Campaigners say Norfolk’s recycling rate could increase by almost 50pc without the need for a near-£600m incinerator.

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

An inquiry into Norfolk County Council’s proposals to build a facility to burn at least 170,000 tonnes of rubbish a year at Saddlebow, King’s Lynn, will begin next week.

And within the thousands of pages of documents about the case, anti-incinerator campaigners state recycling rates for rubbish thrown out by households could hit 67pc during the 25-year lifetime of the council’s £596.9m contract with Cory Wheelabrator.

Collecting a wider range of plastics, glass packaging and textiles from the kerbside, a higher amount of the materials already welcomed for recycling, plus improving sorting at household waste recycling centres will achieve the boost, according to a report compiled for King’s Lynn Without Incineration (KLWIN).

The county’s recycling rate stood at 45.3pc last year.

But Norfolk County Council insists it will continue to push for recycling rates to increase if the incinerator, which will also generate electricity, is built. Acting leader Bill Borrett said it is “total rubbish” to suggest the project will stop recycling.

Mike Knights, of KLWIN, said: “My own position when I first looked at the project was it would get rid of waste to produce electricity – it does sound like a good thing to do. But when you appreciate how inefficient it is, the side-effects that are still present even with modern technology – I use that term loosely – you look at what the other options are and simply change the way waste is collected, you could drastically reduce any potential justification for this.”

Opponents will also put forward views on the possible impact on Roydon Common and its ecology and errors in emission data, among other issues.

Cory Environmental will argue a contract clause stating a minimum of 170,000 tonnes a year will be treated by the incinerator will not prejudice county recycling targets. They add it is “highly unlikely” the council will incur financial penalties for missing this target.

Project backers will also argue a West Norfolk Council poll in which 65,000 people voted against the incinerator “prevented a balanced case” being put before the electorate as it was sent out before the planning application was submitted.

Professor Jim Bridges is expected to appear to support his view the incinerator is “most unlikely to cause any significant adverse effects on the health” of the town. This is despite reports he and his wife were victims of an unrelated knife attack during a recent trip to Barbados.

Mr Borrett said the council is doing everything possible to boost recycling rates, including using its cash to encourage district councils to collect food waste and opening more waste recycling centres.

He said: “All we are trying to do is divert waste away from landfill so hopefully in years to come if 60pc of waste is recycled then great. The bits that can’t be recycled go through incineration and generate electricity – none goes to landfill.”

On the inquiry, Mr Borrett said: “I think it will help flush out some of the facts and dampen down some of the hysteria.”

The inquiry is expected to start next Tuesday before it is adjourned. It is then scheduled to resume on Tuesday, March 5.

Mr Knights said he is happy with the KLWIN case and added: “I know colleagues have been surprised just how weak the arguments in favour of the incinerator are.”

The documents can be viewed at the West Norfolk Council office in Chapel Street, King’s Lynn, or online at www.persona.uk.com/kings_lynn

84 comments

  • Sadly those still misguided by incineration fail to see there are many alternatives to landfill, anaerobic digestion being one, increased recycling etc, (we recieved new bins this week for increased-encouraged recycling in W Norfolk!) Why people cannot see that there are better alternatives I do not know, perhaps they are blinded by smoke from an efw chimney, or the profits to be made from it at the taxpayers expense. Lets be honest if it got built in WN and you became an employee of it, would you tell your neighbours or people you met what you do? No, didn't think so, the company didn't have the COURAGE to show face around Lynn to meet the public

    Report this comment

    d, west lynn

    Thursday, February 21, 2013

  • What about the attack of this waste incinerator being pushed on the Norfolk people who clearly do not want it. To get credibility you have to earn it. And NCC cabinet members continue to attack Democracy and our Human Rights. It is very clear that the waste incinerator is being used as a weapon to fight West Norfolk Council this was found to be the case in Jenni Richards QC report. Bill Borrett was mentioned in that report. Bill Borrett should resign he is not fit to be leader. The election only weeks away and the conservatives are not looking good. It is a disgrace that the acting leader uses language to intimidate, he says we talk rubbish what sort of language is that from the acting leader of Norfolk.

    Report this comment

    Jack

    Thursday, February 21, 2013

  • Try reading the independent review of West Norfolk's recycling proposal. Wow, this would provide far more jobs than NCC's burner! Not only that, but if replicated across the other districts it would save ratepayers many millions...

    Report this comment

    Kadmos

    Saturday, February 23, 2013

  • 50% ? Hardly a credible claim. No wonder the anti campaign is not being taken seriously. This ridiculous statement belongs in the new incinerator.

    Report this comment

    Del Boy

    Thursday, February 21, 2013

  • Word round county hall that the handling of the incinerator fiasco Costessey and Kings Lynn was a public relations exercise gone drastically wrong. It could have been handled better without underhanded devious tricks. NCC is responsible for the stress and anxiety to residents of Cosstesey and West Norfolk residents. The PFI funding should now be rejected because of kevingate showing manipulation from the top while the planning process was in force.

    Report this comment

    Emma Miller

    Friday, February 22, 2013

  • Del Boy, Canary Brain, Not A Nimby, Webbed Feet, Arthur Pewty, The-Blue-Flag, Diss 'N' Dat are all one man. His name is ex Tory Borough Councilor ex Mayor of Kings Lynn. Bill UKIP Daws.

    Report this comment

    Knee deep In Toxic ash

    Saturday, February 23, 2013

  • Of the 270k tonnes of annual capacity of the intended waste incinerator, 100k tonnes is allocated under the present deal to CW to allow it to source from wherever it cares to commercial and industrial waste. It can then process that waste, in a waste incinerator essentially being paid for by NCC, for its own profit. The remaining 170k tonnes of annual capacity is allocated to NCC for the purpose of processing its own residual municipal solid waste – the only waste for which it has responsibility. After reduction, re-use and recycling, this is presently running at around 220k tonnes annually. However, that figure is constantly reducing, as recycling levels increase, and it is obvious that at an early stage in the twenty-five year contract NCC will not have enough residual municipal solid waste to take up its allocated share of the waste incinerator’s capacity. At that point, NCC’s unused capacity is then re-allocated to CW, allowing it to source even more commercial and industrial waste to profit from. This is also the point at which the deal makes no economic sense from NCC’s – and therefore – our point of view, if it ever did in the first place. If the likes of Dickens and Daisy Roots think that I am mistaken in my understanding, will they please explain in what way?

    Report this comment

    Nemesis

    Thursday, February 21, 2013

  • I don't believe for one minute that 65,000 voted against this. I reckon it was a fix. What is the big problem with it anyway?

    Report this comment

    Arthur Pewty

    Saturday, February 23, 2013

  • batemansusan; I was reading the figures from a report not the fairy tale numbers you dreamed up. Go to Specsavers yourself and get two for the price of one.

    Report this comment

    Del Boy

    Thursday, February 21, 2013

  • Dickens,Calm down dear.According to Cameron pensioners should just shut up and draw their pension. The problem the toxic tories have is that a good recycling strategy can only succeed if it is done with the consent of the people.They don't bother with the "consent of the people " bit. Tories are toxic for Norfolk.

    Report this comment

    Peter Watson

    Thursday, February 21, 2013

  • Oh dear Borrett, that's weak, even by your useless standards - did you get blindsided by the EDP without having your very expensive PR team thrust a little something into your hand to read from first?

    Report this comment

    User Removed

    Thursday, February 21, 2013

  • You just can't rely on people voluntarily recycling more and more and in the end you will continue to dig big holes in the ground and fill them with rubbish. Incineration (KL or elsewhere) is the answer.

    Report this comment

    blue tractor

    Thursday, February 21, 2013

  • The silly protesters think the best way forward is rudeness and attacking anyone that does not agree with them. No wonder the campaign has fell flat on its face. Surest way to make an enemy is to attack them first. No good complaining when they retaliate. Too little too late.

    Report this comment

    Dickens

    Monday, February 25, 2013

  • Daisy, I am told that you live around Martham so presumably fall under Gt Yarmouth BC for waste collection. Do you know the dreadful recycling stats for your area? 28 percent seems to come to mind! Perhaps those who can't be bothered, not you personally of course, to recycle their household waste should be the ones that have to endure an incinerator on their doorsteps not those who have every desire to comply with reuse, recycle and whats left process into building material technology.

    Report this comment

    Canary Boy

    Thursday, February 21, 2013

  • Fen Scrape the shameless plagiarist (you will have to look that one up Fen Scrape) continues unabated with the usual brand of playground banter. I bet the anti incinerator campaign rue the day you decided to join them. Loser.

    Report this comment

    Dickens

    Saturday, February 23, 2013

  • Again D.ickens I name thee hypocrite - calling me several 'silly playground names' and then setting up several different fake accounts in a pathetic effort to pull the wool over the Inspectors eyes that there might be more than one person in King's Lynn as rabble-rousing as you. It really doesn't wash now does it?

    Report this comment

    User Removed

    Monday, February 25, 2013

  • I also say that we need jobs and some investment. There are a number of issues and when planning applications are looked at it has to be a judgement made on balance. The balance here does seem to fall in favour of the developers in this instance.

    Report this comment

    Diss 'N' Dat

    Saturday, February 23, 2013

  • No pleasing some folk. Plenty on here moaning about the leader of the Council and when he went they spent all their time moaning about this Murphy chap who took over and now they spend every hour moaning about Bill Borrett. After he goes they will all be on here again moaning about the replacement. These incinerator protesters just like to moan it seems. I am sick to the back teeth reading and hearing their griping along with a lot of others who feel the same.

    Report this comment

    Lyn from Lynn

    Sunday, February 24, 2013

  • Daisy, you will see I said anaerobic is one way, I did not say it was the only way. Sadly some items will always need to go other ways but there are better alternatives to just burning it downwind of a major populus. Those that object to pay excess landfill costs? With increased recycling and people being educated more I am sure that would probably be less than the costs incurred by the taxpayer when incineration is outlawed for its polluting in years to come

    Report this comment

    d, west lynn

    Thursday, February 21, 2013

  • d of westlyn how are you going to anaerobic digest plastic carrier bags or other plastics that cannot be recycled? Wasting energy to process organic waste into a bit of methane and some unsafe useless compost and a residue that is toxic and still has to go to landfill-pointless .

    Report this comment

    Daisy Roots

    Thursday, February 21, 2013

  • Shame that a handful of obsessive protesters have hijacked this thread and tried to claim it as their own. Others have opinions too but in the protesters odd world that is not allowed. Strange little group of angry people.

    Report this comment

    Dickens

    Monday, February 25, 2013

  • How will Wheelabrator get waste to burn? Increased recycling will mean less waste for the incinerator. What Wheelabrator would do is bring in waste from other counties and other countries causing traffic congestion and more carbon footprint, but never mind all that NCC have the Norfrolk tax-payer to foot the bill to Wheelabrator. So the Norfolk tax-payer will be paying Wheelabrator to burn other counties waste and industries waste to make plenty of profit for American shareholders. Roll on election day.

    Report this comment

    Jack

    Thursday, February 21, 2013

  • Just pushing around the ropes but as usual you miss it by a mile.........what was it the Muhammad Ali called it..........?......Oh yes....rope a dope............

    Report this comment

    Dickens

    Monday, February 25, 2013

  • Pack it in EDP. Compared to some comments here mine was neither controversial nor insulting. Why have I been blocked? It is a personal vendetta infringing my human rights. You will be sorry when the eurocrats give you a big fine and you have to pay my legal costs, so there.

    Report this comment

    Police Commissioner ???

    Thursday, February 21, 2013

  • Fenscape I couldn't agree more, I actually wonder if they support the efw and are doing this to drum up anti-efw support!

    Report this comment

    d, west lynn

    Monday, February 25, 2013

  • Christine, the key word here is 'significant'. I wonder which section of the population he could be ignoring when he looks at his averages? The frail? The elderly with poor immune systems? Those who are vulnerable because of respiratory problems?

    Report this comment

    User Removed

    Thursday, February 21, 2013

  • Borratt should have learned by now that he should not open mouth before getting one of the County Council highly paid PR team to engage his brain and give him a little bit of paper to read from. Is he forgetting the lavish statements he made over a year ago that bottom ash will be used as a building material on the sides of roads etc? That of course is a way of getting rid of this unwanted by product of an incinerator. It has a very limited life as it crumbles and is useless compared with proper building cement and concrete which is why it is being stockpiled (and watered to keep it from flying off in the wind as a rather nasty dust) and then has to be replaced while the stuff that they used on the sides of the roads in the first place is taken to landfill. Boratt and his CW chumbos of course will have hoped that we will have all forgotten about that. Not me mate! As for the top ash. That all goes to a very special landfill. It is so dangerous and so toxic it is treated like nuclear waste and buried in huge drums. Perhaps Boratt would like it buried on his farm. No? Thought not.

    Report this comment

    alecto

    Thursday, February 21, 2013

  • How many aliases has UKIP candidate Bill Daw’s ex Tory KL Borough Councillor got. Between the EDP24 and the Lynn News he must have at least 30 sad bloke.

    Report this comment

    Alan Allan

    Sunday, February 24, 2013

  • Bill Borrett gave the game away of what tactics NCC will be used at the incinerator inquiry. He was quoted as saying hysteria surrounding incinerators happens. The public inquiry will put people’s minds at rest to the health implications living close by. It is his staff that caused the hysteria by dodgy emails and dodgy phone polls by ComRes. Elizabeth Hill wrote page 111 Report DPIA06651110 LI A0665 (5 March 2012) Lostock, Northwich inquiry. "Perceived health fears about the proposal were a matter of significant concern for local residents at the inquiry. Nevertheless, the views expressed were based on research which had not been peer-reviewed and reflected a mistrust of operators and regulators. The views expressed also tended to underestimate the pollution control process in protecting human health and therefore can have only limited weight." She quotes well run incinerators but where are they. Cory Wheelabrator does not inspire confidence with massive fines for fraud and pollution. Minimum requirement should be 24 hour independent air quality monitoring systems that CW are not prepared to use because they will be on shutdown permanently. What are the EA terrified of implementing these systems in the UK? They prefer to modal their own system of Burn and Kill.

    Report this comment

    Alan Allan

    Monday, February 25, 2013

  • Fen Scrape carries on as clueless as ever. The damage this person has done single handed to the Incinerator campaign goes without saying. Makes the entire campaign look like a bunch of name calling fish wives. Keep it coming Fen Scrape.

    Report this comment

    Dickens

    Thursday, February 21, 2013

  • So D.ickens has informed the Planning Inspector about ‘trademark antics and bad mouthing’ from the anti-incinerator campaigners, perhaps emails in 2011 under an assumed name should also be sent to the Planning Inspector. “Pickles Pants and Del Boy are closer than you might think and Del is extremely well connected politically both here and overseas. Caroline will do nothing as it is out of her hands. These matters are dealt with by others in her name. Requesting a ‘call in’ is exactly what the Canaries want and to do so will play into their own strategy. As explained some months ago a call in will take the heat out of it for the local boys and it is the preferred option when they want something but do not want to state the fact publicly. An old dodge. The Linnets on all sidea are closely tied to the Party and must do as they are told or they are out in the cold and do not be deceived about any Public Inquiry chaired by an ‘independent’ Planning Inspector. All may not be quite what it seems. Unfortunately a short while ago the very last pieces were put into place following a top level secret meeting between those concerned and sadly this scheme is likely to go ahead it seems. Nothing official – all that will come later bit by bit and seemingly in an independent way but all is sorted now unless Del Boy decides otherwise for some reason or another which is is possible but highly unlikely.… Del Boy is a skilled tactician and has taken great care to ensure victory and has already visited areas you have yet to come into contact with as you may be beginning to realise. Locate those areas, those people and what went on and you may have the only key that will do the trick. Over the pond may be a good starting point.” Lots more like this isn't there pal, so who’s upset because no one took these riddles seriously?

    Report this comment

    Honest John

    Friday, February 22, 2013

  • Tories now claim those in favour of recycling are "hysterical".Fellow hysterics- Politics rule one-try not not insult your own electorate.

    Report this comment

    Peter Watson

    Thursday, February 21, 2013

  • Comment “Professor Jim Bridges is expected to appear to support his view the incinerator is “most unlikely to cause any significant adverse effects on the health” of the town. If he said there would be NO adverse effects on health the public would be with him. Is he talking about well run incinerators or Cory Wheelabrator that has been prosecuted for fraud and pollution many times?

    Report this comment

    Alan Allan

    Thursday, February 21, 2013

  • The Tory party need to get their act together and reject the incinerator by May or find themselves out of a job. I expect some west Norfolk Tory county councillors will not post campaign leaflets as they have let the public down. I can assure you two opposition parties are waiting for the ink to dry at the printers and the incinerator gets a mention on the front page. Roll on May.

    Report this comment

    Alan Allan

    Thursday, February 21, 2013

  • I do hope Borrett is going to attend some of the inquiry, although I doubt it! He could do with actually sitting in the audience and listening for once but he doesn't have any interest all he wants to do is push the incinerator through because he is too lazy, or incompetent, to put in the required effort to improve recycling in Norfolk as statute law and the EC demand. Gt Yarmouth recycling rates are a total disgrace Borrett you should kick someone up the backside over there and sort them out. Laughable many of the planning committee members were from that area they all had a vested interest in voting for an incinerator so they didn't have to bother addressing the problem on their doorsteps. Jim Bridges as a health expert is laughable, this is the man who backed the tobacco industry claiming smoking did not damage health. To wheel him out to try to reassure anyone of the safety of incineration is just beyond stupid, but then we are dealing with NCC and their special partners Cory Wheelabrator. I do hope at the end of the inquiry we will find out how much we have paid to this multi billion dollar company to help them with their legal consultancy fees incurred fighting the people of West Norfolk.

    Report this comment

    Canary Boy

    Thursday, February 21, 2013

  • Sticks and stones D.ickens.... hope your eyes quickly adjust to the light when the Inspector lifts up the rock that you and your NCC friends are hiding under!

    Report this comment

    User Removed

    Tuesday, February 26, 2013

  • Norfolk Tories claim those in favour of recycling are suffering from "hysteria". Fellow hysterics- politics rule one-do not insult your own electorate.

    Report this comment

    Peter Watson

    Thursday, February 21, 2013

  • Poor old Dickens and Daisy Roots they are getting more desperate by the minute if their increasingly hysterical postings are anything to go by. Keep it up children, they do make me chuckle. There are many items that can be recycled but are not, because Norfolk is too idle to get themselves organised. Composite material is my favourite bugbear. There exists the technology to deal with papermetalplastic mix goods but you would think that I am the only person in Norfolk who has researched it. As for plastic, there is actually a shortage of plastic for recycling. I tried to order some wonderful shopping and handbags that are made out of recycled plastic and was told that the factory is lying idle at the moment until they can collect in enough plastic to do a run! So what are these idiots going on about? As for increasing recycling if the rubbish burner is foisted on Norfolk. The maths have been done and it will be necessary for them to chuck everything in it, no sorting needed. And there will still be space for CW to burn other counties' rubbish at a huge profit to themselves, not to Norfolk because the Council was way too dopey to look at the contract properly before they put their cross beside where other people put their signature. When exactly did this bunch think that it was a good idea to make West Norfolk the dumping ground for the whole of East and South East England? Vote winner? I think not. One down, plenty more to go.

    Report this comment

    Electra

    Thursday, February 21, 2013

  • Take a hike to Blackborough End Jack and see how much of what is going in there could be recycled. And then multiply it by the landfills in Norfolk. Nothing goes in my black bin that can be recycled under current policy except organic waste because i believe that recycling organic waste is stupid beyond belief. So there are plastics and papers that the council will not accept and organic waste. everything else gets recycled. And I still have a black bin full once a fortnight. Plus, I am not sure, apart from the reduction in the use of non renewable resources, just how you justify the carbon footprint of recycling being carried out in China.

    Report this comment

    Daisy Roots

    Thursday, February 21, 2013

  • I have had enough of Dicken's "hysteria"

    Report this comment

    Peter Watson

    Thursday, February 21, 2013

  • Shame that a handful of obsessive protesters have hijacked this thread and tried to claim it as their own. Others have opinions too but in the protesters mad world that is not allowed. Funny lot. Very ‘Norfolk’ of Fen scrape.

    Report this comment

    Dickens

    Monday, February 25, 2013

  • DEFRA have today pulled their PFI funding for the proposed Incinerator in North Yorkshire. This is despite planning consent being granted and refusal of the government to call in the planning application. Is it possible that sense is prevailing at last? Anyone with an ounce of sense and without a vested interest will hope so.

    Report this comment

    mrsmurphy

    Thursday, February 21, 2013

  • You can't really trust a word from the campaigners because they always try and make their own tale good. I put my faith in the professionals who offer unbiased and more honest reporting.

    Report this comment

    The-Blue-Flag

    Thursday, February 21, 2013

  • Professor Bridges is likely to appear to support "his view". And that is exactly what it is - his view. Where is the proof that there will be no adverse health effects? It has been proved that Wheelabrator have breached pollution regulations in the US by the huge amounts they have had to pay in fines.

    Report this comment

    Sandy.L

    Thursday, February 21, 2013

  • I vote that the objectors in Kings Lynn pay the excess council tax that we in Norfolk are all going to have to pay when the EU squeezes us with landfill taxes. Or that they stump up the excessive cost of anaerobic processing. The original intention of the incinerator may not have been to produce power, but to my mind , with the looming energy deficiency, the incinerator should be run as a power station and also take in organic material like the power station at Sutton in the Isle.The Green whiners can give up growing weedy petunias in badly made compost -not a very green thing to do anyway. We can all forgo our Fair Green blueberries too-bit of a luxury-if the grower is worried about a few fumes making them non organic.

    Report this comment

    Daisy Roots

    Thursday, February 21, 2013

  • I think D.ickens that people are sensible enough to make up their own minds about who has and who hasn't got a grip on reality.... as I said before, YOU are the best asset that the anti-incinerator campaign has got as you make everything else sound so implausible. Good work 'old chum'!

    Report this comment

    User Removed

    Monday, February 25, 2013

  • The biggest problem the anti campaigners face is the catalogue of personal attacks recorded on those in public office which has ruined any chance of them being given credibility. Unfortunately those childish onslaughts continue unabated. Public relations does not appear to be their strong point.

    Report this comment

    Dickens

    Thursday, February 21, 2013

  • On this subject it seems that you have to come on here and call people who show any support for the incinerator silly playground names and at the same time run down the council and the contractors. If you don’t then what appears to be about three people wearing fifty disguises come along and shout you down. What immature and childish behaviour. If that is all this protest group can offer then they are on a hiding to nothing. One wonders what their solicitor might be doing at the inquiry ? Poking his tongue out and blowing raspberries at the opposition ? Sad and pathetic. Only three protesters after all. Noisy though.

    Report this comment

    Dickens

    Monday, February 25, 2013

  • Daisy why don't you take a hike to America and see if the people are happy living next to Wheelabrator waste incinerators there. What you will find out, is that they have more cancers living near one. But that does not worry you because you want the easy option of burning waste that will cost Norfolk tax-payers a fortune. You can say black is white for as long as you want you are getting rather boring with your constant efforts to impose this on people. The people of Lynn have a right to argue againsts this outdated Flintstones incinerator. £600 million of tax-payers money would be wasted on burning when we should be recycling.

    Report this comment

    Jack

    Thursday, February 21, 2013

  • Quite agree Jack - but some of these councillors must also have children and grandchildren and it is obvious they have not considered them because if they had, they would not be going down the incineration path until ALL the health checks have been satisfactorily carried out. Unfortunately, there are many selfish individuals among them, who only think of themselves and what they can gain personally. It is disgusting that they do not consider the future generations and are likely to leave them with very difficult problems and health worries. What happened to 'love thy neighbour' and 'show consideration for others'?. It makes me weep......

    Report this comment

    Sandy.L

    Monday, February 25, 2013

  • What a ludicrous article! Can the EDP explain in what way the expectation of the "apparent" views of Mr. Bridges has the remotest connection with "reports" of an unrelated assault in Barbados. He is another of NCC's bought and payed for "experts" who's opinions will always reflect those of his paymasters and who could'nt care less about the people of West Norfolk.

    Report this comment

    mrsmurphy

    Thursday, February 21, 2013

  • Del boy you need to go to specsavers mate. It is closer to 67% with west Norfolk’s new technology. If all districts followed would be near the 100% recycling mark. Zero Waste. Councils that have MBT are reaching 92% recycling.

    Report this comment

    batemansusan

    Thursday, February 21, 2013

  • The tory cabinet members at County Hall have always tried to hide the fact that waste incineration leaves behind thousands upon thousands of tons of ash. So waste incineration continues to demands more landfil, for the cotract of 25 years. Waste incinerators are a waste of space. The cabinet members are sales agents for Wheelabrator. They ignored 65.516 people. Now Bill Borrett says he wants to listen, a bit to late for that Bill. You are all history just like Murphy.

    Report this comment

    Jack

    Sunday, February 24, 2013

  • D.ick.ens. The last word when it comes to mischief and tittle-tattle is wrong again - he's yesterday's man hanging onto second-hand gossip and misinformation while trying to undermine due process by illustrating shady deals and under-the-table transactions. Sadly for him, the Norfolk Tories continue to be the main story here and now Borat is in the chair we can expect the same useless brand of leadership that we've all become used to during Murphy's (thankfully) short time on the throne. Keep it up 'old mate' - you're the best friend that the anti-incineration campaign has ever had, even though you don't realise it!

    Report this comment

    User Removed

    Friday, February 22, 2013

  • Bill Borrett stated no ash will go to landfill but the toxic bottom ash will be buried in lagoons adjacent to the proposed incinerator. Surely this is landfill or is it classed as stockpiling of 2.5 million tons. If the ash has to be moved will cause further blow off and extra valuable commodity water to keep the dust down.

    Report this comment

    Emma Miller

    Thursday, February 21, 2013

  • The dates for the inquiry have been moved about and the campaign say they may not have proper legal representation. Looks as though excuses are being made in advance of their case being lost.

    Report this comment

    Not A Nimby

    Saturday, February 23, 2013

  • South Oxfordshire has a recycling rate of 70% earning £850,000 recycling credits.

    Report this comment

    Joyce

    Thursday, February 21, 2013

  • How much money will County charge businesses to dispose of their 98,000 tonnes of "waste"? If the price is not right they will go elsewhere., and consequently the cost of the 170,000 tonnes domestic waste processing will be higher.

    Report this comment

    bedoomed

    Thursday, February 21, 2013

  • Daisy Roots. Not being funny but obviously you have not attended any of the exhibitions held by Duratrust. I went to Hunstanton to see for myself what can and cannot be recycled. To put your mind at rest supermarket meat containers carrier bags yogurt pots will be recycled. This is all the black bin waste and if you take into consideration all green bin waste is recycled not much can be burnt. With my work I travel all over the country and asked Mr Billson from Duratrust could I call and see how waste is converted at his plant at Chester. This is not a new technology as it is used extensively all over the world and will in affect create a shortage for incinerators. I agree with blue tractor that we cannot keep burying waste in landfill. Not doing anything and incineration equals landfill. Disgusting.

    Report this comment

    Knee deep In Toxic ash

    Thursday, February 21, 2013

  • I had no idea this was being built until a week ago. They should put it on the old Campbells Tower site instead. There was already a big chimney there and they would not have to have built one so it would have saved a lot of time and money. Builders never think these things through. There are probably a few other places nearby that would do just as well such as that big car park round the back of Lynn town just before you go down by the riverside. Another good spot I reckon.

    Report this comment

    Mad Dog

    Sunday, February 24, 2013

  • Looks like Toxic Ash is losing the plot.

    Report this comment

    Dickens

    Saturday, February 23, 2013

  • I agree with comments on both sides but the thing is that this plant will provide a lot of work and a lot of jobs and prosperity for the area. We must not be selfish and support this type of investment istead of picking holes in everything all the time.

    Report this comment

    The-Blue-Flag

    Saturday, February 23, 2013

  • Its really sad and pathetic some people on here create aliases to get their own ego's up. Especially on non-valid arguments, lies and ignorant propaganda. Firstly the efw will create a handful of jobs, the sub contractors already have jobs, its just another contract. Free energy? The council stand to lose money on this 'venture'

    Report this comment

    d, west lynn

    Sunday, February 24, 2013

  • Professor Bridges is likely to appear to support "his view". And that is exactly what it is - his view. Where is the proof that there will be no adverse health effects? It has been proved that Wheelabrator have breached pollution regulations in the US by the huge amounts they have had to pay in fines.

    Report this comment

    Sandy.L

    Thursday, February 21, 2013

  • F.Scrape......Only problem is you have no trade or common sense - that much is obvious from the nonsense you post on here - You are amusing though - like all that take themselves so seriously.................. Fancy you being the one that ruined the chances of the anti brigade..............

    Report this comment

    Dickens

    Monday, February 25, 2013

  • I can't understand why all the delays ? I wish they would just get on with it instead of allowing all these hurdles to be erected. They are only doing it to shut up a handful of moaners who are worried about their house prices. It wont change anything. Time wasting.

    Report this comment

    Webbed Feet

    Saturday, February 23, 2013

  • It's time to end the "hysteria" of Norfolk's chumocracy and its toxic Tories.

    Report this comment

    Peter Watson

    Thursday, February 21, 2013

  • I think we should put our faith in the council instead of poking them with a stick all the time. I have always known good relations with them as have my friends. Time to move forward.

    Report this comment

    John Fisher

    Saturday, February 23, 2013

  • batemansusan talks about 100% or zero waste. What utter nonsense. If this is the sort of thing the anti campaigners are going to use in evidence then they may as well not bother turning up.

    Report this comment

    Canary Brain

    Saturday, February 23, 2013

  • Put your handbag away D.ickens and read my comment again - it merely illustrates the sort of hypocrisy you cheerfully bandy about on an hourly basis at times. (But then, I suppose resorting to name-calling is probably the best you can do given that nothing else you say has any ring of truth to it anyway.)

    Report this comment

    User Removed

    Thursday, February 21, 2013

  • Here is what Dr. Philip Landrigan had to say about waste incinerators, he is a expert on environmental pollution and children's health. "We're conducting a vast toxicological experiment and we are using our children as experimental animals."

    Report this comment

    Jack

    Monday, February 25, 2013

  • By the looks of it the anti jobs brigade here, trying to make out that 70% of Norfolk voters are wrong and that recycling is bad for us, are out in force today. Good News from Yorkshire indeed, I hope that DEFRA will rescind its approval for this proposal as well, because it is an environmental blot on the landscape which will not pay its way, but cost taxpayers. Kings Lynn BC and Duratrust have shown one of many ways to reuse vital resources, why has NCC not reviewed its enhanced landfill mining strategy? why is this country refusing new revenue streams, modern jobs, recycling of vital necessary resources such as rare earth metals and more? why do we have to pay for an expensive PFI proposal that is not creating enough jobs and is polluting the environment with yet unmentioned long term liabilities?

    Report this comment

    ingo wagenknecht

    Friday, February 22, 2013

  • So what is the problem in all this ? If we end up getting rid of all our waste and turn it into free power and create employment then we have a winning solution. How can you argue against it?

    Report this comment

    Sherlock

    Saturday, February 23, 2013

  • A pack of made up percentages from the campaigners is not enough. More rubbish about rubbish it seems. They need to get their act together. Not likely to happen though.

    Report this comment

    Del Boy

    Saturday, February 23, 2013

  • More misdirection and misinformation from the antis on Lynn Council and local parish councils. Just when was the incinerator meant to make any difference to recycling? Increased and improved recycling can still happen. Incinerators are about reducing the amount of waste going to landfill and should have no impact on recycling-unless of course someone comes to their senses and realises the carbon footprint of recycling some materials is greater than incineration.The great green god of recycling seems to ignore the carbon or energy use footprint-cost-real need factors in some cases.

    Report this comment

    Daisy Roots

    Thursday, February 21, 2013

  • Another petty verbal attack from Fen Scrape. The penny never drops with that one it seems and paranoia setting in as well. Good job the new Planning Inspector has been brought up to speed about the anti campaigners modus operandi.

    Report this comment

    Dickens

    Thursday, February 21, 2013

  • I do hope Bill Borrett will start working on improving relations between his cllrs and the public, he needs to if he wishes to keep his new post. Perhaps a good start would be to advise his colleagues to make rational comments on internet blogs instead of just insulting the electorate who they will want to vote for them on 2nd May. Before Di.ckens, Canary Brain, Del Boy, the blue flag start leaping up and down I too trust the professionals to decide the incinerator. I did not trust NCC because of the blinding conflict of interest it so obviously had. NCC should never have been the Land Owner, Proposer, Project Director, Project Sponser and planning decision maker simple as that! How can any of you argue that point? If another authority, or the government, had been responsible for granting planning consent in all probability this would have all been settled in 2011 loads of money would have been saved and most importantly Norfolk would not have been ripped apart because NCC and tory councillors have lost all trust and credibility due to conflict of interest and predetermination. Look to the FBC and read through it the close working relationship of NCC, CW, Defra and the EA is clearly defined. They are all working together to get this proposal through asap. If a trusted independent authority had considered the application the public would at least have had some outlet to speak freely and have their concerns listened too in an unbiased way. NCC never allowed even a pretence of that and the consequences of their behaviour lay firmly at the door of the cabinet who could have made the decision to pass the planning decision elsewhere.

    Report this comment

    Canary Boy

    Sunday, February 24, 2013

  • Nice try D.ickens but no banana - I recall a certain person in Public Office that is no longer in the limelight because he told his NCC funded batman to try and bait one of his party colleagues by way of a veiled 'personal attack'. While we're on the subject, you yourself seem to spend every waking hour attacking the leader and deputy of KLWNBC over on the LN website where you own 'childish onslaught continues unabated'. Leading by example there obviously....

    Report this comment

    User Removed

    Thursday, February 21, 2013

  • From Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. January 2012. Between them, these component Directives apply to some 10.200 industrial installations in England and Wales, ranging from power stations to intensive poultry farms and from waste incinerators to dry cleaners. All this wide range is however united in that all the installations it encompasses present- often individually and certainly in aggregate - a significant risk in various ways to human health and the environment from polluting activities. Notice the words Significant Risk.

    Report this comment

    Jack

    Monday, February 25, 2013

  • Here's some news, people. Everything can be recyced if you throw enough money at it. Its a question of balance: balancing the desire to be green versus the constraint of cost. Also please be aware of how planners think. They are not like you, i.e. will not look to balance all available evidence. They only consider 'planning issues' that relate to planning policy. So Cory will not say in their application 'we will cause polution from time to time, sorry', that would be ridiculous, even though their track record suggests otherwise. Instead they say we will do this, that, and the other to mitigate risk, for example put the bottom ash in lagoons. Silly planners take this at face value unless one of their expert consultees says otherwise, like the EA. The fact that the incinerator would pollute from time to time is merely an enforcement issue, and Cory might get fined. That's the way it is and to hell with however many people are poisoned. Good luck! By the way, vote for me in May and I promise to stop the incinerator.

    Report this comment

    Police Commissioner ???

    Thursday, February 21, 2013

  • Oh dear Toxic Ash. Did you leave Dickens' name out of the long list of Aliases that this bloke seems to have? You've annoyed him but then he does spend most of his time sounding like Frank Doberman.

    Report this comment

    Electra

    Sunday, February 24, 2013

  • Ah, ha... West Norfolk won't be sending any of its waste to NCC's 'precious' burner. However, the rest of the county is content to ship their unwanted mess down the A47 without a thought for the poor souls who will live under the incinerator's shadow. Never mind, this is just the project to garantee the cash for the A47's 20 years of upgrades... Who needs political satire?

    Report this comment

    Kadmos

    Friday, February 22, 2013

  • Funny old headline. Incineration is not recycling in my book. I think what they mean is we could recycle so much more that the case for the incinerator becomes a complete red herring, instead of a partial one. No matter, I understand this Elizabeth Hill isn't called Mrs Whitewash for nothing, or has Dickens already made that comment?

    Report this comment

    Police Commissioner ???

    Thursday, February 21, 2013

  • The anti-recycling lobby has no argument to warrant building an incinerator. While dioxins will be allowed to discharge 24 hours a day does not give inspire confidence. Supporters of the incinerator have not given a reasonable answer to why it should be built except cost. When all incinerators will have to be monitored 24 hours a day for air quality will elevate the cost to the tax payer. They will have to close down or invent an incinerator system that does not harm our elderly, infirm and babies. Our councillors are guilty for allowing planning permission. Without 100% proof breathing dioxins is good for your health they should have not picked Saddlebow, close proximity to Kings Lynn densely populated area. Down to wrong location arrogance and inexperience.

    Report this comment

    Emma Miller

    Monday, February 25, 2013

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

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Norfolk Weather

Partly Cloudy

Partly Cloudy

max temp: 15°C

min temp: 11°C

Five-day forecast

loading...

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT