It would be ‘ludicrous’ to build an incinerator on the opposite side of Norfolk to the county’s biggest producer of waste, a public inquiry into the scheme heard today.

To send a link to this page to a friend, you must be logged in.

What happens now..?

Now the four main parties have made their opening submissions, the inquiry will adjourn for a week to give the inspector time to familiarise herself with the case.

It will reconvene on Tuesday, March 5, at the Professional development centre, in Kilham’s Way (9.30am).

From then witnesses will be called by the parties to give evidence on various issues such as air quality or flooding. These will be cross-examined, meaning some could be in for lengthy questioning.

Once witness evidence has concluded, third parties including members of the public will have their say.

A programme setting out who will be appearing when and an approximate timescale is expected to be published later this week.

As the two main opponents to the scheme made their opening speeches this afternoon Natalie Lieven QC, on behalf of West Norfolk council, said there were “fundamental objections” to the incinerator.

“It is accepted that there are benefits from the nature of the proposal,” she added. “However this is not a suitable site to deliver those benefits and the application itself fails substantially in demonstrating that it is. The objections demonstrate that this application should be refused.”

Miss Lieven said the council objected on three areas of policy - proximity, waste hierarchy and prematurity.

“The European Union Directive on waste requires that the network of waste disposal and recovery installations established enables waste to be recovered in one of the nearest appropriate installations by means of the most appropriate methods and technologies,” she said.

How did we get here..?

The story starts in March 2006, when plans for an incinerator on the outskirts of Norwich were thrown out after a determined campaign by residents.

That same year, Norfolk County Council published its new waste management strategy, embracing “the universally-accepted waste hierarchy, giving priority to reducing, reusing and recycling waste and sending less to landfill”. It also pledged the council would find better ways of disposing of so-called residual waste than burying it in landfill, using “modern technology”.

The following year, the county council said it was applying for PFI (Private Finance Initiative) credits from the government to pay for new “waste treatment infrastructure”. In 2008, the county council bought the Willows site at Saddlebow, near King’s Lynn. In 2009, it invited companies to come forward with ways of dealing with our waste. Amey Cespa and Cory Wheelabrator were shortlisted. In November 2010, Cory became preferred bidder and the incinerator proposal was up and running.

Opposition was mounting fast, with a poll carried out by West Norfolk Council a week earlier revealing 92pc of residents were opposed to the plant. West Norfolk drew up the battle lines, councillors agreeing a £250,000 war chest to fund a legal fight against county hall.

A planning application was submitted in June, which was followed by an eight-week public consultation. Opposition mounted as parish councils across Norfolk weighed in. The county council ploughed ahead.

In January 2012, the then environment secretary Caroline Spelman agreed to award the PFI credits. A legal challenge later failed.

Behind the scenes, the war of words was turning ugly, with Tory councils at loggerheads.

In March, the contract to build and run the incinerator was formally awarded to Cory. A few weeks later, an email sent by Kevin Vaughan, political assistant to the Conservatives at County Hall, asked Radio Norfolk if it was aware of a leadership challenge to Nick Daubney, leader at West Norfolk, whose authority was struggling to come up with an alternative to incineration. Mr Vaughan was later suspended. The email would eventually lead to a standards hearing and the resignation of county council leader Derrick Murphy – the incinerator’s most high-profile supporter.

In June, the county council gave the incinerator planning permission after a stormy meeting. But the decision was immediately called in by Eric Pickles, which brings us to today.

“This necessitates consideration of the geographical relationship between where relevant waste streams arise and where they can appropriately be subject to recovery.”

Miss Lieven said the application failed to comply with the “proximity principle”.

“To suggest that it is the nearest appropriate installation and so fully compliant with the principles of self-sufficiency and proximity, when it is in the north west corner of the county and on the far side of the county from the largest settlement and waste producer in the county is ludicrous,” she said.

Miss Lieven said the borough council was concerned that the incinerator would be “a disincentive to recycle”. She added the borough was making efforts towards “innovative waste recycling”, which was evidenced by its signing a contract with Material Works to recycle its waste.

“The applicant and also the county council seek to squash this innovation and suggest no reliance should be placed upon the agreement with material works,” she said.

“That the applicant takes this position is unsurprising, however the position of the county council is unfortunate given that the Material Works agreement provides the potential for a major change in the way waste is handled in the county and a truly innovative way forward in the treatment and recycling of waste.”

Solicitor Carla Goodyear, appearing on behalf of KLWIN, said its evidence would focus on six separate areas.

She said they were the carbon footprint of the plant, the waste hierarchy, failings in the applicant’s emissions modelling, air pollution, the impact of the incinerator on the local ecology and environmental health effects.

“Evidence will show that for each kilowatt hour of energy produced, the quantity of carbon dioxide released from the facility would exceed that of other power sources,” she said.

“It exceeds that of gas power stations and would also exceed that of any coal-fired power station that would be permitted in the future.

“It is KLWIN’s submission that the facility fails to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, it is not low carbon and hinders efforts to decarbonise the power supply. Furthermore, the facility’s environmental impact in terms of climate change is significant and unsustainable.”

When the firm behind the plan made its opening submission, its lawyer claimed the Willows business park, at Saddlebow, offered “unrivalled opportunities”.

Richard Phillips QC, appearing on behalf of Cory Wheelabrator, said: “In our experience, it is rare to find a site so well suited to an efw (energy from waste) proposal.

“The site is located in an industrial estate lying within the settlement boundary of King’s Lynn and in an area that is identified in the development plan as being suitable for development.

“The site enjoys unrivalled opportunities to deliver combined heat and power. Indeed, the application site could hardly be bettered in Norfolk.

“Not only is there a very short and easy connection to the grid for the export of electricity, the site immediately adjoins the largest heat user within Norfolk, Palm Paper, and is in close proximity to the proposed major new growth and regeneration areas of King’s Lynn which have the potential to benefit from a district heating system.”

Mr Phillips said contracts for the supply of heat and power could not be entered into before planning permission was obtained. He added Palm Paper, given the controversy over the plant, wished to remain neutral but had not dismissed the option of taking heat from the plant.

He added: “The application site is well served by the existing local and strategic road network, is generally remote from important cultural heritage assets and potentially sensitive receptors, including dwellings, and is of no ecological importance itself.”

Mr Phillips said while concerns had been expressed about the incinerator’s impact on Roydon Common and Dersingham Bog nature reserves, there had been no objections from the Environment Agency or Natural England.

Ian Cameron QC, on behalf of Norfolk County Council, said as waste authority, it gave the incinerator application “careful consideration”.

“Following initial scrutiny of the application by its own officer and external consultants, the county council was not satisfied with the information that had been submitted by the applicant.

“As a result the county council requested a very significant amount of additional information. A substantial body of additional information was provided.

“Following scrutiny of that information and receipt of consultation responses from statutory consultees and the public, the council’s officers recommended to members that planning permission be granted.

“The members considered the report prepared by officers and resolved to accept their recommendation.”

Hundreds of people have turned out for the first day of the public inquiry into controversial plans for an incinerator on the outskirts of King’s Lynn.

Earlier Elizabeth Hill, the inspector who will be overseeing the inquiry, explained her role would be to listen to the evidence before making a recommendation to the Secretary of State for Communities, Eric Pickles, who would make the final decision.

Mrs Hill, who has stepped in after the inspector originally due to run the inquiry was taken ill, said it would adjourn for a week after today, to give her time to read background papers.

She said it would resume next Tuesday and a timetable for the rest of the hearing will be published later this week.

Inquiry papers will be made available online, via the link above. Hard copies of all documents will also be available at West Norfolk council’s offices in Chapel Street.

Follow the link above for the latest from the inquiry on our live blog.

86 comments

  • No wonder you didn't have time to attend the Inquiry meeting Jo.hn. You were too busy filling in that EDP poll!!

    Report this comment

    Sandy.L

    Wednesday, February 27, 2013

  • responsible parent what responisble parent poisions children , oh one from Norwich no doubt who dont care about anyone else

    Report this comment

    jaroldcanary

    Tuesday, February 26, 2013

  • Honest John, I was not aware that I held John Martin personally responsible for anything, given that my previous posting also mentioned a group of individuals collectively monikered: "a few people in King's Lynn". I suppose for someone like yourself who feels the need to simply repeat my own words back at me and assume that it makes a reasoned argument cannot be expected to comprehend the minutiae the obvious. Of course, you're certainly correct about one thing, which is a, how do I put this... ambiguity on particular matters going on within county hall. I would suggest though, that perhaps these ambiguities are only apparent because of the outright hostility to people in King's Lynn and elsewhere to the project. I don't recall many people making this much fuss about all of the other work the county council does. So again, I would ask you (returning to my original point) exactly how much do these complainants owe the taxpayers of Norfolk for all of the complaints that they have made (and try to answer without attaching your own value judgement on how good or bad the project is)?

    Report this comment

    Peter J

    Sunday, March 3, 2013

  • Despite what you think JF, I don't have 'a lot' - I am independently minded and like yourself, which I appreciate, am entitled to my opinion.

    Report this comment

    Sandy.L

    Wednesday, February 27, 2013

  • 'accpeted', 'deminstrating', 'Eurpoean', 'ansd', 'upion' ................

    Report this comment

    Thoreauwasright

    Tuesday, February 26, 2013

  • Just to put it out there, yo should read Dr D Hogg's damning evidence against CW and NCC, makes enlightening reading of the dirty tactics, underhand statistics and quite frankly, lies.

    Report this comment

    d, west lynn

    Tuesday, February 26, 2013

  • Fisher John, it's understandable. Dikcsen says and we do. Actually I am sure more would have attended but we all have busy lives fighting to put bread in our childrens' mouths in these austere times. What was it the Cameleon said, "arbeit macht frei"?

    Report this comment

    Mr Cameron Isaliar

    Tuesday, February 26, 2013

  • On the wrong side for Norfolk's main waste producing area maybe, but nicely situated for the rest of the UK and sea transport. Ingo is right as usual - local recycling programmes would maximise job creation. A big burner will create relaively few jobs because it's entirely a case of how much profit can be squeezed out of a giant bonfire. Extensive recycling is considerably more labour-intensive due to the diversity of processes and therefore less attractive if purely judged on costs. Actually I favour Thetford if we have to have an incinerator anywhere. It already has one giant watse burner and it is the biggest dive in Norfolk by some distance. Also much better transport links from Norwich and, soon, "elsewhere".

    Report this comment

    Mr Cameron Isaliar

    Tuesday, February 26, 2013

  • Oh of course Fenscape... it would be absolutely preposterous for someone who actually thinks the incinerator is a good idea to be anyone other than Derrick Murphy. I suppose I was mistaken in thinking that the paranoid delusions of the anti brigade might have disappeared by now. And Ingo... dear Ingo... so wilfully and ignorantly missing the point once again. I wasn't referring simply to this message board, but rather the myriad FOI requests, complaints and so on by Mr. Martin. It was he, afterall, who made the complaint against the former leader despite it having nothing to do with him. It only cost the taxpayer £35K! Perhaps you should join me in taking some of these delightful blue pills; the reality they bring on is quite something to behold.

    Report this comment

    Peter J

    Thursday, February 28, 2013

  • and what is meant by 'generally remote'?

    Report this comment

    Thoreauwasright

    Tuesday, February 26, 2013

  • I do not recall seeing how the rubbish will arrive in Kings Lynn. Is the A47 ready for the extra traffic. Surely all this rubbish should be moved by rail and Kings Lynn is not the most accessable place by rail from Norfolk.

    Report this comment

    jennifer jane

    Wednesday, February 27, 2013

  • John Fisher why did BBC Radio Norfolk say there were over 450 people at the morning proceedings. The final count read out was 753 as some left at lunch and others arrived. Maybe you have the days wrong or the wrong location.

    Report this comment

    Alan Allan

    Tuesday, February 26, 2013

  • Fenscape- You surely have not forgotten that Derrick is working very hard at the moment on a specially designed course fulfilling his norms learning how to be honest and ethical!! Has anyone checked??

    Report this comment

    maryjane

    Thursday, February 28, 2013

  • It seems a valid point that it is those that are doing all the complaining that are costing us all a lot of money. All the time they are trying to blame the cost of their actions on councillors one by one but if these people just stopped the constant complaints and asking for inquiries etc then we would all be better off. Please stop complaining. You seem to think you represent everyone but you don't. I am sick of this silly protesting and so are a lot of people.

    Report this comment

    Lyn from Lynn

    Monday, March 4, 2013

  • Miss Lieven said today that the application failed to comply with the “proximity principle”. yet it was the Borough Council whom she represents that offered and sold the site as suitable for the purpose to County in 2008. How much did the Borough receive for this valuable site. Has the Borough been so blinded by the cash flow into their coffers that they overlooked the seriousness of the use to which the site was to be put. Looks like those in charge were happy with the prospect of the incinerator until they realized it would harm their election prospects in 2011. This of course is in hindsight, we now have an expensive and unnecessary inquiry that could have been avoided at an earlier stage.

    Report this comment

    Norfolcia

    Tuesday, February 26, 2013

  • PJ – “How much do they owe? Absolutely nothing.” The fact that you didn’t like my answer doesn’t mean I didn’t provide you with one. “although given the level of vitriol thrown at councillors over this matter might give you a reason why they're not as honest as you might like.” Your lame attempt to justify councillor’s dishonesty shows how out of touch you are with ordinary members of the public who live in the real world, it is the very fact they are not honest, that attracts the disgust in the first place. How sad that lying has become so commonplace in politics so many people find it acceptable.

    Report this comment

    Honest John

    Tuesday, March 5, 2013

  • If the EDP leaned in the direction of CW and the County any more than they do they'd fall over.

    Report this comment

    Electra

    Tuesday, February 26, 2013

  • Those who want jobs should look no further than the continent were they are recycling and reusing valuable resources rather than filling holes in the ground or burning what is perfectly good to recycle. One could think that those in a hole should stop digging, why burn something of value, and pay for it when you can get paid for its reuse. A national reuse strategy would open new revenue stream and create jobs, not cost us in expensive PFI's, its a no brainer.

    Report this comment

    ingo wagenknecht

    Tuesday, February 26, 2013

  • The Inspector seemed completley fed up with the way people carried on. Just over a hundred people turned up and by the afternoon about seventy left if that. If that is all that turned out for the first day then they might as well move the Inquiry to the snug bar of the local pub. No one in Norfolk seems all that interested.

    Report this comment

    John Fisher

    Tuesday, February 26, 2013

  • Erm, pot kettle black below? F.scape simply winds up the trolls

    Report this comment

    d, west lynn

    Saturday, March 2, 2013

  • The trouble with your lot Christine is that you are always having a go at anyone in favour and boy does it show. It is such childish behaviour. 'He is not in our gang - let's all get him' Yes I did fill in the poll and so what ? I am allowed to you know - same as you.

    Report this comment

    John Fisher

    Wednesday, February 27, 2013

  • Jamie Smith, please find below my comments on the points you've raised. Build it and the rubbish will come – The rubbish will be from the London Boroughs as recycling in Norfolk increases and NCC become desperate to avoid incurring charges built in to the contract by Cory. You can't keep filling the holes in the ground, recycle as much as possible, and make best use of the stuff that can't be remodeled, or repurposed – I also agree with this, however by NCC’s own admission their recycling facilities do not make use of as much material as is the case in other authorities. Further recycling could be achieved with better, cleaner technology than incineration. I'm sure there will be some sort of EU law against any seriously damaging bi-products of the process. – Unless Cory publish accurate figures regarding the filters they intend to use it’s impossible to invoke EU legislation. If Cory continue to withhold or disguise the information it will be near impossible to challenge it legally. People NEVER want these things to happen near them. People didnt want the wind farm at Sheringham. – Wind technology is not particularly efficient, however I would imagine that those who opposed wind turbines in Sheringham would prefer those to a waste incinerator. There is a massive need for sustainable energy and the fact that we choose to remain a throwaway culture shows the burning process to be one of the best uses of our financial resources. – When you factor in to account the enormous cost of building the incinerator in the first place and its eventual decommissioning costs the financial implications become clearer. This is not including the fines which will be incurred if target burning thresholds aren’t met and also potential upkeep costs. There is of course the longer-term financial burden on the NHS through treating those who will unfortunately develop respiratory problems as a result of the incinerator being build downwind of a major population centre. Save any land that could be used for Landfill for useful things like Hospitals, Schools, Business premises etc. jaroldcanary - the simple fact is that people will take the easiest option. If your plan is so brilliant, why is there no motion behind it? Incinerating this stuff is the easiest way of doing it. – Schools, hospitals and business premises, are you being facetious? There is serious motion behind alternatives to incineration, particularly in West Norfolk, and the Borough council are working hard to implement these changes. Easiest may not always be the best, but you can never satisfy everyone. – The ballot carried out by Borough Council showed that only 8% of those surveyed would be in favour of the scheme, hardly grounds for “can never satisfy everyone”. If anything, any houses near it will be more affordable because, snobs wont want to be near it. RESULT. – You are not talking about affordable housing, you are talking about negative equity and repossession. The council are spot on to push it through, and I don't like agreeing with Tories. So put up AND shut up. – And if you honestly believe that, then I don’t even feel any anger towards you, only pity.

    Report this comment

    Sam A

    Tuesday, February 26, 2013

  • Yeah! Even the mention of Fenscape's name brings the Tory Trolls out of hiding. BTW small brained creatures you don't have to split up his name. Here's a simple lesson. If there is an automatic post searcher on the system which there is, it will automatically ignore anything that has something obscene inadvertently spelt out in their name. So D ickens for obvious reasons has to have hisherits name split up. Fenscape does not need his name split up unless of course you consider the mention of the word Fen to be distasteful - maybe that is where your families come from? Living in the Fens and supporting the Tories, it doesn't get much worse than that.

    Report this comment

    alecto

    Saturday, March 2, 2013

  • Thank you Fenscape that sums it up rather well.

    Report this comment

    Honest John

    Sunday, March 3, 2013

  • erm, pot kettle black di.ckens? R.parent, what jobs are these? the handful at the efw? What about the many that would be created with alternative technologies?

    Report this comment

    d, west lynn

    Tuesday, February 26, 2013

  • If I might be so bold as to offer some input. The issue of numbers is due to Lynn Council who ‘conducted’ a poll. The wording and results are in question along with the count in my view. If 65,000 people really did vote NO then where were they ? Take away all the hyped up press and media along with council officials, councillors, legal and others and the actual Corn Exchange turnout of campaign supporters was abysmal. Quite clearly 65,000 did not vote ’No’. It was a fix and the media fell for it.

    Report this comment

    Dickens

    Wednesday, February 27, 2013

  • It's all very well quoting myself back at me, but perhaps next time you might like to delve a little deeper to discover, for example, that this particular posting was a direct response to Ingo as heshe had first talked about him in the singular. In any case, I note that you have refused to answer my question so I'll take that as a sign that you either don't know, or don't care, or both. Fenscape on the other hand, provides a rather more telling incite into the protestors views, which in simple terms appears to be that everyone should stop being human and be honest about everything. Perhaps this is a noble desire, although given the level of vitriol thrown at councillors over this matter might give you a reason why they're not as honest as you might like.

    Report this comment

    Peter J

    Monday, March 4, 2013

  • John Fisher, that really was a bit of a sad dig - I wasn't aware that I too was part of a 'lot' but seeing as you seem to value your democratic rights like the rest of us I would comment that you might be in with 'our lot' too as NCC and CW seem to be denying you much more by way of rights than anyone else is. As for the numbers I have better news for you - the official count from the Corn Exchange was just under 400 for the morning and over 160 for the final session in the afternoon. Good eh?

    Report this comment

    User Removed

    Wednesday, February 27, 2013

  • I am looking forward to next episode of this soap opera.

    Report this comment

    Dickens

    Tuesday, February 26, 2013

  • I agree with Peter J. This is all a lot of fuss created by a handful of people who are costing the local tax payer a fortune just so they can abuse the system with constant grumbling.

    Report this comment

    Lyn from Lynn

    Thursday, February 28, 2013

  • jaroldcanary..i like to think we can trust those around us not to poison anyone. Thats what planning is all about. Gosh what a scaremongerer you are.

    Report this comment

    Responsible parent

    Tuesday, February 26, 2013

  • Mrs Hill remained calm and professional despite the fish wives being out in force today.

    Report this comment

    Dickens

    Tuesday, February 26, 2013

  • Yesterday's blog Tony Adams- is this the same Tony Adams who until quite recently has been ' wet-nursing' Derrick Murphy?

    Report this comment

    maryjane

    Wednesday, February 27, 2013

  • Democrat; Just for the purpose of clarity. The ‘poll’, if you can call it that was conducted by King’s Lynn Council who are opposed to the scheme. The ‘Returning Officer’ in charge of the counting of the votes was none other than Ray Harding who is the Chief Executive of that council. Perhaps NCC or Cory might produce their own ‘poll’ and count the votes themselves. I wonder how you might view that ?

    Report this comment

    Dickens

    Thursday, February 28, 2013

  • Peter J, the facts are the facts. Had Murphy acted honourably then there would have been no cost to the taxpayer. You can't have it both ways - blaming a member of the public for highlighting the Dear Leader's transgressions simply won't wash. Oh and 'Lyn from Lynn' - The odds of you being a real person and not another of D.ickens's alter-egos seem to be quite small. You ARE printing this all off to wave at the Inspector aren't you, old chum?

    Report this comment

    User Removed

    Monday, March 4, 2013

  • Actually Johnny Reggae if you were to research some facts before you post your comments you would find that we have already set in motion a proper recycling plant to built to change rubbish into building materials, you want to burn it do it near your home and let your family suffer the effects of the pollution, we are far more forward thinking over here

    Report this comment

    jaroldcanary

    Tuesday, February 26, 2013

  • Surprise surprise... another EDP comment string where lots of people who don't support the incinerator come out in force to whinge and moan about something which is perfectly reasonable. It is of course, both amusing and interesting in equal measure, but on the serious side, I do wonder how much, in total, opposition to this plant has cost the taxpayer overall. When you add up all the inquiries, the borough council's ill-though "poll" (FYI not a democratic vote, or a referendum, or any of word derived from latin which implies that the "people" have had a real say), the various meetings and re-meetings, the communication campaigns, the FOI requests.. all of it. And for what... because a few people in King's Lynn + John Martin want to have something to complain about.

    Report this comment

    Peter J

    Thursday, February 28, 2013

  • "It only cost the taxpayer £35K!" ...which could have been completely avoided if the wretched man had put his hands up in the first place rather than try to abuse all manner of processes and procedures in order to pervert every stage of the investigation. Whatever happened to decency and transparency in local government these days? £35K will be chickenfeed compared to the £20M that the disgraced ex-leader will cost us eventually.

    Report this comment

    User Removed

    Thursday, February 28, 2013

  • Stop stalling. Get it built, create jobs and make the best use of our rubbish !

    Report this comment

    Responsible parent

    Tuesday, February 26, 2013

  • Hahahahaha EDP you are a joke. I wouldnt be NCC's hand puppet if I were you. You dont know where those hands have been :-

    Report this comment

    sallzy

    Tuesday, February 26, 2013

  • Elizabeth Hill was treated with respect at the Inquiry, she was professional and calm. She will uncover all Norfolk County Councils errors. And we will continue to pursue Democracy for Norfolk's children. King's Lynn West Norfolk Council have a healthier alternative and do not want to burn waste, and I am sure Elizabeth Hill will see that the waste incinerator has been badly thought out by a handful of people at county hall who can't see past their own noses and did not allow a full Norfolk debate. They did this so that you would not learn about the health affects that are caused by waste incineration. Waste incinerators, cause cancers it hase been proven time and time again. We will not allow the children of Lynn to be experimental guinea pigs for a 25 year experiment breathing in mercury, lead, cadmium dioxins and furans 65.516 people said NO.

    Report this comment

    Jack

    Tuesday, February 26, 2013

  • So Dickens, are you suggesting that Ray Harding might be corrupt?

    Report this comment

    democrat

    Friday, March 1, 2013

  • Canary Brain unfortunately for you the BBC this morning are quoting over 400 attendees yesterday. The Lynn News reporter estimated 500. Obviously you either need the services of Specsavers OR an urgent medical assessment.

    Report this comment

    Canary Boy

    Wednesday, February 27, 2013

  • I am glad Dickens brought up the matter of the poll. I have all along been astounded that the council managed to get so many responses from a town which does not normally have a huge electoral turnout.And of course the answer is that everyone in the West Norfolk district was polled-so that means those living on the far east and far south of the council who would probably not even have been affected by any disputed emissions. I am still puzzled by how they managed to get so many people to bother . If there was to be a poll on the incinerator it should have been a poll of the whole county, of those paying council tax who are going to have to fork out for fines when we exceed landfill limits. As for being on the "other side" of the county-Lynn is part of the London corridor, development is on the cards all the way up the A10 and West Norfolk district is relatively populous, easily accessible from the Fenland areas of Norfolk,Breckland district , North Norfolk and Norwich so fits the bill nicely. The Lynn campaign is NIMBYism seeking to undermine county council democracy and led by a council leader who would do better looking after his responsibilities in Lynn

    Report this comment

    Daisy Roots

    Saturday, March 2, 2013

  • I wonder just how much socio-economic factors played in the decision to site the incinerator in South Lynn which is one of the poorest parts of the county,not of such value,as the leafy Norwich suburbs of for example,Cringleford,in the minds of Cory and their accomplices at county hall.

    Report this comment

    Peter Watson

    Tuesday, February 26, 2013

  • hang on, I though Dr Palm had said they weren't taking powerheat from the efw and the power station ishas been run down?

    Report this comment

    d, west lynn

    Tuesday, February 26, 2013

  • No way was there 400. In the afternoon I would say about 60 -80 no more. The BBC asked some nimbys how many turned up and of course they blew it out of all proportion as usual and the Beeb believed them. Sorry C.Boy but C.Brain is right. If anyone needs strong glasses it's you mate. Either that or top up the meds.

    Report this comment

    John Fisher

    Wednesday, February 27, 2013

  • So he who told people to stay away yesterday must have attended the meeting to observe the fishwives as he calls them!! I was impressed with Mrs Hill she came across as professional and unbiased which is all I ask. I look forward to the weeks to come when we will at last hear all relevant facts, except the withheld evidence that NCC & CW still refuse to release. You have to ask why they dare not release information about filters and elements of wastes to be accepted. No surprise that they will say nothing about Norfolk taxpayers funding CW legal representation.

    Report this comment

    Canary Boy

    Tuesday, February 26, 2013

  • If Caroline Spelman releases the PFI funding it is because she lacks the courage to stand up to lobbyists, even though - as she has said herself - this project doesn't meet DEFRA's own (PFI) criteria. By pretending that the situation in Norfolk has changed (i.e. 4 votes from Conservative Boroughs ), she avoids revealing how she lacked the courage to stand up for democracy. What Can You Do? Let as many people know about this as possible. Tell them that if Caroline Spelman caves in it is due to waste industry lobbying - is she prepared to ignore 65,500 voters, the 65 Parishes who opposed this, the 2500 planning objections. Also King's Lynn & West Norfolk Borough Council Opposition. NCC will breach national recycling targets in 2020, as well as the PFi criteria - 11 Dec 2011 George Osborne and David Cameron rejected incinerators in their own constituencies, quoting they are the largest polluters to humans and wildlife. I am pensioner,where I live is 1 mile downwind of the incinerater.also there are five primary and infant schools within 2 miles. A gypsy site with children, which is within a 1000 yards downwind.This will affect the young and the elderly who already have respiratory system diseases through toxic pollution and the rest of the population, and don't forget the domestic animals, and all the wildlife. You cannot smoke in a public place,but they can build a incinerater right on the edge of King's Lynn with a population of( 41,000,)emitting millions of toxic particles contaminating the air we breathe.Furthermore there is all the bottom and fly ash,commercial,and toxic industrial waste, which will go into hazardous landfill sites,about 30% of the total tonnage will leach into the groundwater.

    Report this comment

    LFB

    Wednesday, February 27, 2013

  • What a sad state of affairs - that our country council is so daft and inept that they have to be dragged kicking and screaming to a public inquiry - I'm ashamed to be a Tory.

    Report this comment

    Tony Adams

    Tuesday, February 26, 2013

  • So edp, why print a CW point of view and not one of the opposition too?

    Report this comment

    d, west lynn

    Tuesday, February 26, 2013

  • And another thing. What happened to the EDP online poll asking people if they were in support or not ? The last time I checked it was showing 39% in favour and had been climbing all day. I can't find it now so not sure what the reading is but of course complaints came in that somehow that was a 'fiddle' as well. What a joke.

    Report this comment

    John Fisher

    Wednesday, February 27, 2013

  • Is Broadland Business Park the Norwich site, referred to as being one of 3, along with Snetterton and Costessey, an already approved site for another processing plant? If so, who has been consulted?

    Report this comment

    bedoomed

    Tuesday, February 26, 2013

  • CW's QC sat stony faced and perfectly rigid as CW & NCC were asked by a member of public what they were trying to hide by enforcing a confidentiality clause on NCC's contractual obligations for feedstock over a year after signing the contract. At least the NCC corner went into yet another group huddle before refusing to answer. So there you have it folks, Norfolk’s taxpayer’s are paying for something so sinister and unpalatable, that NCC agreed to full confidentiality purely over what NCC had to supply for 25 years.

    Report this comment

    Honest John

    Tuesday, February 26, 2013

  • LFB - you need not worry one iota if the locals fall ill to respiratory conditions. They will not become a burden on the wider public having been adjudged fit to continue working by ATOS. Dikcens - is your actual name David Irving by some chance?

    Report this comment

    Mr Cameron Isaliar

    Thursday, February 28, 2013

  • Cost to taxpayer in casting a light upon the tip of the iceberg at county hall: £35K. Cost to taxpayer if Murphy had put his hand up and admitted his role in all of this intstead of trying to be evasive: £0K.

    Report this comment

    User Removed

    Sunday, March 3, 2013

  • JF you are just SO silly. The program officer will confirm numbers in due course people did sign in you know!! Will you insist he is wrong as well? Get a grip man.

    Report this comment

    Canary Boy

    Wednesday, February 27, 2013

  • How interesting that Peter J holds John Martin personally responsible for “the complaint” against his former leader, and the cost to the taxpayer of £35k, I was under the distinct impression there were a total of 7 complainants tarred with this brush. Dear Peter J … so wilfully and ignorantly missing the point once again. Had those inside the fortress of County Hall done what they are paid out of taxpayer’s money to do and carried out their own investigation into the very small tip of this very large iceberg in the first place, these 7 ordinary members of the public would not have had to do the job for them. As to FOI requests …dear Peter J … so wilfully and ignorantly missing the point once again. If NCC were half as open and transparent as they attempt to make out, these would not be necessary would they? I know a great many people who have put in a myriad of FOI requests, do you think John Martin was behind all of these as well. Dear oh dear, as long as he is considered a thorn in NCC’s side, at least we all know that it’s business as usual.

    Report this comment

    Honest John

    Sunday, March 3, 2013

  • Clearly there are a number of individuals who are posting on this site who were not present at the inquiry today. Attendance was eventually near 400 (as expected there was some movement in and out). Don`t forget that the majority of West Norfolk citizens were at work during the hours of the inquiry.

    Report this comment

    democrat

    Tuesday, February 26, 2013

  • If this gets rejected perhaps NCC will use the old RAF Coltishall site as their back up plan for an alternative site? It would be interesting to see what all of the Norwich area commentators on this site would have to say about this as a potential plan B. If Cllr Borrett is so impressed with incineration and is completely happy that there is no possible harm to health then perhaps the EDP can ask him to go on record and say he would be very happy to have an incinerator located in Hoe where he lives. ps DICKENS - please grow up. There are an awful lot of people in the county particularly in West Norfolk who are very worried about this. They deserve to be heard. I recently attended a Norfolk Waste Summit organised by Cllr Borrett and NCC. One of the main speakers from a well known respected commercial company did not give incineration a very good 'write up'. It was very apparent that Norfolk is light years behind other counties when it comes to recycling and the disposal of household waste. Do your homework and when you have give me a call and I will happily stand in the KL Tuesday market place and debate the issue with you. You had better stick with me because it is apparent that your Tory propaganda is getting in the way of a reasoned debate and you couldn't hold your own with the grown ups inside the Corn Exchange. This inquiry is about giving all parties the opportunity to make their case in a grown up professional way. We should all be thankful for this opportunity.

    Report this comment

    BigX

    Tuesday, February 26, 2013

  • That's right, bring on Norfolk's answer to Dirty Den, who as waste portfolio holder chose incineration in Saddlebow for the greater good of Norfolk (his own words). The inquiry will be a good test of his newfound openness, assuming he has the guts to attend. How far did County have to go to find a QC called 'Mr Cameron'? Just think, the EDP will faithfully report 'blah, blah, blah' Mr Cameron said, and lo its grovelling tory-voting readers will believe it is the gospel truth. Another sure fire winner from that devious lot at county hall.

    Report this comment

    Police Commissioner ???

    Tuesday, February 26, 2013

  • Build it and the rubbish will come. You can't keep filling the holes in the ground, recycle as much as possible, and make best use of the stuff that can't be remodeled, or repurposed. I'm sure there will be some sort of EU law against any seriously damaging bi-products of the process. People NEVER want these things to happen near them. People didnt want the wind farm at Sheringham. There is a massive need for sustainable energy and the fact that we choose to remain a throwaway culture shows the burning process to be one of the best uses of our financial resources. Save any land that could be used for Landfill for useful things like Hospitals, Schools, Business premises etc. jaroldcanary - the simple fact is that people will take the easiest option. If your plan is so brilliant, why is there no motion behind it? Incinerating this stuff is the easiest way of doing it. Easiest may not always be the best, but you can never satisfy everyone. If anything, any houses near it will be more affordable because, snobs wont want to be near it. RESULT. The council are spot on to push it through, and I don't like agreeing with Tories. So put up AND shut up.

    Report this comment

    Jamie Smith

    Tuesday, February 26, 2013

  • The rubbish will come in on lorries and will be burned. Simple as that. There are no toxic fumes or any health dangers. The site is well away from Lynn anyway. Big fuss over nothing.

    Report this comment

    Mad Dog

    Wednesday, February 27, 2013

  • After all the fuss and hype hardly anyone turned up. Says it all really. Not that many are interested anyway. All this time and money wasted for weeks and weeks just to satisfy a handful of moaners.

    Report this comment

    Canary Brain

    Tuesday, February 26, 2013

  • erm, pot kettle black di.ckens? R.parent, what jobs are these? the handful at the efw? What about the many that would be created with alternative technologies?

    Report this comment

    d, west lynn

    Tuesday, February 26, 2013

  • democrat..somethings go without saying, but i was referring to anyone who has an interest in this. Not just politicians..who after all you and I do or do not elect !

    Report this comment

    Responsible parent

    Tuesday, February 26, 2013

  • I reckon fenscape is the biggest bore on here. I would prefer to hear some constructive comment rather than gainsay every day. Most people would.

    Report this comment

    Lyn from Lynn

    Friday, March 1, 2013

  • They should build it and talk afterwards. Saves a lot of time and the outcome is the same.

    Report this comment

    Del Boy

    Tuesday, February 26, 2013

  • CW and NCC are still speaking as if Palm Paper will be a customer for the heat and Steam from the incinerator. Perhaps they do not read the papers or watch news programs as we all know that Dr Palm has said publicly that the Gas Turbine he is putting through planning will mean his paper mill will be self sufficient for all its heat, power and steam requirements. I am surprised that Dr Palm has not written to them to keep everyone fully informed after all according to both CW and NCC they were at an advanced stage of talks.

    Report this comment

    Canary Boy

    Tuesday, February 26, 2013

  • As I recall the poll was sent and counted in Sunderland. Nice little article in the lynnnews today, Palm Paper has re-confirmed it will NOT use any efw power...

    Report this comment

    d, west lynn

    Friday, March 1, 2013

  • @Jack, on the subject of county council "errors", some are already in the public domain...Altinquirydotwordpressdotcom

    Report this comment

    Mr Cameron Isaliar

    Wednesday, February 27, 2013

  • Yesterday's blog Tony Adams- is this the same Tony Adams who until quite recently has been ' wet-nursing' Derrick Murphy?

    Report this comment

    maryjane

    Wednesday, February 27, 2013

  • In a Planning Inquiry it is planning law that is argued. Nothing else is taken into consideration.

    Report this comment

    Dickens

    Tuesday, February 26, 2013

  • Actually I have witnessed bigger turn outs for people opposing a few wind turbines in tin pot villages. This campaign seems dead before it starts.

    Report this comment

    Dickens

    Wednesday, February 27, 2013

  • Responsible parent. In view of recent Norfolk County Council disclosures I doubt that I could fully trust them with anything. Politicians always want us to believe we can trust them. Just because they are democratically elected (as the West Norfolk incinerator poll) does not mean they always think about all the people. It`s up to us to make sure they do or they will trample all over us for expediency`s sake.

    Report this comment

    democrat

    Tuesday, February 26, 2013

  • “I wasn't referring simply to this message board, but rather the myriad FOI requests, complaints and so on by Mr. Martin. It was he, afterall, who made the complaint against the former leader despite it having nothing to do with him. It only cost the taxpayer £35K!” This is in the singular. How much do they owe? Absolutely nothing. I would rather my taxes go on cleaning out County Hall than on the likes of purchasing Coltishall from under the nose of a private investor with a fully researched business plan. The carefully selected Cabinet are led by employed directors in trouser pocket lining deals, with all misdeeds covered up by nplaw, and all paid for by taxpayers. Then we have the self-reward schemes of NEWS & NORSE. There is much to be grateful for the incinerator, the largely ignored west of the county have had their eyes opened into what goes on at County Hall. You could get a job with Radio Norfolk, you sound just like Nick Conrad, no compliment intended.

    Report this comment

    Honest John

    Sunday, March 3, 2013

  • The Inspector was obviously impressed with the hundreds of members of the public that turned out today, an excellent start to the proceedings!

    Report this comment

    User Removed

    Tuesday, February 26, 2013

  • Miss Lieven said today that the application failed to comply with the “proximity principle”. yet it was the Borough Council whom she represents that offered and sold the site as suitable for the purpose to County in 2008. How much did the Borough receive for this valuable site. Has the Borough been so blinded by the cash flow into their coffers that they overlooked the seriousness of the use to which the site was to be put. Looks like those in charge were happy with the prospect of the incinerator until they realized it would harm their election prospects in 2011. This of course is in hindsight, we now have an expensive and unnecessary inquiry that could have been avoided at an earlier stage.

    Report this comment

    Norfolcia

    Tuesday, February 26, 2013

  • waste of public money how much is this costing the tax payer? Its not safe dont build it here!!!!! If such a facility is needed stick it where the majority of people live to reduce transport ( that will be Norwich then but the NIMBY councillors at county hall wont ever allow that will they!)

    Report this comment

    jaroldcanary

    Tuesday, February 26, 2013

  • Indeed R.Parent. Although you hold that view those against firmly believe that no one supports this application which is of course not true. The usual response from the campaigners is a barrage of rudeness and insults to anyone that holds an opposing view.

    Report this comment

    Dickens

    Tuesday, February 26, 2013

  • Peter J. there is not a single comment here from John Martin, take another blue pill. The proximity principle says that no waste should be hauled further than 15 miles to an incinerator or resource repository. The waste will not all come from Norfolk, there are undisclosed plans for co-disposal with hazardous waste and for large amounts of waste to be imported from other counties to be burned together with all the jobs and expertise, all going up the no brains chimney.

    Report this comment

    ingo wagenknecht

    Thursday, February 28, 2013

  • May I say how much I have enjoyed reading Fenscape's posts. They are the computer equivalent of poking D ickens with a sharp stick. And he goes for it every time. Keep it up you are getting a cult following!

    Report this comment

    alecto

    Friday, March 1, 2013

  • Dickens. Why is the count in doubt when all voting papers went to The Returning Officer? You are making negative comments just for the sake of it

    Report this comment

    democrat

    Wednesday, February 27, 2013

  • John Fisher, we obviously weren't at the same Public Enquiry today.... I counted just under 400 people this morning.

    Report this comment

    User Removed

    Tuesday, February 26, 2013

  • Welcome back Derrick - we've missed you... I guess you'll be on here much more now you've got nothing else to do?

    Report this comment

    User Removed

    Thursday, February 28, 2013

  • This was a very good start to the anti-campaign. So that everyone is aware the County Council has vast resources behind its attempt to bring in the incinerator (as does Cory). Carla Goodyear did very well and did anyone notice the mobile phone going off at an opportune time for the pro-incinerator camp? If anyone really believes such incinerators are safe then they have clearly not read much about them. Why oh why would you put one close to a large town, on a site that would ensure that the prevailing wind takes its poisons (and there can be no denying that they are produced) directly over the people who live there?

    Report this comment

    democrat

    Tuesday, February 26, 2013

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

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Norfolk Weather

Overcast

Overcast

max temp: 16°C

min temp: 10°C

Five-day forecast

loading...

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT