Here’s a bold statement: Despite facing a resounding rejection and missing the appeal deadline, Acorn Bioenergy insists it’s not giving up on its controversial plan to build an anaerobic digestion plant in Haverhill, Suffolk. But here’s where it gets controversial—while the company claims the project would bring jobs, renewable energy, and organic fertiliser, locals argue it’s an industrial eyesore that doesn’t belong in their rural community. And this is the part most people miss: the battle isn’t over yet.
Acorn Bioenergy had initially proposed constructing a facility at Spring Grove Farm to convert manure and crops into renewable energy. The plan, however, was met with fierce resistance, culminating in Suffolk County Council’s rejection in June after over 1,000 objections. One councillor bluntly stated the facility had ‘no place’ in the area, echoing the sentiments of many residents. Campaigners, led by the group Muck Off Acorn, celebrated what they thought was a definitive victory when the company’s appeal window closed. But here’s the twist: Acorn Bioenergy has confirmed it’s preparing a new application, reigniting the debate.
‘We remain fully committed to this project,’ declared Alister Veitch, head of business development. ‘While we can’t provide a timeline yet, we’re determined to address the council’s concerns and move forward.’ The company previously highlighted the project’s benefits, including energy for 7,000 homes and job creation, while assuring the site would be discreetly located near the A1307 to minimise local disruption. Yet, planning officers raised issues about the location and criticised the lack of detailed information on highway safety and environmental impact.
Here’s the controversial question: Is this a forward-thinking green initiative or an unwanted industrial intrusion? Opponents like Indy Wijenayaka, West Suffolk Council’s growth portfolio holder, are frustrated. ‘It’s disappointing but not surprising,’ Wijenayaka said. ‘If they were confident in their case, why didn’t they appeal immediately? Why drag the community through another lengthy process when we know it’ll harm the area?’
Wijenayaka warned that a new application would only strengthen opposition. ‘People are tired, but they’re not backing down,’ he added. ‘Acorn Bioenergy seems to think they can wear us out, but they’re mistaken. Our community’s resolve is stronger than ever.’
As the saga continues, one thing is clear: this isn’t just a local dispute—it’s a clash between renewable energy ambitions and community values. What do you think? Is Acorn Bioenergy’s persistence justified, or should they respect the community’s wishes? Let us know in the comments below. And if you have a Suffolk story to share, we’d love to hear from you!
