Criticism of decision-making over deal to burn Norfolk’s waste in Suffolk

Great Blakenham Incinerator Great Blakenham Incinerator

Tuesday, July 22, 2014
6:30 AM

The decision-making behind a deal which will see a share of Norfolk’s rubbish burned in an incinerator in Suffolk has come under fire.

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

An agreement struck between Norfolk County Council and Suffolk County Council will see 40,000 tonnes of Norfolk’s residual household waste – rubbish left after recycling - turned into electricity at Suffolk’s new incinerator at Great Blakenham.

Waste is expected to start being delivered to the plant in August, subject to government approval.

Council leaders have hailed the two-year deal, which they say will save both authorities around £1m.

But, at a meeting of Norfolk County Council yesterday, there was dissent over how the deal had been arrived at, with criticism councillors had not been given the chance to debate the contract.

Andrew Boswell, Green county councillor, asked why it did not come before the council’s environment, development and transport committee prior to the contract being signed.

He said: “This is not about whether this was the right or wrong decision, but about why it didn’t come before councillors. This should have come before a committee.”

Council leader George Nobbs said the decision had been made by the cabinet, under the previous council system, and powers had been delegated to Tom McCabe, the authority’s interim environment, transport and development, to take the decision in consultation with the council leader and Toby Coke, chairman of the environment, transport and development committee.

He said: “There is nothing untoward about this. It’s a superb deal for Norfolk. I don’t know what there is that anyone would possibly object to.”

• What do you think? Write, giving full contact details, to Letters Editor, Prospect House, Rouen Road, Norwich NR1 1RE.

57 comments

  • 'D' may not like it but the DCLG are going to think long and hard over the planning application for at least another year and despite what he might like to think, it's never going to happen as the funding has now been pulled. CW have moved on to other projects and even in the unlikely event they were to be granted permission they just don't have the cash to build, nor the backers to pour money into their shareholder's pockets. Face it old chum, you're backing a 3 legged donkey - he haw!

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Fenscape 2

    Tuesday, July 29, 2014

  • Soloman aka 'D' (check that IP address EDP mods!) - I assume that you have an 'ology', given that you've turned into Maureen Lipman?

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Fenscape 2

    Tuesday, July 29, 2014

  • Not only does 'D' think incinerators are good for our health, he also thinks that he has been given a cure for the common cold too! Tell you what old chum, why don't you stop spouting your rubbish on here and just sell your miracle cure to the big pharma companies instead?

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Fenscape 2

    Tuesday, July 29, 2014

  • Hey what's the big problem already ? So what if this council are paying another one to incinerate their stuff until their own one is built. It seems like good business to me. You burn a bit here and try it out, it makes good financial sense and then you burn it in the newer one up the road in a year or two. These guys know what's what already.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Solomon Cohen

    Friday, July 25, 2014

  • Fen 2 the multi user name campaigner strikes again. The blogger with a thousand faces is still attempting to use a campaign to jack up his house price and pretend he is six dozen other people on here. Even fooled the EDP for a while. I had a cold last week and took medicine for it. Gone in three days. What will you do for your big problem?

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Del Boy

    Friday, July 25, 2014

  • well said Rob Whittle and Interpol, NCC acted without consent from fellow cllrs. and signed a contract with an unsuitable company that had a court record as long as our arms. The jubilant noises and support NCC had from this newspaper and the resident Conservatives for this canivance has yet to subside as supporters still get preferential treatment here. Norfolk now needs a new open agenda, to first educate cllr.s on much better cheaper alternatives, British built options which would actually reduce landfill, inevitably reducing landfill charges and turning our existing resource stock, meaning landfill, into recyclable raw materials. Enhanced Landfill mining, surveyed in 2006 with a view to revisit.... should now be incorporated into the Resource and Mineral's plan, hopefully changing attitudes to proftable recycling. Otherwise I can see communities using their waste into their own revenue streams, replacing some of the funds withdrawn by local and national Government.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    ingo wagenknecht

    Friday, July 25, 2014

  • There is a way to reduce the amount of waste that is sent to Blakenham and that is for the councillors in the Yarmouth area to push for a recycling rate that is higher than the existing miserable 29%. Maybe the likes of Mick Castle can tell us why they are happy to clog up the roads down the east coast to feed Suffolk's expensive bonfire despite being given several alternative options that would have brought money into the region instead of just burning it?

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Fenscape 2

    Thursday, July 24, 2014

  • It was on the cards the incinerator contract was going to fail because building close to a densely populated town would attract huge opposition. It was inevitable there would be delays from consensus. NCC picked an incinerator company with no experience of planning laws and to date an empty order book. One of the reasons for the public inquiry was hardly anybody wrote into the council to support it. The few that could be bothered made a hash of it and I sure Cory Wheelabrator and NCC were embarrassed by their lack of tact and product knowledge. NCC should have consulted the public on what method they would like their rubbish treated. With Wheelabrator knee deep in violations for fraud and pollution should have been a warning to steer clear of this outfit. NCC was aware Wheelabrator were fined $7.5 for pollution violations while the scoping and planning period was active. NCC decided to reward Wheelabrator for their actions by signing the redacted contract with a hefty get out clause worse than a pyramid sales scam. If NCC had listened to public concerns from the start Norfolk would not be in the position of sending residual waste to incineration at Suffolk. I do not understand why NCC promoted zero waste, reduce reuse recycle policy and choose incineration.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Interpol

    Thursday, July 24, 2014

  • Poor old D, last dog out of the traps as usual.... If your beloved incinerator is as green and clean as you think it is then I have nothing to fear about house prices do I? By starting this silly little side argument it would appear that you know something about emissions that you're not admitting to! Oh, PS, I don't need various silly usernames, I just leave that tactic to you.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Fenscape 2

    Thursday, July 24, 2014

  • Yes I did say,“The decision has been made. On environmental grounds of course." D didn`t you pick up just a hint of something there? This is politics at a national level and Norfolk CC was swept aside. They stood no chance once Pickles was briefed, with his decision apparently being made quickly. You`ll get nothing else more from me, mainly because at this point I know nothing else! Or am I lying? You`re the intelligent one so you work it out. By the way I`m just off to put my houses on the market!

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    democrat

    Thursday, July 24, 2014

  • Del boy, sad to say he :-) misses why they mainly oppose incineration. He projects one directional which is simplistic. I don't own a house, I am not a green, I don't live around Kings Lynn. Honest John has it pretty much right- the focus is on a cabal of county council officers (salaried £50k pa for the last 10 yrs delivering squat) and their recommendations playing with hundreds of £millions of our council tax money on the wrong technology to treat sustainably 200ktpa of or waste resources, and still little solution. This is the simple yet key issue.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Rob Whittle

    Thursday, July 24, 2014

  • And right on cue up pops our little house seller on the defensive in yet another guise..........

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Del Boy

    Thursday, July 24, 2014

  • Oh, and before anyone puts any sort of faith in D's comments below, let's not forget this is the same person who tried to tell us that the Inquiry was swamped by a zillion bus loads of pro-incinerator people who were all turned around from the PDC when the reality is that the signing in book shows capacity and no such event ever happening, plus this also went unnoticed by reporters from the BBC, EDP and LN and wasn't recorded by the organisers either. Because it was all pure fantasy as usual - the only reality is the sound of that axe grinding away in the background thanks to his desperate and unremitting posts on here.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Fenscape 2

    Wednesday, July 23, 2014

  • Poor old D, still running around like a chicken that doesn't realise that it's head was cut off months ago. You HAVE looked at the willowsprc.co.uk website haven't you? No? Dear oh dear! It would appear that your pet shark has gone off to bask in warmer waters now - that's business for you, eh? Game over.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Fenscape 2

    Wednesday, July 23, 2014

  • "I have always said I was never against incineration."........................Elizabeth Truss MP 23.07.2014................And neither is anyone else except the single campaigner on here using fifty different names to make a point to keep his house price up so he can sell it next year.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Del Boy

    Wednesday, July 23, 2014

  • Of course the best and most stupid comment so far from that source was the following one six months ago; democrat Saturday, February 1, 2014 “The decision has been made. On environmental grounds of course. “...........All of these priceless gems are available from the EDP archives if you like a good laugh at the campaigners.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Del Boy

    Wednesday, July 23, 2014

  • Another classic from Democrat claiming to be a fountain of wisdom - Thursday, January 23, 2014; “Not wise. Just in the know. “ ………….Yeah right pal ! Read it off the back of a cornflake box more like.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Del Boy

    Wednesday, July 23, 2014

  • democrat Monday, January 27, 2014 “Just for D. I`ve already told you Pickles has made his decision. “ - Really ? Pity he never told you pal. Now that is a loser for you and a poser to.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Del Boy

    Wednesday, July 23, 2014

  • Matter less of different opinions, the sad thing is that county officers completely wasted 10 years trying to push through a bad proposal, without a mandate from council tax payers, without county or local consensus, they thought they knew best. They did not! Wrong technology procured. Civil servants, we now know, told them them actions were high risk komakaze (rogue) in nature and in delivery. Stupid practice to allow a £22+ cancellation clause. The sad things is, although a 2 year stop gap of 40k tpa of Yarmouth waste has been found; not a brick of any residual plant has been laid, no long term solution or strategy achieved, over 140Ktpa from Norwich and elsewhere in Norfolk needing to be resolved long term. Meanwhile residual waste officers have been picking up £50-70k pa for the last 10 years with little to show, designing a contractual disaster, then shooting off to pastures new in rural Somerset.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Rob Whittle

    Wednesday, July 23, 2014

  • Unfortunately you have proved yourself to be a loser. You still have no idea.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    democrat

    Wednesday, July 23, 2014

  • Liz Truss; "I have always said I was never against incineration."...........I bet those campaigners are sitting rigid......by the way I am not involved so I cannot be a loser or a winner either way.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Del Boy

    Wednesday, July 23, 2014

  • Liz Truss; "Clearly it was Owen Patterson that took the decision to withdraw the PFI credits. Any decision I would obviously have to take on its own merits."

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Del Boy

    Wednesday, July 23, 2014

  • Quote E. Truss MP on King's Lynn Incinerator; "I felt the (King’s Lynn) decision didn’t stack up (economically) and it was too big given the amount of waste Norfolk needed to deal with." Where's the backing? Where's the money coming from? You've lost D!

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    LynnLegend

    Wednesday, July 23, 2014

  • Quote E. Truss MP on King's Lynn Incinerator; "Any decision I would obviously have to take on its own merits. I have always said I was never against incineration."....................I find that even more interesting. Another typo perhaps ?

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Del Boy

    Wednesday, July 23, 2014

  • I find it interesting that the projects biggest investor isn't aware that it's still going ahead. You'd have thought that of all people the Green Investment Bank (who wereare putting £51m into the facility) would be aware that the project is actually proceeding, but on their website it says "Norfolk waste PFI: Note that this project is no longer going ahead." How very bizarre!! A typo I'm sure.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    LynnLegend

    Wednesday, July 23, 2014

  • Norfolk’s most celebrated take away King could be in for a sharp rise in his pie money if he is a good boy. Remember that incinerator he claimed to dislike so much ? Seems he may be developing some new feelings.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    The-Blue-Flag

    Wednesday, July 23, 2014

  • Mr A Schickguber.The logic is a commercial incinerator in Norfolk with private public customers is highly unlikely in Norfolk, indeed East Ang, for several reasons. You will understand the allocation of WAS classed EfW in the Mineral and Waste plan that applies to private proposals, the changing politics of who runs DEFRA and BERR, who say yeanay on any large scale private or public incinerator. Also you will be aware the commercial incinerator market, that Covanta shipped out of the UK market after several commercial proposals went south. With out a 30 yr deal they wouldn't be profitable. Obviously to answer your question for a waste facility to be built, the size and technology type need to be appropriatenon incineration, and have the consensus of local businesses and residents. Such was the SRM proposal for Costessey, albeit it strong E: weak £ reasons at the time.stopped that going ahead.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Rob Whittle

    Wednesday, July 23, 2014

  • I'm not in an argument - I'm in a discussion. I don't need alternative logon names and I only have one registered with Archant.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    So_Many_Haters!

