from the Bury Free Press of Friday, November 8.

Readers' letters
Readers' letters
Have your say

Readers’ letters selected from the Bury Free press of Friday, November 8.


RE ‘Festival and Apex directors told to apply for new jobs in shake-up’ (Bury Free Press, October 25), the Festival has been a highlight of Bury’s events calendar for several years and although the evolution of The Apex may not have been without its teething problems it has now become a highly respected and increasingly popular venue. Thanks to the vision of Tony Doherty, it has developed a comprehensive programme, providing entertainment across a wide range of genres and catering for a variety of tastes.

If council director Alex Wilson accepts that much of the failure to reduce the subsidy lay with the council and not the performance of The Apex, which has exceeded both its audience target and its budgeted income, why is it Mr Doherty and Mr Wells whose jobs are on the line?

--Jan Wade, Ashfield Green


RE the recent decision of Suffolk County Council on October 17 to approve construction of a Waste Transfer Station at Rougham Hill that would process all the household waste from roadside collection lorries from St Edmundsbury and Forest Heath districts (Bury Free Press, October 25). The plans include a reduction by almost one-half in the capacity of the present Household Waste Recycling Centre on the site. As partly described in the article, the meeting that approved this plan was addressed by two residents from Bury, a representative of Hopkins Homes (the intended developers under St Edmundsbury’s Vision 2013 proposals of 1,250 houses in a high-quality housing estate on the land opposite the HWRC) and three St Edmundsbury borough councillors. All spoke strongly against this plan, on grounds of environmental issues, concerns about traffic, reduction in capacity of the HWRC, and the impact on the proposed housing development. In a meeting on October 3, St Edmundsbury development control committee had already voted 14-0 to express the strongest possible objection to these plans. Despite all this well-informed local opposition, the county committee voted 7-4 in favour of the proposal.

The situation is that the policy of St Edmundsbury, as determined by the overwhelming vote of its development committee, is to oppose the Waste Transfer Station on this site. However, both the chief executive officer and the leader of the council have remained silent on the matter and have not responded to written requests for information or action. Quite simply they have a duty to speak up for the Council Tax payers and residents of St Edmundsbury against this mistaken plan put forward by the county council, and to implement the borough’s policy. Among the relevant issues, the borough is the owner of the site and leases it to SCC for a modest annual rental. The plan proposed would involve an extension of the site on to green field land at the rear and again it would appear that planning permission from the borough is required to enable the changes proposed for the site. There seem to be ample opportunities to thwart the county’s proposal, and certainly there are numerous sites on which a WTS could be established without causing traffic chaos and unacceptable environmental effects. Why is there not a vigorous response to uphold the borough’s policy by the CEO and the council leader? The people of St Edmundsbury deserve something better than total neglect.

-- John E T Corrie, Bury St Edmunds


I would like to thank friends and family for their recent support during our Bake with Compassion event. I baked higher welfare cakes and scones at my home in Lidgate and raised £45 for Compassion in World Farming during an afternoon tea get-together.

The cakes sold were baked using free range eggs, organic butter and milk to help raise awareness of the problem of unclear and inaccurate packaging on the food we buy.

-- Moira Walshe, Lidgate