The proposed site of the incinerator at Saddlebow. Picture: Ian Burt

Cory: Why Norfolk needs us to build an incinerator in King’s Lynn

By Chris Bishop Tuesday, March 5, 2013
12:01 PM

As the incinerator public inquiry resumed today, the planning director of the firm behind it told the hearing why he believes they should be allowed to build it.

The Willows site at Saddlebow, near King’s Lynn, offers the ideal site for an “energy from waste” development, said John Boldon, from Cory.

“It lies in the Willows Business Park, in the vicinity of compatible land uses including a power station and a paper mill and has good access to the strategic road network,” he went on.

“Most importantly, it would be in harmony with the scale and character of the surrounding development. It is in a position to have an easy connection to the national grid and has tremendous CHP (combined heat and power) potential.”

More than 100 people crammed into the Professional Development Centre, off Kilham’s Way, as the public inquiry resumed this morning.

Before she opened the hearing Elizabeth Hill, the government inspector appointed to oversee

proceedings and recommend whether or not the incinerator should be given the go-ahead, said she had taken advice over whether or not she should try to obtain an unredacted copy of the contract signed by Norfolk County Council with Cory Wheelabrator, the consortium it has appointed to build and run the plant.

Miss Hill said she had been told that powers she had to demand a copy should only be used if it would not be possible to reach a decision about the incinerator without the document. She said at this stage, she was not convinced it would be necessary.

Mr Boldon said the technology chosen for the plant was “an efficient, cost-effective and tried and tested solution”.

He said the incinerator had been designed to take 170,000 tonnes of waste from Norfolk and 105,000 tonnes of commercial and industrial (C&I) waste from the King’s Lynn area.

He added the contract required the plant to treat a “minimum tonnage” of 170,000 tonnes.

“The contract provides flexibility for Cory Wheelabrator to make up any shortfall in the minimum tonnage by sourcing C&I waste from the large quantity of such waste that needs diverting from landfill,” he added.

Mr Boldon said he did not agree that the result of the poll carried out by West Norfolk council, which showed overwhelming opposition to the incinerator, should be taken into account.

“My reasons for disagreeing include an objection to the wording of the poll question and the statement sent out with voting papers supporting a No vote, as well as the fact the poll was undertaken in advance of the Willows planning application being lodged and EIA (environmental impact assessment) being undertaken,” he said.

“This prevented a balanced case being put before the electorate. The poll was also conducted at a time when the local paper and objectors were adopting an emotive campaign.”

Mr Boldon summarised the benefits which Cory claim the plant would bring.

They indcluded reducing the need for landfill, providing 300 jobs during the construction phase and 40 once operational, producing enough energy to power the equivalent of 36,000 homes, recycling 5,000 tonnes of metals and making £100,000 a year available for local projects.

He said were the application to be refused, it would have “serious consequences” for Norfolk’s drive to move waste away from landfill.

The inquiry continues with cross examination this afternoon.

49 comments

Lyn are you going to speak publicly at the inquiry, I would love hear what you have to say.

Report this comment

Canary Boy

Saturday, March 9, 2013
So EDP why no coverage of the day when CW was questioned over the appalling record in the US? In which they admitted an out of court settlement to avoid paying even more, admitted the contract was flawed, and admitted they'd burn recyclables?

Report this comment

d, west lynn

Thursday, March 7, 2013
That's all in the past - they have cleaned up their act. altinquirydotwordpressdotcom

Report this comment

Mr Cameron Isaliar

Wednesday, March 6, 2013
Cory Wheelabrator has committed many violations so they should not be trusted to build close to marine and residential area. Not if but when a disaster happens the insurers will have a field day. Cory Wheelabrator will blame NCC and the EA for being inexperienced, but they handed over the permit and past planning. Cory Wheelabrator will seek recovery of costs for environmental damage and fines from the rate payers.

Report this comment

Emma Miller

Wednesday, March 6, 2013
Just so you know canaryboy I have as much right as you to have some input here. Why you and a few other loonies want to shut people up is a mystery. Surely debate is a good thing with views from both sides or would you prefer a police state with you in total control ? You seem to claim to want the opposite. Perhaps you should make your mind up what you do want. Anyway despite what you say you will not shut me up.

Report this comment

Lyn from Lynn

Wednesday, March 6, 2013
Not sure what happened to my comment but I feel it is a shame that they have stopped doing the live report. The developers seem to have put forward a good case without any real challenge so far.

Report this comment

John Fisher

Wednesday, March 6, 2013
I thought the EDP were going to cover this on a live blog but that seems to have been scrapped now which is a shame. More important things to report I suppose. As for the Inquiry so far it looks like a pretty sound case put by the developers with nothing much by way of challenge from the other side except some weak arguments which led nowhere.

Report this comment

John Fisher

Wednesday, March 6, 2013
Fen.scr.ape or A.lecto, which are both names used by this strange person, continues to waffle on about nothing as usual. A good demonstration of the anti campaign at its best. Confused, stupid and without direction. Even resorted to spending hours counting user names. Sad does not even come close.

Report this comment

Dickens

Wednesday, March 6, 2013
D.ickens you can be as derogatory as you like, it is not my credibility that appears to be at stake in the eyes of the public but yours by the very nature of your unreasonable and quite bizarre rantings on the comments boards. I only have 1 username on here - I only need the one. But then, I'm not trying to falsely demonstrate consensus in favour of the burner where none obviously exists.

Report this comment

Fenscape

Wednesday, March 6, 2013
D ickens says that Fenscape uses 15 aliases. Interesting. There are only 13 names on the thread that are anti incinerator so that means one of several possibilities. Fenscape is schizophrenic and is simultaneously pro and anti. D ickens is bonkers (like that one) or Fenscape is in fact D ickens and is having an interesting argument with himself. I think possibility no 2 is the most likely.

Report this comment

alecto

Wednesday, March 6, 2013
So Cory entered into a contractual agreement with the County and consider them mad to do so. I don't think this contract can stand because you cannot enter into an agreement with somebody you consider insane. They do not have the capacity to understand what they are signing. Well done Mr Boldon, we all think the cabinet are lunatics but it is you that signed the contract with them and I think you have just talked your way out of the £20 million you would have got if they reneged on the contract. If a mad person does not have the capacity to sign that then cannot renege either!

Report this comment

alecto

Wednesday, March 6, 2013
The 'poll' was false. You do not send out a poll and enclose a separate sheet advising people to vote 'NO'. How happy would you be if they had sent out a sheet advising people to say 'YES' to the incinerator and listing the benefits ? Please stop defending what is wrong. It makes the anti campaign look more silly than ever before. The so called 'poll' was illegal and is invalid.

Report this comment

Dickens

Wednesday, March 6, 2013
My second "against" should of course have been "for".

Report this comment

democrat

Wednesday, March 6, 2013
Re D.ick.ens. Why would false names appear on here? There's no need. After all 93% of those who voted did so against the incinerator. That leaves 7% who voted against and hence are more likely to be false. Irrelevant really because no Inspector will look at this forum but the poll is hugely significant. Just refer to the comments made by Cameron recently.

Report this comment

democrat

Wednesday, March 6, 2013
What a sad person fen.scr.ape is. Using at least 15 different names on here to try and make it look as though so many are against. Nice try but no one is fooled by you. No wonder the campaign has lost credibility. Try honesty for a change.

Report this comment

Dickens

Wednesday, March 6, 2013
What happened to the live coverage. EDP lost interest ? What happened to the EDP poll. It showed 40% in favour and then vanished ?

Report this comment

Diss 'N' Dat

Wednesday, March 6, 2013
What a sad person fenscrape is. Using at least 15 different names on here to try and make it look as though so many are against. Nice try but no one is fooled by you. No wonder the campaign has lost credibility. Try honesty for a change.

Report this comment

Dickens

Wednesday, March 6, 2013
When exactly are the wooden headed numpties going to realise that incineration is the wrong technology. The anti incinerator campaigners have always said that. The clue is in the name! And Kenny Bunkport is quite right. There are too many incinerators already for the waste available. There are buildings all the way up and down the European coast crying out for stuff to burn. Some of them have ceased to function completely. We will soon be forced to turn out our lofts to find stuff for the different incinerator companies to scrap (geddit?) over. Meanwhile, perfectly good and proper recycling methods are being ignored by these technology dinosaurs.

Report this comment

alecto

Wednesday, March 6, 2013
I don't get why some people on here are so against the poll, where is the issue in the straight forward question? If it was so loaded why did they also get responses supporting the incinerator? M you have hit the nail on the head the Willows business park land is currently saturated! Great place for an efw, honest! I think yesterday CW did more for the support against the efw than any cmpaigner could do! Well except D.ickens on here who does a splendid job drumming up anti incinertaor support!

Report this comment

d, west lynn

Wednesday, March 6, 2013
Can anyone explain why at this late stage when at last anyone can come and hear evidence, rather than PR spin and statements promoting the incinerator, people are getting so nasty? Anything put before the inspector, who is coming across very well allowing free and open debate, will be judged by her. The decision process is out of NCC, CW or anyone else's hands it is safely with a professional as it should have been from the start. Mrs Hill will be well aware that the electoral commission reviewed the poll and found it fully compliant with electoral regulations. Anyone with half a brain will remember this was checked 2 years ago. Di.ckens do make yourself known tomorrow. I would happily buy you a coffee and you can tell me how bad all those anti's are and how dreadful NCC members are, and unburden yourself about Daubney and Long. By the way was cabinet member for efficiency one of those at county you claim is unable to write? Do tell.

Report this comment

Canary Boy

Wednesday, March 6, 2013
Lyn from Lynn did you spend most of the day yesterday sitting beside Mr Green by any chance?

Report this comment

Canary Boy

Wednesday, March 6, 2013
Now now D.ickens (Plus the other 3 or 4 different names you are using on this thread today)... you're not exactly telling the whole truth about the poll are you? No change there, just more misinformation and stirring as usual. Yawn.

Report this comment

Fenscape

Tuesday, March 5, 2013
"The best part of the day was when the Cory Bloke asked who would be mad enough to sign a contract without getting planning permission first. The distinct hiss went round the room "The County Council" Thanks to Electra for summing up the absolute incompetence of Norfolk's toxic Tories.

Report this comment

Peter Watson

Tuesday, March 5, 2013
The inquiry meeting finished at 18:00 hours and most enjoyable. Cory Wheelabrator scored an own goal over the referendum. John Boldon suggested the Borough held the referendum too early but CW delivered their Energy From waste Leaflets and held exhibitions prior to any poll. Cory Wheelabrators phone poll results were released at the same time as the Borough referendum. John Boldon focused on the wording of the Borough Referendum but should have quit while he was ahead. The CW Comres poll was flawed as it was engineered in favour of Energy from Waste but the public were not told what energy from waste was an incinerator. This information disqualifies PFI funding as evidence needed for consensus unless we have another referendum!

Report this comment

Choice

Tuesday, March 5, 2013
Defra should not be funding projects that are in the wrong place. This is a waste of tax-payers money. NCC should kick this waste incinerator out. Elections looming and Cory Wheelabrator still spinning their yarns. Who was it who signed the contract without planning permission? The people of West Norfolk made their voice heard loud and clear they don't want to burn. Every meeting I attended to hear both sides of the argument there was a unanimous vote against incineration at every one of those meetings. West Norfolk Council had a duty to represent their constituents and 65.516 people said No. Waste incinerators waste more energy than they create. We are recycling more so there is no need for incineration. Recyclable materials would have to be burned to keep up with demand for Wheelabrator to make a profit for the next 25 years. And why should Norfolk tax-payers pay for industries waste to be burned. It has also been mentioned that waste from London is a possibility to feed the waste incinerator. Child poverty on the increase and NCC want to burn valuable resources along with £600 million of tax -payers money, and what will they be left to show for it. Thousands upon thousand of tons of toxic ash dumped in landfill, so landfill goes on and on for 25 years. And the people who live near this burning inferno are the ones who would suffer the most.

Report this comment

Jack

Tuesday, March 5, 2013
Don't believe it is a choice between incineration or landfill. There are other alternatives that do not have the disadvantages of these two methods. MBT or anaerobic digestion. The County Council simply haven't explored these options.

Report this comment

norfolkngood

Tuesday, March 5, 2013
A very good start I thought from the Cory side in this. They put a good case today. Can't argue with that.

Report this comment

Mad Dog

Tuesday, March 5, 2013
Commission???. Good idea. I will get someone onto it first thing.

Report this comment

Dickens

Tuesday, March 5, 2013
Interesting to hear that the company behind the incinerator now being built in Suffolk say that they will also be taking waste from Norfolk and Essex in order to use up their surplus capacity. Plenty of double-counting here. Just wait for the waste wars to begin: 'But we need it'. 'So do we and it's Norfolk's waste so it is staying here!' 'Anyone else got anything to burn?'

Report this comment

Kenny Bunkport

Tuesday, March 5, 2013
Look East coverage - looks at similar installations in the North East (Teeside) and if you are daft enough to take the report at face value they are the best thing since sliced bread!

Report this comment

Police Commissioner ???

Tuesday, March 5, 2013
Dikcsen, have you informed the inspector yet? She will close the inquiry tomorrow no doubt once this fundamental issue comes to light. But if you want a truly joke consultation or poll, look at NCC's response to the KL vote, pathetically trawling around all the other councils in Norfolk but even that didn't give them the mandate they had hoped for. By the way Mr Boldon, its still not possible to put a balanced case to the electorate because of the amount of info you and NCC are deliberately withholding.

Report this comment

Police Commissioner ???

Tuesday, March 5, 2013
Footyboy16 - what do we want? A 2013 recycling system (not the early-1990s system we currently have) and what would then be a tiny residual going to digestion like in Cambridgeshire. Dickens - was a returning officer appointed in the sense of the relevant Acts - PPERA or LGA? There's no returning officer named by the poll results on the Borough Council website.

Report this comment

M

Tuesday, March 5, 2013
The law applies to polls carried out by any council where a Returning Officer is appointed to act. Any such poll is subject to the law and a council is acting illegally if it uses undue influence to direct people to vote in a certain way. King’s Lynn Council appear to have broken the law.

Report this comment

Dickens

Tuesday, March 5, 2013
You truly have to laugh, people don't want an incinerator which is their opinion, apparently there is no where to put a new landfill site and if there were people would be protesting about that, but I bet 90% of people in the Kings Lynn area have never stepped foot on a landfill site and smelt the smells coming from one and witnessed all the vermin that goes with it, rats mice, pigeons seagulls etc all that spread disease.. swings and roundabouts I think, so if you have no landfill sites and no incinerator what do you want in Kings Lynn ?? exactly..

Report this comment

Footyboy16

Tuesday, March 5, 2013
People are of course welcome to form their own opinions. But then how do they get them across. Asking them a question was an ideal way of doing that. The County and their chumbos Cory were invited to join in but declined to do so. That means they and their insane supporters do not have the right after the event to start whingeing and moaning about it. Fair play. I was there and the best part of the day was when the Cory Bloke asked who would be mad enough to sign a contract without getting planning permission first. The distinct hiss went round the room "The County Council" Because of course that is what those poltroons have done and their chumbo thinks they are mad.

Report this comment

Electra

Tuesday, March 5, 2013
It happened while I was away (so I could not vote) but I don't think the poll was subject to The Electoral Commission, was it? Anyway, even Cory's own polling showed a clear majority against them in the Borough, so why is anyone bothering to quibble this? Cory claim a majority in Norfolk as a whole - but Norfolk as a whole won't have to live with 170 lorries a day driving along minor roads to fuel an incinerator upwind and upriver from its largest town.

Report this comment

M

Tuesday, March 5, 2013
According to The Electoral Commission website no one is allowed to use ‘undue influence’ in any election or poll. King’s Lynn Council did however directly influence the poll in the incinerator debate when it arranged to send out a separate sheet suggesting that people should vote ‘NO’. That is an abuse of power by the leader and Deputy Leader of that council who are both aware of the implications and the law regarding influencing the results of elections. They may have brought their office into disrepute. This is a criminal matter and a report to the Electoral Commission should be made and the Planning Inspector should also be made aware of the issue by the Commission as it may have an effect of the outcome of the Inspectors decision. This evidence is flawed and illegal. It should also be reported to Norfolk County Council’s legal team.

Report this comment

Dickens

Tuesday, March 5, 2013
Has the law been broken by Lynn Council ? Did the influence the ’NO’ vote by sending out a sheet with the poll cards suggesting people should vote ’NO’ The Electoral Commission should be notified by one of those voters who was unduly influenced so they can investigate whether or not the law has been broken.

Report this comment

Dickens

Tuesday, March 5, 2013
Representation of the Peoples Act Under section 3; Undue influence; "A person is guilty of undue influence if they directly or indirectly make use of or threaten to make use of force, violence or restraint, or inflict or threaten to inflict injury, damage or harm in order to induce or compel any voter to vote or refrain from voting. This can include threats of harm of a spiritual nature. A person may also be guilty of undue influence if they act with the intention of impeding or preventing the voter from freely exercising their right to vote. Corrupt practice, Section 115, RPA 1983.ction" Does sending out a seperate sheet supporting a NO vote and scaring the lives out of people mean Lynn Council has broken the law ? Should someone report them to the Electoral Commission and report this to the press ?

Report this comment

Dickens

Tuesday, March 5, 2013
Has the Inspector been told by anyone that this poll by the council was illegal ?

Report this comment

Del Boy

Tuesday, March 5, 2013
I was there this morning, but I had to go back to work once I saw there's no chance to take part today. I left my name and address so I can be called later. It's a shame that there's a microphone system in use (when they eventually got the speakers working, 2 hours after the start...), but they aren't making recordings available to the working public. There were more than 100 people there this morning. It was standing room only and the car park had overflowed when the room was only about half-full. Why is the inquiry being held in that venue on the north edge of town with no bus service, no proper bicycle parking and a small car park? This doesn't seem like a very public inquiry to me. Should they hold it somewhere like South Lynn's community centre? That's where the incinerator will affect most, of course. Or one of the town centre halls that everyone could reach easily? Or a temporary building at the site itself? Oh yes, that's right: they can't use the site itself - it's currently flooded!

Report this comment

M

Tuesday, March 5, 2013
Very interesting point. Perhaps the next time King’s Lynn Council sends out polling cards for the election they could enclose a separate sheet advising people to vote for the Conservatives only. I wonder how well that would go down. Exactly the same dirty little trick they pulled with this planning application. This is a matter that should be reported to the Electoral Commission as an illegal move. I telephoned the Commission today and checked the law on this. King’s Lynn Council do appear to have acted illegally in sending out a separate sheet influencing the vote. This is not surprising as that council has a very amateur legal team who would not know the law on this.

Report this comment

Dickens

Tuesday, March 5, 2013
Well said Lyn, that so called poll was a complete travesty. If you ask a totally loaded question then what sort of answer do you expect? I'm sure that the Inspector will not be fooled by such nonsense and will see it for what it is - a worthless piece of gerrymandering.

Report this comment

Pentney Voice

Tuesday, March 5, 2013
Yes simple enough. When it comes to a vote it is normal practice to let people form their own views. It is not normal to send out a voting paper along with another sheet explaining reasons to vote for or against something or someone. Imagine the next election and attached to the ballot box booth were a list of reasons to vote only Labour for example. Such an action would be deemed illegal and render the poll invalid.

Report this comment

Lyn from Lynn

Tuesday, March 5, 2013
maybe they wereare at work? Just an educated guess!....Would you care to enlighten us with the poll was a fix claim? It posed a balanced question along the lines of "Do you support an incinerator in K Lynn?" with a simple YN answer? How could anyone misconstrue that or find it misleading?

Report this comment

d, west lynn

Tuesday, March 5, 2013
I am glad they mentioned that so called 'poll'. What a fix that was. Where are the 65,000 today ? Less than 100 turned up. That's how interested they all are.

Report this comment

Lyn from Lynn

Tuesday, March 5, 2013
Is it me or do they keep fogetting that the power station is now mothballed and Dr Palm has said he doesn't want thier power? And whats this strategic road network they talk about? Clogged single carriageways already laden with HGV's, caravans and cars. Perfect location for what? NCC councillors!

Report this comment

d, west lynn

Tuesday, March 5, 2013
These people really are full of it, if I paid his wages to oppose it he would sing just as loud. The paper mill does not want to get involved that is why they are sorting themselves out, the people who live in and around Kings Lynn feel the same, when will the penny drop?? If its that wonderful take it to Norwich and heat County hall or is there to much hot air there already.

Report this comment

Sweet cheeks

Tuesday, March 5, 2013
Really, you do need us to build it here, oh please say yes. Our record in the US is so atrocious that we have no chance of further expanding operations there, but then we had the clever idea of extending overseas. Just needed to find some greedy gullible politicians ... and your lot were a perfect match. Even signed-up to a £20 mil penalty clause if it doesn't go ahead. Lucky for them that surcharging is no longer available in your local government law.

Report this comment

Mr Cameron Isaliar

Tuesday, March 5, 2013