Councillors agree to set aside up to £200,000 to pay for legal action against the plan.

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

The mood was defiant in the old Stone Hall at Lynn Town Hall this morning, as West Norfolk council’s cabinet voted unanimously in favour of legal action.

Council leader Nick Daubney said the meeting followed an earlier decision by the council to express its opposition to the incinerator proposed for Saddlebow.

He said the council would need access to the best legal advice before proceeding, together with independent experts.

A report from chief executive Ray Harding set out the options for legal action.

More than 65,000 people voted against the the plans to build the “energy-from-waste” plant at Saddlebow, south of King’s Lynn, in a poll conducted by West Norfolk council.

But Norfolk County Council’s cabinet decided in March to award Anglo-American consortium Cory Wheelabrator the contract to build and run the plant.

The county says it has followed “best practice” and the plan to build the incinerator at Saddlebow, near King’s Lynn, has ministerial backing.

But a report setting out the case for a legal challenge says says agreeing a £20m penalty clause with Cory if the incinerator does not go ahead could be grounds for a judicial review.

Council leader Nick Daubney told this morning’s meeting: “You can’t undermine the fact 65,000 people voted and said they did not want this incinerator.

“We need to get straight on the case we know what people feel, why we’re being treated with such contempt is beyond me.

“We are a community and we have to act in the best interests of this community.”

Councillor Brian Long, who also sits on the county council, said he fully supported the legal move. He told the meeting the county council had acted in a “deplorable” way.

Today’s meeting also heard council officers were looking at whether the council should withdraw from the Norfolk Waste Partnership.

Mr Long said recycling afforts have “faltered” in Norfolk and officers were examining whether there were better solutions locally than a county-wide partnership.

Mr Daubney said local solutions could weaken the business case for the incinerator.

This morning’s decision will have to be agreed by a meeting of the full council tonight.

See link, top right, for full report and background on Norfolk’s Burning Issue.

Check back here later for updates as they happen - and you can also follow Chris Bishop on Twitter live as events unfold today.

18 comments

  • incineration is not the answer, 30% of household rubbish burnt goes to landfill quarries and it is toxic. Then it is moved to contractors for road building, it stinks of chemical then it is moved to contractors. Saddlebow would generate 2 million tons of toxic ash.

    Report this comment

    THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE

    Sunday, April 17, 2011

  • For over as year all of the" compost like output "from Donarbon's MBT plant in Waterbeach has gone into landfill, doesn't that defeat the object of MBT? Better for objectors to write individual letters to the Planning Section at County Hall, stating why efw is not wanted. Efw waste to landfill is much smaller than the MBT process, I believe.

    Report this comment

    bedoomed

    Thursday, April 14, 2011

  • some interesting details to be found here: http:ukwin.org.uk (UK Without Incineration Network); describes this debacle to a tee

    Report this comment

    thebortim

    Thursday, April 14, 2011

  • NCC had written off £38 million to Icesave and £29 milion gift to Cory wheelabrator. 200k is chicken feed.

    Report this comment

    THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE

    Sunday, April 17, 2011

  • Martin wallis: I dont think it's the software that is at fault, im betting that its the people who post to the story threads and then constantly hit the reload button to see who has posted a response... I suspect this is what creates the repeat posts from the browser cache as it probably resubmits the original again and again. Once someone has added their view they need to go back to the main site and then drill down to the particular story again to stop it from happening...

    Report this comment

    User Removed

    Saturday, April 16, 2011

  • martin wallis: I didn't mean party political, as I don't know which if any party is pushing this idea - it might be all of them. All I meant was that there's an election for all District Councils in a couple of weeks so my comment was related to that. And as for 'localism' I don't really know what that means anyway and I doubt I ever will because I imagine the statute you refer to will run to hundreds upon hundreds of pages.

    Report this comment

    Peter J

    Thursday, April 14, 2011

  • The distinction I am making is this - if it was only Conservatives pushing this decision to use taxpayers' money to fight a legal battle, it would be party political. But as it is, according to further reports, all borough councillors, it is not a party political issue, but simply a political one. What I mean is that those individuals running against current borough councillors will be put at a disadvantage because all incumbents are making themselves known through this political process. And I see the point in localism but without strict rules on what "local" is it'll quickly become defunct because nothing will ever get built.

    Report this comment

    Peter J

    Friday, April 15, 2011

  • Peter J. I think it may now be fairly said that Archant's all-singing all-dancing software to prevent 'duplicate posts' does not do what it says on the tin! as to the substantive point, I'm afraid that I don't get (mea culpa) the distinction that you are making... and 'localism' is a basically simple idea which will become (as you rightly fear) humungously complex in the hands of those who draft the legislation!

    Report this comment

    martin wallis

    Friday, April 15, 2011

  • martin wallis: I didn't mean party political, as I don't know which if any party is pushing this idea - it might be all of them. All I meant was that there's an election for all District Councils in a couple of weeks so my comment was related to that. And as for 'localism' I don't really know what that means anyway and I doubt I ever will because I imagine the statute you refer to will run to hundreds upon hundreds of pages.

    Report this comment

    Peter J

    Thursday, April 14, 2011

  • NCC’s interpretation of MANDATE is “carry On Regardless. Regardless to what Ratepayers want or need. Councillors did the same thing with Gt. Yarmouth’s Harbour, loaded millions of pound debt on Norfolk Ratepayers then sat back as if “haven’t we done well”. It is quite apparent now with unelected officers (whose wages you pay) and a few council cabinet members, who when electioneering promised to do YOUR bidding, which changed to “their bidding” when elected in. There is no integrity in County hall or Yarmouth’s Town Hall whilst they carry on the way they do. 65,000 said NO, Bring on the man in the White Suit.

    Report this comment

    John L Cooper

    Thursday, April 14, 2011

  • martin wallis: I didn't mean party political, as I don't know which if any party is pushing this idea - it might be all of them. All I meant was that there's an election for all District Councils in a couple of weeks so my comment was related to that. And as for 'localism' I don't really know what that means anyway and I doubt I ever will because I imagine the statute you refer to will run to hundreds upon hundreds of pages.

    Report this comment

    Peter J

    Thursday, April 14, 2011

  • martin wallis: I didn't mean party political, as I don't know which if any party is pushing this idea - it might be all of them. All I meant was that there's an election for all District Councils in a couple of weeks so my comment was related to that. And as for 'localism' I don't really know what that means anyway and I doubt I ever will because I imagine the statute you refer to will run to hundreds upon hundreds of pages.

    Report this comment

    Peter J

    Thursday, April 14, 2011

  • As this seems to be a hot topic around the country, I would suggest naysers take a look at this site GreenFudge.org and this report http:www.greenfudge.org20100414danish-incinerators-are-shining-examples-of-clean-energy-and-waste-disposal If the Danish can handle it why can't Brits? Also where is rubbish to go? Into the ground to leach slowly into the water and therefore food system? Carted off to some unsuspecting island desparate for money? Come on people - a properly run incinerator is the best option!

    Report this comment

    Fezzywhig

    Thursday, April 14, 2011

  • Surely there must be some law against using a significant sum of taxpayers' money for political purposes so close to an election?

    Report this comment

    Peter J

    Thursday, April 14, 2011

  • KLBC holds the only principled position in this planning solo act by NCC, they have spent serious money on asking peoples views, NCC did not seek a mandate, indeed they are not even prepared to see a full NCcouncil meeting discuss this burning issue. If the localism bill ever is to mean something, NCC councillors would now start talking of alternatives to incineration, consulting us on other options, they are not. I also expect that district councillor would want to shy away from this issue, making out it is a county issue, when it is not. This incinerator deals with all our waste, it does nothing for recycling and cambridgeshire is showing us a good example on how to do recycling. This money has only got ot be spent due to the obstinacy of ministers and NCCcouncillors, their inability to consult must not be allowed to run roughshot over public health implications attached to this multi waste burner.

    Report this comment

    ingo wagenknecht

    Thursday, April 14, 2011

  • Come on we ALL know what the result will be....

    Report this comment

    Richard_Waugh

    Thursday, April 14, 2011

  • Fezzywhig does not mind being told and wouldn't mind it near his abode it seems, I would be concerned about his health and that of his neighbours. Danish incinerators are inspected, not under a self control scheme. They also are build and updated to the latest standard, not build by a firm that has not build an incinerator since the 1990's and I'm sure that should there have been outstanding court cases against them, that they would have been stopped in their tracks by local referenda, thats how the danish system works, does it not? Here, locals clearly want to see that the Government introduces guaranteed uptake of recycled materials by industry, start to make some sense with recycling, talks of alternatives to lazy incineration, MTB and much more. We have an example on how to do it in Cambridgeshire, why is it so hard to acknowledge or address these facts? Is NCC unable or just unwilling to act on the mandate given to them by the referendum?

    Report this comment

    ingo wagenknecht

    Thursday, April 14, 2011

  • Peter J. "Surely there must be some law against using a significant sum of taxpayers' money for political purposes so close to an election?". There is, if it's for PARTY political purposes. This isn't. It's in defence of the principle of 'localism' before localism gets on the statute books.

    Report this comment

    martin wallis

    Thursday, April 14, 2011

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

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Norfolk Weather

Overcast

Overcast

max temp: 9°C

min temp: 10°C

Five-day forecast

loading...

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT