The proposed incinerator site, in King's Lynn

Campaigners “confident” over legal challenge to King’s Lynn incinerator

Chris Bishop Tuesday, July 12, 2011
1:00 PM

Campaigners today revealed the full grounds of their legal challenge against the controversial King’s Lynn incinerator.

Have your say

A six-week formal consultation on the planning application for the incinerator near King’s Lynn began on June 22 and will run until Wednesday, August 3.

Norfolk County Council said the issues that planners can take into account when assessing an application are defined in planning law.

They include noise impact, dust, smell, air pollution and health, traffic congestion, road safety, flood risk, trees and wildlife, design and landscape, ground conditions.

People can make their views known online, where the application documents and plans will be available to view, along with comments made on the application.

Follow the links beside this story.

Michael de Whalley has launched a High Court bid to win a judicial review of Norfolk County Council’s decision to press ahead with plans to build the incinerator at Saddlebow, despite overwhelming opposition in West Norfolk.

The county council, which has 21 days to respond to the challenge, said it had “complete confidence” in the process which had been followed.

But Mr de Whalley, from Grimston, said: “At the moment we’re feeling pretty confident. It’s gone from being a question of building an incinerator to a question of local democracy.”

The legal claim, lodged at the Queen’s bench Division of the high Court on Friday, says: “The application raises a fundamental issue as to whether it is lawful under Part II of the Local Government Act 2000 for a political group to direct or constrain the discharge of an executive function by a local authority executive.

“The claimant also challenges the lawfulness of the cabinet’s decision in the context of the overall lack of fairness surrounding the way it was made.”

The statement of facts accompanying the claim states that a survey carried out in 2008 showed there was little support in Norfolk for incineration.

“Between 2000 and 2008 the Defendant sought to formulate a strategy for the

management of waste,” it says.

“A key object of the strategy was to secure consensus on, and public support for, a “socially acceptable alternative” to landfill.

“In order to inform the strategy the Defendant conducted a postal survey, which closed on 11 April 2008. 357,000 survey forms were issued. 7861 forms were returned, a two per cent response rate. To the extent the survey disclosed the preferences of the county’s residents it revealed a clear preference for recycling and re-use and little support for incineration.”

The statement adds despite the lack of support for incineration, the county council began in 2005 to “promote the development” of an incinerator at Costessey, near Norwich.

It goes on: “Contract A was abandoned on July 2, 2009 on financial grounds and in the face of strong opposition from Norwich City Council, South Norfolk District Council, the city’s residents and local Members of Parliament.”

In 2010, the county council began work on proposals to treat waste on a site at Saddlebow, near King’s Lynn. The claim sets out opposition to the plan, evidenced by the poll carried out by West Norfolk council, in which more than 65,000 people - 92 pc of those who voted - said they did not want an incinerator.

In March, the county council’s cabinet voted to award the contract to build and operate the incinerator to Cory Wheelabrator.

The claim continues: “Against the background of the defendant’s failure to secure the development of an incinerator at Costessey, a lack of support for incineration in Norfolk generally,

and the overwhelming opposition to the proposal West Norfolk the defendant made preparations for a meeting of their cabinet on March 7, 2011, which was charged with determining whether to award the contract to Cory Wheelabrator. As part of these preparations, the Conservative group, which controls the county council, and makes up the whole of the cabinet, met on March 4, 2011.”

Minutes from the meeting are quoted in the submission, which notes: “A fair minded and informed observer would conclude that members of the Cabinet unlawfully approached the decision of whether to award the contract to Cory Wheelabrator with closed minds, and acted unlawfully as mere delegates of the Conservative group.”

Today Norfolk County Council said: “We can confirm that solicitors acting for the claimant have served their statement of grounds which means we now have 21 days to put forward our response for the court to consider.

“We will clearly need time to study the claim carefully and formulate our response, but we have complete confidence in the process followed by our cabinet when it decided to move ahead with the decision to award the waste PFI contract on March 7, 2011.”

Latest News

34 comments

Dave01. This story would not be out of hand if the County Council would stop trying to forcefeed something to the people of West Norfolk that they clearly don't want. It is a source of some mystification to me that they continue along this path. I first got interested because of this complete lack of democracy but realised that I would have to do some scientific research which as an artist and chicken keeper was no easy task I can tell you. However you are blessed with a scientific qualification and would breeze through all the information available from the campaigners and also from the nationally renowned Dr Edwards at the UEA who has just produced a 2,000 word report which I am bracing myself to read this evening!

Report this comment

alecto

Sunday, July 17, 2011
Dave01, Your own independent research is the best way to go it is how I began back in November. From that you will find you start becoming seriously concerned. If you do not have the time for many hours at a computer an unbiased report commissioned by Stuart Agnew MEP is http:www.stuartagnewmep.co.ukstuartagnewimagesstoriesreport%20on%20kings%20lynn%20saddlebow%20incineration%20plant%2009%2011%20%202010.pdf Visit the farmers campaign for a list of peer reviewed health studies http:www.farmerscampaign.orghealth.html Or for Dr Edwards full professional report contact the Farmers campaign and it will be sent to you. http:www.farmerscampaign.orgindex.html You will then realise why so many people in West Norfolk have been asking for NCC to start listening to them. This is not a matter a few troublesome individuals being NIMBY's the people behind this are highly professional citizens who are genuinely concerned for the health of our community, the financial burden placed on every Norfolk tax payer and the disregard for democracy shown by NCC.

Report this comment

Joy, King's Lynn

Sunday, July 17, 2011
OK. This story has got out of hand, I've posted on the newer thread. As a scientific engineer I suggest this goes to the Sec of State and we can have ALL facts put into transparent debate.. Be patient and we will all get this sorted; one way or another. I'm keen to know the truth as much as anyone..

Report this comment

Dave01

Saturday, July 16, 2011
For those parish Councils not conversant with west Norfolk. The steam and pollutants being emitted in the Ariel photo is on a good day. The cold winter months we have had smog that people used to have in London. Nearby is the Power Station that is due to be tripled in size. To the right just out of the picture is Union Carbide (DOW Chemical’s) an air polluter, next to Union Carbide is Porvair nicknamed Poor Air because of emissions. It is insensitive to add another air polluter. As air quality is below standard. Can be verified in NCC scoping opinion report. NCC088759. Page 7 Opinion suggests Kings Lynn has a high concentration of Nitrogen Dioxide. Quote “Concentrations of Nitrogen Dioxide within the King’s Lynn AQMA are at present above the annual mean objective of 40ugm3, as defined in the Air Quality Standards Regulations”. Cory Wheelabrator have put this report on the website for the planning application. O YES they have doctored it by omitting this vital information. The Parish Council vote is as dodgy as the ComRes poll.

Report this comment

Norwichboy

Thursday, July 14, 2011
Me, too!!

Report this comment

alecto

Thursday, July 14, 2011
I am still waiting.

Report this comment

John Martin

Thursday, July 14, 2011
Having read all the comments below, most of them sensible and against incineration anywhere, I have to suggest that maybe the EDP would like to give a prize for the first person who identifies the "NCC Councillors in disguise". And, if incineration is deemed the only way forward, then Thorpe St. Andrew have put their hands up to be host area.

Report this comment

Christine

Thursday, July 14, 2011
I understand Cllr Bill Borrett, Cabinet Member for Environment & Waste, has wasted yet more public money writing to all town and parish councils to convince them that Dr Chris Edwards, a respected economist and Senior Fellow of the UEA, is less qualified to look INDEPENDENTLY at the financial case of the proposed incinerator in King’s Lynn than DEFRA or any NCC officermember at the scrutiny committee meeting on 19th April. Cllr Borrett was not in attendance at that meeting so must be reliant on hearsay or the minutes, which are not a full and accurate transcript of what was said, for his information. The fact that this meeting was compromised is for discussion another time. As Cllr Borrett feels so strongly the need to set the record straight I wonder if he would be willing to make himself available to attend regional meetings arranged at his convenience where town, parish, borough and county councillors could put questions to a panel of experts. A good and fair mix of people would be Cllr Borrett, Mike Jackson, Dr Edwards and Richard Burton. It would very quickly become blatantly obvious who knew what they were talking about and who did not. I am sure Dr Edwards and Richard Burton would be only too happy to be able to clarify the many complex financial and environmental issues surrounding the incinerator. Free and open debate involving an audience of unbiased councillors from all walks of society would be an excellent way forward they could then, with a clear conscious, make a decision on if the proposal is safe to the people who will have to live beside it and good value for tax payers who are lucky enough to live absolutely miles away.

Report this comment

Joy, King's Lynn

Thursday, July 14, 2011
I think some people here have a bit of an ignorant view of the issue. No-one in West Norfolk wants this incinerator. It is all good and well certain people commenting the rest of Norfolk would say 'Yes' to the incinerator, of course they would! They don't want it built near them do they? Thats what this is all about with NCC, No one on the board lives close to the Saddlebow site do they? As for the Cory-Wheelabrator collaboration, Does anyone actually think they are fit to carry out a project like this when Wheelabrator were fined a massive $7.5 MILLION in fines by the US Environment agency? Fined for dumping toxic waste and letting dioxins in the air. Google it, it was a huge US Story recently! And if you google it, you will see tens of other cases of a similar nature. The sneakiness of the company and NCC's secrecy makes you wonder what is going on behind closed doors, whats in it for the councillors to push so hard for it?

Report this comment

Shirleyd286

Thursday, July 14, 2011
So lets hear no more of Micheal Ryan and his scaremongering in this debate. Anyone who thinks , as Ryan does , that knife crime in London is caused by air pollution is not to be taken seriously. I say that as someone who has no strong opinion about the merits or otherwise of this incinerator. But let's keep crank " science " where it belongs , on the bookshelf alongside science fiction novels and the works of David Icke.

Report this comment

CUTHBERT. J TWILLIE

Thursday, July 14, 2011
Jason Bunn : 'In 12 of the capital’s 625 wards, there were no infant deaths between 2002 and 2008.' Impossible" Michael Ryan's "research" has never been accepted for publication in any medical journal. It is based on the wind blowing in the same direction every day of the year. He seems to think the wind is always from the SW every day. Cast your mind back to last winter and the months of Northerly and Easterly winds. Not in Ryan's world , where if you are " downwind " of an incinerator you are "downwind" every day of the week. It is why his conclusions about the causes of infant deaths are treated with disdain by real experts . He himself as no medical qualifications whatsoever.

Report this comment

CUTHBERT. J TWILLIE

Thursday, July 14, 2011
Jason Bunn and Chistoph The two questions that should be asked of anyone supporting the building of an incinerator -- politician, councillor or member of the public. 1. Can you guarantee that the use of an incinerator does not destroy the natural resources of the planet? 2. Can you guarantee that the waste produced by an incinerator will not be a health hazard for future generations? The supporters of incineration in whatever form are always looking for the easy option. In recent years there have countless examples of more acceptable choices and many intelligent people have shown the way.Why should we have all the waste from the rest of Norfolk and Cambridgeshire Lincolnshire, and because we are situated on the river Gt Ouse , there is nothing stopping them importing the waste from the European Common Market. As for people accusing us as being me me me and self-centered and nimbys. People who live in glasshouses should not throw stones They will vote for if it is built at King's Lynn, Now who are the real Nimbys. Like I said before be careful what you wish for.There could be more incinerators pencilled in for Norfolk.The Government play the long game.Now I can see pass the end of my nose. Those who live the longest will see the most Yours sincerely Pensioner aged 68 Grumpy old man , Alan

Report this comment

LFB

Thursday, July 14, 2011
A word of warning about Michael Ryan and his incinerator " research ". It is based on the assumption that the wind always blows in the same direction and none of it has ever been accepted for publication in any serious peer reviewed academic journal. He also believes that air pollution is responsible for obesity , suicides , and wait for it......knife crime in London. I kid you not.

Report this comment

CUTHBERT. J TWILLIE

Thursday, July 14, 2011
Kings Lynn is not refusing to deal with Norfolks waste all they ask is the method. All 100% of incineration goes to landfill. The Bottom ash will be stored in lagoons for months years until treated. Highways agency staff are refusing to use this stuff as it stinks. All 1.37 million tons of it. The Fly ash will go to Northampton a specialist landfill site in Northamptonshire.

Report this comment

CleanAirPlease

Wednesday, July 13, 2011
If incineration is so safe forward your address to NCC. Have you people not been listening as Kings Lynn can not take anymore air pollution as it is over the limit even with the Power Station Dormant until it is trebbled in size later this year.

Report this comment

Choice

Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Cars and lorries give out huge amounts of toxic fumes everyday, but guess what? - we're still here, alive and well. Amazing eh?

Report this comment

christoph

Wednesday, July 13, 2011
'In 12 of the capital’s 625 wards, there were no infant deaths between 2002 and 2008.' Impossible, you are saying in 6 years there were no, not one, any, infant deaths, not only remarkable for London, but for anywhere in the world. People have died, including babies and infants after being crop sprayed, some have died because of ill health living near to roads, but the only area you are concerned with is the incinerators??? We can't keep burying our waste, we can't recycle it all and something I'd say about that is I took all our waste to a recycling co, the HO said we didn't need to split our waste, the workers do that, after a year or so I was standing there with one of the workers and I asked how do you split all that waste, what do you mean, I said how do you split paper and card, from plastics etc, he said we don't, it all go's to landfill, so recycling isn't always recycling, with all that in mind, what do you nimbys suggest we do with all our waste? As for what we wish for, I wish for 20 million people in the UK, 25% of our landmass as farmland not 80%, better roads, better housing, less waste, less pollution, no food shortages, sustainable everything, more wildlife, more habitat, more space, all nimbys gone first out of the 45 million that need to go as they are the worst type of human, self centred and selfish as heck, me me me, not seeing past the ends of their noses, etc etc.

Report this comment

Jason Bunn

Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Michael Ryan, who lives in Shrewsbury, and who lost his only daughter at 14 weeks – and then suffered further personal tragedies when his teenage son and his mother both died, too. All lived downwind of an incinerator. Mr Ryan began a painstaking piece of research into the subject of health – and deaths – of people living in close proximity to incinerators. The results from London are startling. In 12 of the capital’s 625 wards, there were no infant deaths between 2002 and 2008. But Southwark, which has two incinerators close by, had the highest rate with 7.2 infant deaths per 1,000 live births in that period.

Report this comment

Maggie

Wednesday, July 13, 2011
And where does the carcinogenic fly ash end up. Landfill of course in Northampton. Bottom ash is now stockpiled because there is too much of it and again sent back to landfill. Cory Wheelabrator will be stockpiling at the west side of the site. Yes over 2.4 million tons over a 25 year period. This action is worse than normal landfill as the site is in the tidal flood zone. Read the planning application.

Report this comment

Choice

Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Surely you are all ignoring an even more important issue. The current administration in County Hall is, for one reason or another, so hell bent on pushing this incredibly costly project through that it is prepared to ride completely roughshod over democratic process. It will resort to all tactics necessary. For instance, in the past ten months the leader has attracted at least five conduct complaints. Three of those alleged bullying, and his own political colleagues made them. If you look closely at the court papers, you will find phrases such as “illegally predetermined”, “breached their duty to act in the best interest of taxpayers”, “whipping of Conservative committee members”, “unfairness and abuse of process”, “ignored DEFRA guidance” and “the executive leader continued to monitor group discipline closely”. Of course, it is vital to find the right solution for Norfolk to the waste landfill problem, and there are clearly different views as to what that is. But it must not be achieved at the cost of local democracy.

Report this comment

John Martin

Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Ingo is of course right. The last government signed up to EU landfill restrictions and recycling targets without doing anything to change the way manufacturers and retailers package and sell their products. Eg I bought a pruning knife-came in card and plastic so stiff I needed another knife to undo it. The plastic was not recycleable and none of the packaging was necessary.Major retailers are a major source of unnecessary packaging waste, as are our tastes for prepackaged long shelf foodstuffs and quite why councils are not demanding that the government shifts the responsibilty from them as waste disposal and recycling providers onto the manufacturers whi create all the waste I cannot understand.

Report this comment

Daisy Roots

Wednesday, July 13, 2011
christoph,you really don't have any knowledge of incineration or recycling.There are 3 primary schools within 1 mile upwind and downwind of the incinerator also a travellers site with young children within a thousand yards.Now don't tell us it is nothing to do with King's Lynn & West Norfolk. Those who vote for it may land up with a incinerator in their yard. Our campaign is for NO Incineration, not just for King's Lynn but the rest of Norfolk. So be careful what you wish for !!!

Report this comment

LFB

Wednesday, July 13, 2011
A weak case that does not bring up public health as a factor opposing the incinerator. kneedeepintoxicash and choice are both right and there are solutions, but global;isation has set indursty free, they are not obliged to recycle. We could recycle most of what we produce and those toxic materials we can't deal with have to be replaced with an equivalent recyclable one, Government has to set percentage goals for the uptake of recyclables, there is NO onus on industry to go down the sustainable route and our efforts come to nothing if they are not forced to reuse valuable resources. Consumer society has hit the cross roads, building an incinerator means selling our childrens souls. Christoph, would you want incineration next to your garden?

Report this comment

ingo wagenknecht

Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Not in favour of this particular scheme but I assume if it does not go through, West Norfolk is depending on there being long term quarrying at Blackborough End in order to have a disposal facility. Very much out of sight out of mind there and one wonders how long it will be before it is discovered that contaminated water from this long term site is slowly affecting the Nar Valley? Would the opposition to an incinerator be as vociferous if landfill was going to Bawsey and Leziate "lakes" or being used to raise ground level beside the A149?

Report this comment

Daisy Roots

Wednesday, July 13, 2011
People need to give up with the "I don't want my rubbish burnt - I want it recycled!" - the purpose of the incinerator is to deal with waste that CANNOT be recycled. And this whole "65000 people said no!" - well this 'vote' was only for Kings Lynn and surronding areas carried out by the local district council - who have nothing to do with this project. A true reflection would be NCC taking a vote from 'it's people', i.e. the whole of Norfolk. I suspect the result would be something like: 65,000 say No, 250,000 say yes?

Report this comment

christoph

Wednesday, July 13, 2011
How do you create a market for recycled plastic? How much plastic is recycled at present in Norfolk? These are the questions councillors need to ask. Where will it be recycled locally and is the technology emission free?

Report this comment

bedoomed

Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Leader of Kent Council. Councillor Keith Ferrin, the council‘s environment spokesman, said it had been a ‘stupid’ decision in hindsight, Kent County Council could be losing £1m a year as a result of a long-term waste disposal contract. Ten years ago, the authority signed a 25-year deal with Kent Enviropower to provide them with 320,000 tonnes of waste to burn each year. But what was initially seen as a cash-saving opportunity has quickly turned into a money pit, as the council is forced to send increasingly valuable recyclable material to the incinerator in order to meet its annual quota

Report this comment

Choice

Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Leader of Kent Council. Councillor Keith Ferrin, the council‘s environment spokesman, said it had been a ‘stupid’ decision in hindsight, Kent County Council could be losing £1m a year as a result of a long-term waste disposal contract. Ten years ago, the authority signed a 25-year deal with Kent Enviropower to provide them with 320,000 tonnes of waste to burn each year. But what was initially seen as a cash-saving opportunity has quickly turned into a money pit, as the council is forced to send increasingly valuable recyclable material to the incinerator in order to meet its annual quota

Report this comment

Choice

Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Palm Paper Saddlebow has lost their largest order The News of the World. The other company is the Sun both News international. They have lost Jordan’s cereals cartons and many overseas orders. Palm Paper have planning consent an incinerator and NCC said we will build you one at the Tax payers expense and give you subsidised energy. The Parish Council vote is now redundant, as the whole plan has fallen apart. PFI will be harder than ever to secure. The best option now is let’s start recycling more.

Report this comment

Knee deep In Toxic ash

Tuesday, July 12, 2011
I would be equally againstof any Government who had inroduced Cabinets to local authorities.The system of Cabinets is to my mind undemocratic.Perhaps someone can tell me why they are supposed to be so good for us. Norfolk needs equalinput from all councillors on the efw debate.

Report this comment

bedoomed

Tuesday, July 12, 2011
This is more important that petty political point scoring. This is about our futures and the personal accountability and honesty of our councils'.elected members. We have in the NCC a wholy corrupt set of members who do not represent their people and deserve only scorn.

Report this comment

IanofNorfolk

Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Bedoomed had to blame Labour! "Decision taking by Cabinets was introduced by Labour." This is still a Conservative council that is ignoring the wishes of its people.

Report this comment

anglia_squared

Tuesday, July 12, 2011
So to paraphrase, the two grounds are 1) that the survey doesn't reflect the public's view, and 2) that Cabinet should not have consulted members of their own party before a decision was made? I honestly do not see how these will stand up. If only 2% of people respond to a survey, surely the other 98% are ambivalent as to what happens with waste and are quite happy to let the council get on with its job? And as for members of the cabinet discussing the issue with their own councillors first; how exactly is this a problem? Basically one argument says the cabinet should consult more and the other says they shouldn't consult at all. It seems a rather confused attempt to upset the process to me

Report this comment

Peter J

Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Decision taking by Cabinets was introduced by Labour. Now we see how bad that decision was. Cabinets disenfranchise the huge majority of councillors and make no pretence of all Party involvement. End whipping outside Parliament !!!

Report this comment

bedoomed

Tuesday, July 12, 2011