    Wednesday, July 23, 2014

  • Mr Schickgruger- This is widespeculation. You will be aware Covanta and Veolia in Bucks and Herts have attempted these commercial proposals, hoping, both later scrapping them as they didn't make financial sense. Covanta who pushed for these private EfW facilitiescontracts, decided to abandon the UK commercial EFW market altogether. Again without anyWillows site, and one under probable WNDC future freehold, CW will have to go back to the drawing board on planning, and it will have to be limited to several EfW allocated sites (termed WAS) in the Norfolks Mineral and Waste Strategy. You will understand this. So the logic is EfW is unlikely in Norfolk as large scale is needed to make any profit. The likelihood is for private smaller scale gasification or plasma gas facility (50-100k) . To answer your question directly: If I were a waste company I would ensure the size and technology proposed was appropriate, and get local consensus. This is what NEWSSRM did at Costessey, albeit the macro economics £:E rates at the time supplying the Belgian made digester sank the proposal. The point being the right technology and local consensus, whether private or pupil contract. So local consensus, appropriate size and technology are key; whether a private or council sponsored facility. With Eliz Truss at the DEFRA helm, Lambs mate Cable at Business, don't think a large private EfW contract will occur in Norfolk. So speculation.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Rob Whittle

    Wednesday, July 23, 2014

  • I say chaps thank you once again for another wedge of emails etc which I appreciate very much. I have had a word with my chums and they have promised to get back to me as soon as possible. Wretched business all round and rest assured you have my every sympathy. When the relevant responses are returned to me I shall pass them directly to you. In the meantime feel free to pass any new developments to me and I shall in turn pass on your further concerns. Please accept my assurance of the most wonderful attentions at all times. Henry.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Hooray Henry

    Wednesday, July 23, 2014

  • The logic Rob is they will not go it alone. There are others willing to enter into contracts and NCC will accept a new contract after construction. Waste collection is a private enterprise. You do know that don’t you ? The campaigners think it is all to do with the council and that was their target. While they wasted their time other plans were being made. You understand that Rob being in business. What would you do if a small group of irritating campaigners were trying to ruin you to keep up their house prices.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Mr A. Schicklgruber

    Wednesday, July 23, 2014

  • By the way chum the Sec of State can overturn consent for planning but that office must prove lawful cause and offer sound planning reasons that are bound in law and not subject to legal challenges and retraction in court under judicial review He cannot just do as he pleases because someone does not like the Councils decision. Just so you know. Unfortunately the submitted case arguments that challenged the original Councils decision under current planning law do not stand up to that test.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Mr A. Schicklgruber

    Wednesday, July 23, 2014

  • Well well. SMHaters gets in an argument and gets so worked up it answers in the name of Sugerbeet by mistake. Looks like Mr multiple names aka the lonely campaigner slipped up again.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Mr A. Schicklgruber

    Wednesday, July 23, 2014

  • Mr Shlickgruper- I comment from a position of living in Norwich, without property interests and an interest in better technology. Wheelbrator, it is true have had serious environmental breaches in the US. Without the £169m waste credits, and £600 million 30 year value agreed in the now cancelled Contract B, any CW EfW go it alone proposal at the Willows isn't feasible. Also NCC is in the process of disposing the Willows site to WNDC. I can't understand the logic of your point.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Rob Whittle

    Wednesday, July 23, 2014

  • No, schicklgruber, aka Del Boy Dickens, it's up to you to post evidence of what you're claiming. I contacted the willowsprc website to ask them to confirm your claims 2 weeks ago. Guess what. No reply.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Sugarbeet

    Tuesday, July 22, 2014

  • By the way chum the Sec of State can overturn consent for planning but that office must prove lawful cause and offer sound planning reasons that are bound in law and not subject to legal challenges and retraction in court under judicial review He cannot just do as he pleases because someone does not like the Councils decision. Just so you know. Unfortunately the submitted case arguments that challenged the original Councils decision under current planning law do not stand up to that test.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Mr A. Schicklgruber

    Tuesday, July 22, 2014

  • No need to post links chum. The statement was covered and reported by this newspaper as well as others. As a late comer you seem to have missed it. Check back just after the council meeting to cancel their contract. Cory announced the continuation shortly afterwards. They are aware they can obtain other contracts from other sources. Waste is largely dealt with by the private sector not always via a council. Not quite up to speed are you ? Get your research right and then you can show off a bit. Get it wrong and you wind up making embarrassing public statements showing how little you really know like the widely publicised statement by Cory that you have no knowledge of.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Mr A. Schicklgruber

    Tuesday, July 22, 2014

  • Mr A, where are the £100's of millions of pounds going to come from if not from the council?

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    LynnLegend

    Tuesday, July 22, 2014

  • Norfolk Council granted itself planning permission. The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government called it in, meaning that he has the power to overturn the planning permission. DEFRA withdrew the waste credits, losing the council £169m in funding. Cory Wheelabrator's financial backing by the banks has been withdrawn. There is no record of any public statement by Cory Wheelabrator about continuing the project, which would be impossible anyway without backing, a contract to burn the waste and planning permission. If you believe otherwise, post the links to the published information.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    So_Many_Haters!

    Tuesday, July 22, 2014

  • Can I first of all offer my deepest thanks for keeping me up to speed and for all of the telephone messages and emails and letters and packages not to mention the button holing I get every time a member of your team is within touching distance. Thank you all so much for that. I have seen your most recent pile of complicated and highly technical objections and I have understood every word and diagram. Although the recent batch ran into well over 7 million words and 33,000 drawings it has all been carefully examined and I have passed all of it onto the relevant people who will in due course come back to me. When they do I shall pass their response on to your good selves with a swift one liner from me. Offering my most sincere attentions at all times. Henry.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Hooray Henry

    Tuesday, July 22, 2014

  • Hold on a moment chum and all your other pseudonyms. You are way off topic if you think this has been stopped. One single contract was cancelled nothing else. The campaigners were jumping about and spilling their real ale because they also thought that was the be all and end all. The firm has said in a public statement that it is going ahead and judging by the amount of additional information they have presented to the government recently I think you can take it as read that this will be built. I mean you do know that planning consent has been given by the council don’t you ? They don’t need to go back to them for anything. It will be the council knocking on their door not the other way around. If anyone is having delusions it is you and all your other pseudonyms. All you lot are bothered about is house prices. That’s about as deep as your green credentials go. Who do you think you are kidding?

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Mr A. Schicklgruber

    Tuesday, July 22, 2014

  • Hold on a moment Haters ( and all your other pseudonyms). You are way off target if you think this has been stopped. One single contract was scrapped nothing else. The campaigners were jumping about and spilling their real ale because they also thought that was the be all and end all. The firm has said in a public statement that it is going ahead and judging by the amount of additional information they have presented to the Sec of State recently I think you can take it as read that this will be built. I mean you do know that planning consent has been given by the council don’t you ? They don’t need to go back to them for anything. It will be the council knocking on their door not the other way around. If anyone is deluded it is you and all your other pseudonyms. All you lot are bothered about is house prices. That’s about as deep as your green credentials go. Who do you think you are kidding?

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Mr A. Schicklgruber

    Tuesday, July 22, 2014

  • I have never said that burning is "ok somewhere else". I'm against incineration. Full. Stop. It's bad for the environment, and it's bad for health. What I AM grateful for is that the Kings Lynn incinerator has been stopped. It cannot go ahead again. There is no legal framework that will allow it to occur. To try again NCC would have to go back to square one and start again. In these more informed times, where people can read the information for themselves rather than just accepting the propaganda and the self-interested few, any further attempts to build an incinerator in Norfolk will also be blocked. The council will have to look at more sustainable and (in the long term) cheaper alternatives. You might delude yourself Schicklgruber (and your many other pseudonyms) but it won't happen.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    So_Many_Haters!

    Tuesday, July 22, 2014

  • Make up your mind Haters. One day you are against burning and the next it is OK somewhere else. That is what a hypocrite Nimby is all about. What you fail to acknowledge is that this protest group have cost the tax payer millions for nothing because they are still burning it anyway and they will go ahead and build a new burner in Lynn and burn it there in 2 years time. The protest has completely failed on all fronts. Do you need an anvil to fall on your head before the penny drops? Toby and his gang have tricked you. Plain as day. The coffee is boiling. Can you smell it yet?

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Mr A. Schicklgruber

    Tuesday, July 22, 2014

  • Controversial decisions like this tend to be made this time of year, when folk go on holiday. The plan is a 2 year stop gap, and doesn't address Norfolk's waste sustainably, and add 40,000tpa to the road system from Norfolk to Suffolk. KeithS gets mixed up here, as Shnickguper has it wrong also. As Ingo states officers work for the environment, but dont protect it, or reach a countywide consensus for their decisions, or choose MHT, MBT, plasma-gas, anaerobic digestion, 70% recycling or zero waste centres.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Rob Whittle

    Tuesday, July 22, 2014

  • Make up your mind. When people protest, you call them NIMBYs and claim they're holding up progress. When they're not protesting, you call them hypocrites. What you fail to acknowledge is that they've prevented Norfolk county council from wasting a huge amount of money on something that would have been a financial drain on the county economy, and forced those in power to consider alternatives. The contract was written so that when (not if) Norfolk failed to provide a minimum amount of waste to burn (an issue in incinerators across Europe) then the price per ton would escalate rapidly, costing the ratepayers far more that the very rose-tinted projections given by the council.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    So_Many_Haters!

    Tuesday, July 22, 2014

  • Where are the anti incinerator protestors ? I thought they would be outside the building with placards. They have known about this deal long enough yet remained very quiet. I always said they were nimby hypocrites and it looks as though I am right.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Mr A. Schicklgruber

    Tuesday, July 22, 2014

  • Well well well. So Toby is in favour of burning rubbish now is he ? He must be because his approval made this happen. Two faces and counting.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Mr A. Schicklgruber

    Tuesday, July 22, 2014

  • To be fair, "d, west lynn" it was only the majority of Norfolk residents to expressed an opinion. There's no official record of the Norfolk council tax payers' opinions as the county council refused to do a county-wide survey and ignored the Kings Lynn survey, as they ignore public opinion in all matters.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    So_Many_Haters!

    Tuesday, July 22, 2014

  • Ah KeithS, you imply KL people are to blame for this. You fail to recognise or mention the majority of people in Norfolk were aginst the Efw plant, well except some councillors and NCC staff. And as said previously, did you read the comment or just spit your dummy first?

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    d, west lynn

    Tuesday, July 22, 2014

  • Tell me, KeithS, did you bother to read the original article? It quite clearly states "Most of the waste that will be sent to Suffolk is currently sent to Aldeby landfill site near Beccles – and comes from households in north Norfolk and Great Yarmouth." So, it doesn't include Kings Lynn's waste. Not that the residents would have any say in how their waste is treated, given the way that Nor.folk council rides roughshod over public opinion. Plus, Great Yarmouth has one of the lowest recycling rates in the county and so desperately needs somewhere to get rid of their rubbish before they start using the streets as a dumping ground.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    So_Many_Haters!

    Tuesday, July 22, 2014

  • Pin back your ears then and read other, almost countless, threads. Incineration is outdated and not needed. It is more expensive than other forms of waste disposal and is without doubt a major danger to health, both in the human and the animal world. Apart from that I have no problem with waste going to Suffolk but then again I`m not expecting to be consulted! After all we don`t need consensus on this issue, it hasn`t caused any problems over the last few years, now has it?

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    democrat

    Tuesday, July 22, 2014

  • lenghty positive pro Norfolk comment made at 8.58 am. seee if it appears.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    ingo wagenknecht

    Tuesday, July 22, 2014

  • I second bedoomed comment. Now that evertyone is going on holiday is exactly the right time for the same machinations to carry on as they have before, i.e. nobody in the house? lets make some decisions. Norfolks councillors and officers need educating on all matters of resource recovery, landfill amelioration and reinstatement, how to produce mgas and energy without polluting all and sundry. This incineraton of resource and resulting traffic, when Long Stratton is creaking under the daily through traffic, should have come before cllr.s, Cllr. Knobs explanation does not mean that cabinet could have made this available to cllrs. as an expression of new openess and agenda. fat chance.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    ingo wagenknecht

    Tuesday, July 22, 2014

  • Kings Lynn protesters silence is deafening well said Keith

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    PaulH

    Tuesday, July 22, 2014

  • Surely now is the time for verifiable,transparent and no punches pulled public meetings to debate the way forward for all our Norfolk waste,residential and commercial. Or will officers decide we cannot be trusted to come up with a balanced solution?

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    bedoomed

    Tuesday, July 22, 2014

  • I hope those for KingsLynn are making their own arrangements as it would be hypocritical of them to expect others to burn it.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    KeithS

    Tuesday, July 22, 2014

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: 10°C

min temp: 13°C

Five-day forecast

loading...

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT