The proposed Incinerator site at Saddlebow, King's Lynn. Picture: Ian Burt

Inquiry hears King’s Lynn incinerator would not damage common

Doug Faulkner Wednesday, March 13, 2013
5:59 PM

A proposed incinerator would not have a significant impact on on the local ecology an expert has told the public inquiry.

Speaking at the public inquiry into plans for a waste facility at Saddlebow Karen Colebourn said: “I have concluded that there is no nature conservation related justification for the proposals to be refused.”

The effect of an incinerator at the proposed site, off Willow Road, on near-by areas of conservational interest.

Roydon Common and Dersingham Bog have been highlighted as areas which could be affected by emissions from the facility.

However Ms Colebourn, giving evidence on behalf of Cory-Wheelabrator, has argued that this is not the case.

“The proposal is not likely to lead to a significant effect upon Roydon Common either alone or in combination with other plans and projects.

“The features of interest have survived periods of much higher air pollution than we have now.”

Ms Colebourn said that she belived her assessment had been overly cautious in its method and that she still had found no significant problems.

The inquiry continues today at the Proffessional Development Centre on Kilham’s Way.

18 comments

Burn the green party? Make sure the emissions do not foul the air. Good idea though

Report this comment

Paul Haverson

Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Would these Luddites who object to the Incinerator prefer a landfill site then? The incinerator would be a clean burn plant and would create both jobs and energy from rubbish. It seems a brilliant solution

Report this comment

Paul Haverson

Wednesday, March 20, 2013
It's interesting that Electra mentions the Green Party, it is well known that De-Whalley fought two elections as a Green, his link with KLWIN reinforces his and their political ambitions. In the 2011 local election and again during the county by-election last year KLWIN got involved by promoting candidates from their own members and telling electors to avoid voting for the conservative candidate. One could be forgiven for taking a view that the debacle over the incinerator has more to do with individuals ambitions considering that early in the campaign there was a lot of misinformation being circulated. How is it that the conservative leader of Kings Lynn Borough Council is quite content for KLWIN to involve themselves acting against local conservatives and still giving them his support. Seems as though there needs to be a complete clear out of Borough leaders but please do not suggest recycling them.

Report this comment

Norfolcia

Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Not sure of the wisdom of making accusations about the Inspector who seems to be very experienced. It does seem to be a common tactic of the protest group that when they are cornered they respond with either insults or claims of cover ups, underhand deals and dodgy goings on. I am sure that suggesting the Inspector is not fit to preside in this is to date the most stupid statement of them all.

Report this comment

Webbed Feet

Monday, March 18, 2013
I see the article under this is about Green candidates being announced in Norwich. What has this got to do with Incineration? Unless of course the EDP has received news that the Tories intend to set fire to the Green Party. It is getting to be dangerous to stand against them. I hear in Wymondham they are behaving like playground bullies against the Independent candidate who is the best thing to happen to Wymondham since sliced bread. They are getting hysterical. As for the Inspector in this sad debacle, I have been perusing a report of the tactics used by the CW brief and her inability to deal with it properly. If this keeps up she must recuse herself. After all it was she who snippily reminded the campaigners that it was a quasi-judicial procedure. Well within that is the ability to declare the decision unlawful if it was arrived at by an inspector being unduly influenced by one side. Watch it lady, recuse yourself or start behaving properly.

Report this comment

Electra

Sunday, March 17, 2013
What is most telling was Ms Colebourn's site visit made in January and her report based on a day's survey made (by another ecologist) in October... Do you think she would take an alpine ski holiday in August?

Report this comment

Kadmos

Saturday, March 16, 2013
Seems this whole story is finished with now. Wind turbines will be next.

Report this comment

Not A Nimby

Friday, March 15, 2013
The EDP reporters have spent about as much time at the inquiry as Ms Colebourn spent at Roydon Common. She has not used any information directly gained by herself, but from other people's studies and CW's input. She was an absolute disgrace, relying on CW's consultants RPS, and just like other "experts" Armitage and Aumonier, was only salvaged at the end of her cross examination, most of which was by members of the public in the audience, by Mr Philips QC. The Inspector has shown increasing bias towards CW and today it wasn't so much that she took the biscuit but rather the whole tin. For someone with so much experience herself, she needs to start looking a bit more impartial, and less like the forgone conclusion.

Report this comment

Honest John

Thursday, March 14, 2013
Ms Colbourn is not correct, but she had a very narrow brief and got paid handsomely to speak for CW Dick.ens. Next Incinerators might be build at Costessy, Coltishall, Diss, Snetterton, they are already being discussed, but they will not feature in the Conservatives election address, they are too scared that their own voters, not just those 60.000 in west Norfolk, will turn against them and vote for more jobs in recycling and new better forms of energy production from waste. This proposal, with waste streams reducing due to recycling, this waste burner will mean over capacity, but whether it works or not, Norfolk taxpayers have to fork out for this most expensive, backward excuse of a solution.

Report this comment

ingo wagenknecht

Thursday, March 14, 2013
"she omits humans from her type of ecological concerns" - are you talking about the indigenous Saddlebow Marsh Dwellers that have been eating buried rubbish and paper mush soup for thousands of years? I expect, like most life forms, they will adapt to any environmental changes. Saddelbow Marsh Dwellers Preservation Society could give you more info on this if it existed.

Report this comment

popeye

Thursday, March 14, 2013
Roydon Common has been around a long time and is likely to remain so unless it becomes a housing estate. What possible harm could there be to this land ? None is the true answer. As for Dersingham Bog we just need to put it into perspective.

Report this comment

Dickens

Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Karen is correct, although many will not like it, but that is the nature of evidence. The features of interest have survived periods of much higher air pollution than currently exist and there is more harm coming from herbicides, insecticides and other farm sprays.

Report this comment

Dickens

Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Her so called evidence was weak at best. Nice impartial article too on the subject as usual....

Report this comment

d, west lynn

Wednesday, March 13, 2013
New pope just been elected, bless he's Argentinian, Malvinas eat your heart out.

Report this comment

ingo wagenknecht

Wednesday, March 13, 2013
New pope just been elected, bless he's Argentinian, Malvinas eat your heart out.

Report this comment

ingo wagenknecht

Wednesday, March 13, 2013
New pope just been elected, bless he's Argentinian, Malvinas eat your heart out.

Report this comment

ingo wagenknecht

Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Ms. Colebourns expertise is in ecological design and environmental planning, and it is astonishing that she omits humans from her type of ecological concerns, her evidence totally avoids the contamination of our food chain, or the impact on public health, her main concerns, and she is working with undisclosed figures regards to filtration on this, not very high chimney, is that of Roydon common and Dersingham bog. She failed to take account of the impact on Norfolk's biggest blueberry growing Farm at Fairgreen, within two miles of the planned waste burner, 40 acres of soft fruit grown, directly exposed to CW's emissions on 280 days of the year. Her evidence is selective and her brief was too narrow to be significant evidence.

Report this comment

ingo wagenknecht

Wednesday, March 13, 2013
What is there at either of these sites that would justify blocking the application anyway? Her statement makes CW's plan sound at worst neutral, although some will misinterpret it as a positive. Using the environment as one massive waste purification facility has been a long running practice of the types of industries than employ Colebourn's services. A little fine and carry on as you were. Unless she has access to details of the technology they will use, the very details they have refused to make public for spurious reasons of commercial sensitivity, her statements are conjecture which no independent expert could test.

Report this comment

Police Commissioner ???

Wednesday, March 13, 2013