Search

Norfolk County Council agree that an incinerator will not be considered when dealing with waste in the future

The site where the incinerator would have been built. Picture: Ian Burt.

The site where the incinerator would have been built. Picture: Ian Burt.

Archant © 2010

County councillors have voted to stop the sale of the site where the axed Norfolk incinerator was to be built.

And they have agreed that, when it comes to dealing with waste in the future, an incinerator will not be considered.

Land at Saddlebow, near King’s Lynn, had been earmarked for an incinerator to burn Norfolk’s waste.

But the contract with Cory Wheelabrator to build and run that controversial plant was cancelled by Norfolk County Council earlier this year.

However, the Secretary of State has yet to decide whether to grant planning permission for such a plant.

And campaigners feared if that permission is eventually given, it could leave the way open for the site to be sold by the council to a company which wants to build a burner.

At today’s meeting of the full council, UKIP leader Toby Coke put forward a motion that the council should ask its policy and resources committee to refrain from selling the site until it was established it was surplus to any future waste strategy requirements and not to sell it to any organisation or person planning to build an incinerator.

The motion was passed by 66 votes to six, with six abstentions.

Tim East, Liberal Democrat councillor for Costessey and a long-standing opponent of incineration, seconded the motion.

He said it was “pragmatic” to retain the site in case alternative, environmentally ways of dealing with waste could be based there.

Alexandra Kemp, independent councillor for Clenchwarton and Lynn South, had put forward a motion calling the policy and resources committee to consider selling the site to West Norfolk Council.

But her motion did not get a seconder.

The full council also considered whether incineration should form part of a future waste strategy.

The council’s own waste advisory group had recommended that it did not, but the authority’s environment, transport and development committee recommended that it should.

However, at today’s meeting, the council agreed to an amendment to the strategy which inserts clauses that any waste plant must be further up the waste hierarchy than incineration and any evaluation of what sort of treatment to use must consider its carbon footprint.

The cancellation of the contract with Cory Wheelabrator led to the council having to pay out almost £34m in compensation and other costs.

26 comments

  • Anyone else suspicious that the weasel group gave up rather quickly? I think they will be back with another go at this. My car knows its way to County Hall for these meetings. We said it was all over last time but hey ho they had another go.

    Report this comment

    alecto

    Thursday, December 18, 2014

  • Norfolcia, no harm giving Cllr Long a ba.sh when deserved but it was not as straightforward as that, suf.fice to say it would have been best if Cllr Kemp had not put forward her motion. Bernard, quite right of course, and this will be CW intentions, not to mention where the hopes of the officers, Borrett, GNobb and their Cabinets will lie, because they’ll only get their wedge once the building starts and a large wedge of that £33.7m would be set aside for bu.ng money. If you’d tru.st Daubney perhaps take a closer look at his last decade or so, not easy to fund a champagne lifestyle on a lemonade income without a bit of help, isn’t that right D.ickens old pal?

    Report this comment

    Honest John

    Thursday, December 18, 2014

  • Of course, if Eric Pickles was minded to grant planning consent, then certain companies have around £33.7M already to hand with which to make the council an offer. Were such an overpriced offer to be made, in today's economic climate, what Local Authority could justifiably turn down such a lucrative offer in the face of such aggressive cuts in today's central Gov't. contributions to county council organisations? Of course, if the site had been sold to BCKLWN, they would have actually found another use and put it beyond reach of CoryWheelabrator. Just saying.

    Report this comment

    BernardJuby

    Thursday, December 18, 2014

  • I note with interest that Councillor Kemps motion to sell the Willows site to the Borough Council of West Norfolk was not seconded. Where was Councillor Brian Long deputy leader at the Borough, why did he not support her in trying to secure the site or has he gone native in his support for incineration once again.

    Report this comment

    Norfolcia

    Wednesday, December 17, 2014

  • HJ well said. As u know I was told way, way back in Feb 2011 by Paul Green project director, at the time for CW, that gt yarmouth bc waste was going to Gt Blakenham. I asked Ann Steward about that at cabinet questions at the meeting on 7th March 2011 her sidestep answer is logged in the official minutes. The people of Suffolk should have fought as we did but they choose not to and planning consent was granted within 6 months of being submitted. Not our fault but the fault of complacency and council vested interests.

    Report this comment

    Canary Boy

    Tuesday, December 16, 2014

  • No, John Haseltine it is not acceptable to burn waste in Suffolk’s incinerator, but this decision was taken by NCC officers well before the contract was cancelled as a stop gap while Saddlebow was being built. Rather than show any degree of honesty the GNobb bla.med it on the cancellation. You’ll also find Suffolk were des.perate to get our waste for their additional 100,000 tpa non-contract capacity, with Norfolk providing 50,000 tonnes of it, although NCC would rather the public only knew about the 40,000 tonnes for some reason.

    Report this comment

    Honest John

    Tuesday, December 16, 2014

  • No incineration in Norfolk, but it's OK for Norfolk to use Suffolk's incinerator! Hypocracy

    Report this comment

    John Haseltine

    Tuesday, December 16, 2014

  • Well, the EDP clearly does not intend to name and shame. I could not help noticing that Cllrs Borrett, Mackie and Thomas still lack the moral fibre to admit, in any form, that they made a serious mistake, as Cabinet members, on 7 March 2011 when they voted to sign up with Cory Wheelabrator.

    Report this comment

    Nemesis

    Tuesday, December 16, 2014

  • I'm not a fan, but far more common sense from UKIP than the Conservatives. No comment from our resident council and incinerator expert D!ckens?

    Report this comment

    Norfolk and Good

    Tuesday, December 16, 2014

  • Am I the only one who gets the impression that a certain ex leader who has left local politics is still hiding in the wings, whispering in various ears in an effort to elevate himself back to the public eye over the next few months leading to the general election? God help us all.

    Report this comment

    Fenscape 2

    Tuesday, December 16, 2014

  • Mr C you are probably right. Plus the Lynn News is running a new story tonight predicting more defections from blue ranks in wn to ukip. I would say the blues are safer as ML is on the sinking ukip ship.

    Report this comment

    Canary Boy

    Monday, December 15, 2014

  • An indy, as in, transitional stage before becoming a UKIP maggot ?

    Report this comment

    Mr Cameron Spork-Pies

    Monday, December 15, 2014

  • Concerning blocked postings, it seems there is a blanket ban on criticism of the recently 'double black alerted' N&NUH's exec team, in particular the Chief Exec, who, as evidenced by some of the excruciating PR articles of late, sees fit to squander the hospital's already over-stretched budget on marketing and public relations roles, chasing social media ratings, and providing a stream of favourable news articles to paper over her appalling record, instead of spending the money where it is needed on the hospital's patients.

    Report this comment

    Mr Cameron Spork-Pies

    Monday, December 15, 2014

  • Obviously the second option! Ok on tw..tt.r news is a breckla.nd blue cllr has left the group and is now an indy. I speculated if it was one of 3 dedicated souls who lost the incinerator battle today. One was in the loo the other two voted against both mot.ions.

    Report this comment

    Canary Boy

    Monday, December 15, 2014

  • Could be CB, or have you been hacked lately ? This website does seem to be particularly 'unsafe'. Never wondered what sort of 'donations in kind' Chloe Smith is receiving from the Computer Associates cyber geeks.

    Report this comment

    Mr Cameron Spork-Pies

    Monday, December 15, 2014

  • No posting allowed? Or is a post only blocked if you mention key people?

    Report this comment

    Canary Boy

    Monday, December 15, 2014

  • And where was the normally outspoken Iffy Cliffy when the vote was taken straight after a 30 minute break? Locked in the lavatory still? Or just unable to stand the sight of Borat trying not to headbutt the desk in front of him in an unbridled (!) act of restraint?

    Report this comment

    Fenscape 2

    Monday, December 15, 2014

  • I have it on good authority that the voting today was Toby Coke’s motion not to sell the site for an incinerator, 6 against: Borrett, Chamberlain, Iles, Mackie, Monson, Wilby - 6 abstained: Hannah, Leggett, R Smith, Spratt, Somerville, Thomas. The second motion from Stan Hebborn that any waste plant must be further up the waste hierarchy than incineration and carbon footprint considered, 12 abstained: Borrett, Byrne, Chamberlain, Foulger, Hannah, Leggett, Mackie, Monson, Mooney, Somerville, Thomas, Virgo. Let’s hope the EDP do a good job of naming and shaming these tomorrow, their constituents deserve to know these councillors would be happy for an incinerator in their constituency. And don’t overdo the self-praise GNobbs, some of us know the truth behind today old man, that will be saved for another day.

    Report this comment

    Honest John

    Monday, December 15, 2014

  • I see, nh. Shame there's no SFO investigation into the goings on at NCC. As for you Ingo, why expect more of Cllr. Thomas, who has been fcuking with the future of children in Norfolk for years. Just ask Ofsted. LOL

    Report this comment

    Mr Cameron Spork-Pies

    Monday, December 15, 2014

  • Mr Pork Pies? What "trap" have I supposedly fallen into? Did you read my comments? I have no interest in the Tory or any other party. The bottom line is that 30 something millions of taxpayers was squandered and gifted to a company for doing precisely nothing. The taxpayer paid twice.Cash to the lucky recipient and 30 miilions of service cuts. The system that allowed such a contract to be signed is seriously flawed. How such a system can allow someone to sign such a contract is at fault. No matter which bunch of politicians are in control. As I previously said. How would this bunch fare in the private sector which is results driven.

    Report this comment

    norman hall

    Monday, December 15, 2014

  • This was not a catch all phrase but a clear commitment to consider the carbon footprint of all future NCC waste treatment proposals today. A positive decision that was supported by most Cllrs. except cllr. Borret, Somerville, Thomas and some other hard liners who voted against the future of their own children and their future. Now that we have clearly taken the burning of waste out of the waste strategy, Eric Pickles will have no problems with consigning this bad Tory mistake to the history books, filed under failed and flawed.

    Report this comment

    ingo wagenknecht

    Monday, December 15, 2014

  • Cllr Tango was one of the 6.

    Report this comment

    LynnLegend

    Monday, December 15, 2014

  • Prevention,.reducing,re-using and recycling come before burning in preferential order. But making it easy and cost effective for commerce and industry to re-use the 1 million tonnes generated in Norfolk still doesn't get a look-in. Shame on you Norfolk. When will you ever learn?

    Report this comment

    bedoomed

    Monday, December 15, 2014

  • "However, at today’s meeting, the council agreed to an amendment to the strategy which inserts clauses that any waste plant must be further up the waste hierarchy than incineration and any evaluation of what sort of treatment to use must consider its carbon footprint." Seems as clear as mud to me. Does this mean some burning is ok? They only seem to have ruled out a single process where waste is got rid of by total incineration.

    Report this comment

    BG

    Monday, December 15, 2014

  • Sadly, nh, you have fallen into the same trap as DG. The resolution passed is far from an unequivocal 'no', and therefore leaves the door wide open still. Why else do imagine it was supported by so many of the Tory Group, who are fanatically pro-incinerator. That said, I think the EDP should do its duty by naming & shaming the 6 against and 6 abstaining, so they can be held up to (further) public ridicule.

    Report this comment

    Mr Cameron Spork-Pies

    Monday, December 15, 2014

  • Good sensible move by a fine forward thinking council. Only cost the taxpayer 30 something million and countless reduced services for them to reach this decision. Would'nt they do well in the private sector.

    Report this comment

    norman hall

    Monday, December 15, 2014

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

0

Most Read

Newsletter Sign Up

Sign up to receive our regular email newsletter

Most Commented

Latest from the EDP

Partly Cloudy

Partly Cloudy

max temp: 9°C

min temp: 4°C

Listen to the latest weather forecast
HOT JOBS

Show Job Lists

Digital Edition

cover

Enjoy the EDP
digital edition

Subscribe