Search

Incinerator would have “negligible” impact, public inquiry in King’s Lynn told

PUBLISHED: 16:05 06 March 2013 | UPDATED: 16:05 06 March 2013

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

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

Archant © 2013

A waste incinerator proposed for the outskirts of King’s Lynn would have a “negligible” impact on the character of the town, the public inquiry into the controversial plant was told.

A landscape architect called as an expert witness by Cory Wheelabrator, the consortium hoping the build the incinerator, said it would be “in keeping with the character” of commercial and industrial development south of the A47.

Colin Goodrum said he had been called before three other public inquiries being held into proposed “energy from waste” plants.

He said the inquiry into the King’s Lynn plant different from those he had attended previously, because there had been few objections to the development on landscape or visual grounds.

“Low numbers or even absence of landscape objections is unique in my experience,” he added. “I acknowledge there’s a lot of objections on other topics, but on landscape and visual, that isn’t the case.”

Mr Goodrum said none of the major consultees, including West Norfolk council and the anti-incinerator group King’s Lynn Without Incineration (KLWIN) had objected on landscape grounds.

“My evidence demonstrates how the landscape has the capacity to, and is able to accommodate a development of this scale and nature, due to the industrialised context of the Willow Business Park and Saddlebow Industrial Area, and the simple, flat nature of the surrounding landscape,” he said.

“Effects on the character of King’s Lynn north of the A47 are likely to be of negligible magnitude and minimal significance.

“It would be in keeping with the character of the existing commercial and industrial development on the edge of the town south of the A47.

“The development would effect views from some public rights of way but these are already affected by views of existing development.”

Mr Goodrum said the scheme was “well-designed” and complied with planning policy.

“In conclusion, I am firmly of the opinion that the scheme has been carefully located and designed to minimise adverse landscape and visual impacts,” he added. “The site is a good location for a power and recycling centre, being able to accommodate the proposals in a manner that is in keeping with the existing character of the area.”

Yesterday saw the conclusion of evidence from John Boldon, from Cory. He was cross-examined by members of the public on points including who the plant could supply with heat and the poll carried out by the borough council.

Mr Boldon was then asked to clarify the relationship between landfill costs and incinerator gate charges.

He said landfill costs were continuing to go up, while gate charges at incinerators were falling.

The inquiry resumes this morning at the Professional Development Centre, on Kilham’s Way.

Related articles

22 comments

  • No Lyn from Lynn comments on today's flood debate I wonder if she left the hall early so can't comment on what happened during the afternoon. Are Cory and Wheelabrator not talking anymore it they seem to try to avoid each other perhaps they arent such comfortable bed mates anymore.

    Report this comment

    Canary Boy

    Friday, March 8, 2013

  • As usual no comment of note from canaryboy other than a side swipe. Tells us all we need to know. Are all the protesters as worked up and angry as this one?

    Report this comment

    Lyn from Lynn

    Friday, March 8, 2013

  • An interesting angle, to focus on an aspect of planning requirements that was never a source of strong objection, to falsely convey the image that everything wll be just wonderful. I would be more concerned about the parts they try to skirt around.

    Report this comment

    Police Commissioner ???

    Thursday, March 7, 2013

  • I personally have no problem will the visual impact of the incinerator. This area is not visually attractive. It's the list of other problems it will cause that are a major concern to me. I live over 2 miles away but I'm worried about the well documented effects of the plume produced. God help those who live nearby. There won't be instant problems, these will slowly emerge over a period of years. The historical evidence suggests that the company involved will periodically be involved in exposing the population of West Norfolk to very dangerous pollutants. It's time to stand up and be counted. Everything legally possible must be done to stop such a monstrosity.

    Report this comment

    democrat

    Thursday, March 7, 2013

  • Oh deary, EDP can't keep it up, journos lost interest already ... try altinquirydotwordpressdotcom for a totally impartial snapshot!

    Report this comment

    Mr Cameron Isaliar

    Friday, March 8, 2013

  • The Inspector and the planner knowing each other was the predicted 'big surprise'. Some even suggested it was a set up and the last minute replacement was a deal. Tut tut. Of course it was not the case. The Inspector has mentioned it openly which removed the conflict early on in the eyes of the policy makers.

    Report this comment

    Dickens

    Friday, March 8, 2013

  • The best place to build an incinerator is nowhere. The only people who approve of incineration are technology dinosaurs who are too lazy to go out and find better technology. And lazy certainly describes the cabinet of this county although Cory's representative has chosen to describe them as mad which is a good description too.

    Report this comment

    Electra

    Thursday, March 7, 2013

  • The main problem is that the scheme is well designed and complies with all aspects of planning policy and it is the policy that is under discussion. There may be potential arguments based on two areas of policy but they have not been explored as yet.

    Report this comment

    Dickens

    Thursday, March 7, 2013

  • Cameron suggests; “try altinquirydotwordpressdotcom for a totally impartial snapshot! “ Try it by all means if you are about seven and the last thing you read was the Beano. It is true the real press has lost interest. Who can blame them ?

    Report this comment

    Dickens

    Friday, March 8, 2013

  • What a nicely worded and balanced piece from the EDP reporter, I gather EDP were missing today when the focus was on flooding, but then perhaps like D.ickens he feels visual impact is one of the issues the BC or KLWIN should waste money over on legal time. Nice to see Del Boy so well in touch with the area, can someone brief her rather than giving free reign, comments like this are awfully silly.

    Report this comment

    Honest John

    Thursday, March 7, 2013

  • Negligible impact is irrelevant in the case as people will be mesmerised by dioxins coming out of the chimney. It is equivalent to crossing paths with a rattle snake and focused on the fangs. Trouble is the incinerator will be full on for 25 years 7 days a week. What is worse this snake has been fined for fraud and polluting many times and a leopard never changes its spots.

    Report this comment

    CleanAirPlease

    Thursday, March 7, 2013

  • A landscape architect called as an expert witness by Cory Wheelabrator ... I checked on Google and this translates as "a mercenary qualified in a particular field and paid by Cory to to lie on its behalf". altinquirydotwordpressdotcom

    Report this comment

    Mr Cameron Isaliar

    Thursday, March 7, 2013

  • little tony D, I feel so honoured to finally be on the receiving end of one of your little jibes, and thanks for the publicity boost. Where you lead, others follow. On a more serious note, I cannot see why the EDP is not availing itself of your talents to write a daily update on the inquiry's progress, in lieu of its own journalistic presence. I foresee your contributions reading somewhat like "nothing to report, it's a done deal, everyone agrees it's the right place, Cory and NCC have been right all along and should get on with building it ASAP." Did I miss anything? On the matter of conspiracy, Hill has been noticeably quick off the mark to intervene in defence of CW and Boldon on more than one occasion, which makes one ponder what has he got on her? Certainly merits further investigation but that's never been EDP's forte. Here's a clue: whoever appointed Hill is colluding with NCC andor CW, turning the inquiry into the most-gloriously expenive PR exercise to diffuse public anger prior to County Coucil ballot in May.

    Report this comment

    Mr Cameron Isaliar

    Saturday, March 9, 2013

  • There is no impact on the area that is true because that entire site is already an industrial eyesore and the biggest blot is Palm Paper. They let them build that so what is the big issue ?

    Report this comment

    Sherlock

    Thursday, March 7, 2013

  • No landscape impact objections ? West Norfolk Council's lacklustre Landscape Officer is hard to find at the best of times.

    Report this comment

    Dickens

    Thursday, March 7, 2013

  • No Lyn from Lynn comments on today's flood debate I wonder if she left the hall early so can't comment on what happened during the afternoon. Are Cory and Wheelabrator not talking anymore it they seem to try to avoid each other perhaps they arent such comfortable bed mates anymore.

    Report this comment

    Canary Boy

    Friday, March 8, 2013

  • The reason there are so few objections about the landscaping of this burner is that people have far more worrying things to concern themselves with. What's a few flowers that die every year because of the ash that drops on them compared with the safety of the people and the continuing effort to increase recycling which Cory has already admitted will not happen since they intend to cremate recyclable waste, something which we suspected from the beginning. Why are you making something out of nothing.

    Report this comment

    Electra

    Thursday, March 7, 2013

  • The issue is that we can create more jobs and profits from recycling. Rather than leaving all these landfills they should be mined like they do elsewhere. The impact on road traffic is considerable, and pollution will go up as well, so is the impact on our purse. This backward 1970's solution to burn our waste is no different to burning our waste in the back garden brazier; this at a time when we dearly need jobs expertise and new revenue streams.

    Report this comment

    ingo wagenknecht

    Thursday, March 7, 2013

  • I agree. Visually it would have very little impact on the town. It's everything else that the vast majority of the people in King's Lynn are against. That includes me as I live in the town, albeit a couple of miles away from the proposed site. God help the ones who live near to the proposed incinerator as future mistakes and abuses are slowly uncovered as we all know they will be.

    Report this comment

    democrat

    Thursday, March 7, 2013

  • This is going up outside of town in the back of beyond. No one ever goes there anyway so no problem. I could understand objecting if it was in the market square but not in this spot. Best place I would say.

    Report this comment

    Del Boy

    Thursday, March 7, 2013

  • The cross examination from the anti mob seems a bit weak. Almost passive. How strange is that ?

    Report this comment

    Dickens

    Thursday, March 7, 2013

  • Agreed Mr Cameron, bored Journos already. And what about conflict of interest re Planning Inspector and Cory planner, nothing reported so far as I can see.

    Report this comment

    Ded Sterile

    Friday, March 8, 2013

The views expressed in the above comments do not necessarily reflect the views of this site

Most Read

Newsletter Sign Up

Sign up to receive our regular email newsletter

Latest from the EDP

Partly Cloudy

Partly Cloudy

max temp: 9°C

min temp: 2°C

Listen to the latest weather forecast
HOT JOBS

Show Job Lists