Norfolk waste could be sent to Suffolk incinerator

Norfolk and Suffolk county councils are in talks about sending some of Norfolk's waste to the incinerator at Great Blakenham, near Ipswich. Norfolk and Suffolk county councils are in talks about sending some of Norfolk's waste to the incinerator at Great Blakenham, near Ipswich.

Friday, February 14, 2014
6:30 AM

Norfolk waste could be sent to Suffolk to be burned, it has been revealed, with talks under way between the two councils to incinerate rubbish near Ipswich.

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

But council leaders have insisted if such a deal is struck, it would be a temporary measure and not an alternative to the controversial incinerator proposed for King’s Lynn.

• Fresh bid to terminate King’s Lynn incinerator contract is confirmed

• Norfolk incinerator project could be back in the balance, as a new vote looms

• Renewed plea for Eric Pickles to hurry up with King’s Lynn incinerator decision

It would mean about 50 lorry trips a day up and down the A140, taking the county’s waste to be burned at the incinerator under construction at Great Blakenham, which is due to start operating in the summer.

The latest twist in the toxic saga over how Norfolk will deal with its rubbish came at a council meeting in Suffolk.

Richard Smith, Suffolk’s county councillor with responsibility for the environment and planning, revealed the two councils were in talks about the use of the incinerator being built at Great Blakenham.

George Nobbs, the leader of Norfolk County Council, confirmed his authority is talking to their Suffolk counterparts about sending 30,000 tonnes of waste a year to Great Blakenham for a limited period.

Mr Nobbs said: “It is true we have had some informal talks with Suffolk and their contractors over dealing with 30,000 tonnes of waste.

“We have a contract which comes to an end in July and our officers have been talking to neighbours with a view to taking some of that waste at the end of that contract.

“It would only be temporary. It is in no way an alternative to the long-term solution.”

The county council says a solution is needed because a contract with FCC Environmental, which sees waste put into landfill at Aldeby, near Beccles, is drawing to a close, with the tip on the brink of closing.

A spokesman said the authority was also in discussions with Cambridgeshire and other waste disposal facilities in the region, so was far from a done deal.

With Norfolk producing 210,000 tonnes of rubbish a year, the council is keen to stress not all the county’s waste could be sent to Great Blakenham, which has capacity for 269,000 tonnes a year and a commitment from Suffolk to send 170,000 tonnes a year.

Communities secretary Eric Pickles has yet to make a decision on whether to allow planning permission for the £596m Norfolk incinerator.

The government last year cancelled waste credits, which would have been worth £169m during the lifetime of the contract agreed with Anglo-US consortium Cory Wheelabrator.

Last year, the leaders of Norfolk and Suffolk County Council signed a memorandum of understanding that the two authorities would work more closely together.

Mr Nobbs insisted he was not embarrassed that a revelation about waste - which is one of the biggest political hot potatoes in Norfolk - had been made at a Suffolk County Council meeting, rather than at his own council.

He said: “In an ideal world I would have liked this announcement to have come from Norfolk County Council and it seems someone from Suffolk has jumped the gun.

“But perhaps it is sign of the growing closeness of the relationship we have forged with Suffolk County Council that they felt able to talk about it.”

Critics of the incinerator proposed for King’s Lynn have been pushing for the county council to come up with a Plan B, saying it would be cheaper to send it to Suffolk or Amsterdam.

The county council has always said, even without the waste credits, the incinerator is value for money and would save taxpayers millions of pounds a year compared to landfill.

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

137 comments

  • If this is KLWINs attempts to scupper those who do not agree with them then it has backfired. What I have read here this evening is beyond belief. They deserve to lose the campaign if this represents their view.

    Report this comment

    Sherlock

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • Reading some of these comments the EDP are kindly allowing people to voice their opinions even if they are clearly uninformed or wildly fictitious, and it is particularly nice to see those detained under the Mental Health Act having access to the internet.

    Report this comment

    Jeff Reread

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • I am intrigued by the current Labour led administration’s delusion that they can get away with building the incinerator whilst blaming the previous Conservative cabinet for signing the contract. In fact, the residents of West Norfolk appear less than happy the current lot have reneged on their election manifesto promises. I also suggest it is a miscalculation to think opposition will fall away in the event planning permission is granted and the incinerator is constructed. The nightmare that is Norfolk’s 600 million pound ‘millstone’ could drag on for quarter of a century or more. Is this what County Hall really wants for Norfolk? Time gentlemen please!

    Report this comment

    Kadmos

    Monday, February 17, 2014

  • High water table and toxic ash will not be a problem for C&A bikes as they have a financial interest in the Incinerator.

    Report this comment

    Interpol

    Sunday, February 16, 2014

  • Kadmos, if this incinerator gets built it will be p.ayday for those pushing it through, that’s as far ahead as they want to think, and to h.ell with the people across the whole of Norfolk who will have to live with the financial burden it will create. Those at the top of the food chain won’t need to stay at County Hall, others have already left to distance any future link. Gnobbs has shown himself to be far worse person than Murphy ever was, and those elected councillors who are supporting him for p.ayday positions should be ashamed of themselves. Opposition won’t fade away, once operating it’s probable the EU would become involved, seemingly the technology is not up to their minimum requirements for NO2, the costs of updating that will be down to NCC

    Report this comment

    Honest John

    Monday, February 17, 2014

  • So if fenbloke is running KLWIN or at least is their spokesman online why have they allowed him to say such dreadful things about other posters ? I can't understand any of it. Perhaps they did not really want to succeed and there was another agenda.

    Report this comment

    Pugh Bickley

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • Why make up things about the planning inspector claiming they were posted on here when it can easily be proved to be a complete figment of your imagination? You do make me laugh.

    Report this comment

    Bikerboy

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • Those thinking ending this contract would be too hard on finances now, should think of the financial burden of the long term implications. NCC have committed 170,000tpa for the next 25 years, based on inflated figures to justify need rather on reality. Look at the reality, we currently have 210,000 tonnes, this year glass and plastic collections start and could remove 30,000 tonnes, potentially leaving 180,000 tonnes. Planning, against NCC’s recommendation, was passed for a 30,000tpa AD plant near Holt, leaving 150,000 tonnes. West Norfolk want to use a better process for their waste, removing another 30,000tpa, so you can see why NCC must oppose any other project, despite being better value for the taxpayer’s pocket. If there was only 120,000tpa of residual waste for the incinerator, NCC will still have to pay over the odds for burning 170,000tpa and pay for the lost energy revenue on top, so it would end up costing them at lot of money not saving it. Their only solution would be to send recyclable waste to top up the tonnages, which burns money unnecessarily, like Sheffield are already doing. Lessons learnt by NCC – none!

    Report this comment

    Honest John

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • I'd rather they didn't sit on the fence while relieving themselves Ingo. That is most unhygienic. What I would like to know from someone in the public gallery is whether this need to spend a penny on a alarmingly frequent basis also takes place in the main body of the debate or whether nature only makes its clarion call when the chairman mentions voting.

    Report this comment

    alecto

    Tuesday, February 18, 2014

  • It strikes me as sadly ironic that Cllr Kemp is getting pressure applied by her own party when she is one of the few who are seemingly following her party's manifesto!That would make a nice case for the NEC.Tony Benn,who I hope gets well soon,always asked" where does your power come from?".The answer for any local councillor is the electorate of the ward so how a councillor can be in any bother for both sticking to her party's manifesto AND democratically representing all of those local people too is beyond me.

    Report this comment

    Peter Watson

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • These chaps have to put the old rubbish somewhere until they build their own thingy in Lynn so it seems like a decent enough idea to pop it over the border. Perhaps Norfolk can return the favour when their own incinerator is up and running. Good show.

    Report this comment

    Sir Montague Baden-Philips

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • Exactly Bikerboy. We must stick to making relevant points and not get involved with challenging rubbish emanating from D. Try and ignore his silly comments.

    Report this comment

    democrat

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • Agreed Bikerboy - we all have his measure now. I'm expecting a comment from tosserlong next....

    Report this comment

    User Removed

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • Professor 'Who'? Can't seem to find you listed anywhere old chap - do tell us what your qualification is in? (Apart from talking rubbish on here that is....)

    Report this comment

    User Removed

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • Two expert witnesses from CW and NCC admitted secondary formation, creating the most dangerous particles, were created about an hour after leaving the chimney, or 35 miles away under normal wind conditions. Best keep windows shut at County Hall on a breezy day then. Since NCC and CW refuse to divulge the exact details of the filter system they will be using, perhaps Professor Pat Pending can enlighten us all as to how he can make such a statement of fact?

    Report this comment

    Honest John

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • You didnt think that councillors work for the people did you Canary Boy ?.

    Report this comment

    "V"

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • For those asking why people opposed to incineration would see waste go to Amsterdam, it is because they are in need of waste to make their existing incinerator profitable, and the same will apply to Suffolk. Norfolk waste is already going to Kent, their own shortage began soon after it was built, because waste fell during the years it had taken to approve planning, so their original tonnage commitment was way too high, and have publicly admitted that with hindsight, going ahead with the incinerator was disastrous. Lessons learnt by NCC – none! I was told last year that Gt Blakenham incinerator would be relying on waste from Norfolk and London to be profitable, they obviously use the same fingers crossed policy as Borrett.

    Report this comment

    Honest John

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • Would we have known about this if Suffolk hadn't spilt the beans Another example of NCC's underhand dealings. How disgusting. Or, is this another 'on the back of a fag packet ' scheme from the officers who have failed miserably to work towards Plan B. The antis have been saying that this is an option for ages and been totally vilified by the likes of Harrison and 'know it all' Castle. It would be good to know how long these 'talks' have been going on. Anyone in Suffolk care to inform us?

    Report this comment

    maryjane

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • Mythbuster the councillors calling in the decision did not shoot themselves in the foot at all. You obviously have not read, or understood, the issue. The call in is because vital information concerning finance was witheld from councillors hense they made their decision based on incomplete information in regard to finance. Nothing at all to do with if those councillors are for or against incineration as a technology. There is no escape from the fact that it would be cheaper for the public purse to pay off CW and enter into a contract with any other waste company in the UK or Europe to process or incinerate. The reason for the call in is to make sure public funds are used in the most beneficial way for Norfolk instead of for the benefit of private business and bankers!

    Report this comment

    Canary Boy

    Saturday, February 15, 2014

  • Could someone please tell me when, and where in Norfolk, 700,000 people turned out and voted in favour of building a mass-burn waste incinerator on the outskirts of King's Lynn?

    Report this comment

    Nemesis

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • As a temporary measure it makes sense to take up the arrangement with Suffolk's new Energy from Waste plant. Norfolk this year is having to send up to 40,000 tons to an incinerator in Kent. We aren't running out of waste whilst we wait for Eric Pickles to rule on the planning permission for the Kings Lynn waste plant.

    Report this comment

    Mick Castle

    Saturday, February 15, 2014

  • Once the dust settles it is vitally important to maintain pressure on County Councillors to ensure that a similar farce does not happen again.They are our representatives, elected by us, to serve us and not for their self-gratification.

    Report this comment

    democrat

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • Hang it up Mahatma - no-one is fooled by your pseudonym anymore than they believe the other ridiculous names you keep making up. As we all know who you really are it seems a bit of a waste of your time.

    Report this comment

    Sandy.L

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • Whereas I agree with 99% of Honest John's latest post, it is obvious that most of the pro-campaign user names are from the same person. I don't understand why Archant don't censure the crude and the blatantly racist names. Nor do the school boy insults traded between this person and Fenscape add to the discussion.

    Report this comment

    Sugarbeet

    Saturday, February 15, 2014

  • The `rainbow coalition` had a real chance of doing useful things for Norfolk but they seem to have blown it. Whatever Pickles decides (??!!) they will get the blame and not the Conservatives. Duh. At the moment this lot seem to be as equally inept and as untrustworthy as the previous ruling Tory group. To quote Jeremy Kyle (my hero) "man up and show some", you lot.

    Report this comment

    democrat

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • 'As dry as a bone'!! Where did you get that info from? C and A Superbikes?

    Report this comment

    Sailor Bill

    Sunday, February 16, 2014

  • The weak bladders and kidneys of the councillors at NCC should be dealt with forthwith. The Chairman should sit there until they are all present and then call for the vote prefacing it with a request that anyone wanting to excuse themselves during the formalities are to put their hands up and go while the public gallery creases up with laughter. And then could the names of those mysteriously afflicted with lower problems be printed so that voters may use this information to make a decision the next time they are voting and perhaps go for someone with sturdier waterworks

    Report this comment

    alecto

    Monday, February 17, 2014

  • A couple of months ago councillors were told the exit fee will be over £100 million in compensation and bankrupt the county and this needs to audited and scrutinised to the hilt. Cory Wheelabrator has done nothing except a paper a paper exercise and the rate payers have picked up the tab even for legal expenses. If CW were claiming for site investigation from companies like BAM Nuttal, let’s see the invoices up to the start of the public inquiry call in! If CW or any contractor company had purchased machinery for the burner surely it belongs to Norfolk County Council to sell on?

    Report this comment

    wattonlad

    Sunday, February 16, 2014

  • That was a low blow, alecto, how about a toilet break before the vote, ensuring that these elderly gentlemen feel somewhat reliefed to raise their hands. Those who walk out are either have a propensity to sit on the fence, or are very ambitious, not wanting to make their positions clear. Hallo Mr. Morphew.

    Report this comment

    ingo wagenknecht

    Tuesday, February 18, 2014

  • Dear Cllr Castle. Repeat slowly after me: "The Labour Group in County Hall only has fifteen members, and nine of those voted to abandon the waste incinerator contract. They included the Group Whip, Cllr Sands. What was I thinking of when I was interviewed on the Nick Conrad Show?". Now go back to your seat and sit quietly.

    Report this comment

    Nemesis

    Saturday, February 15, 2014

  • Brian, we have a problem in that NCC have their own agenda and therefore closed ears to common sense, so how do you propose we get around this?

    Report this comment

    Honest John

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • Where are the protesters to incineration in Suffolk or Amsterdam? Perhaps people there haven't been as misled west norfolk folk?

    Report this comment

    Sunflower

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • Peter, I agree with you about protecting services. The Labour administration have an opportunity to come out of this foolish contract before the six million pound uplift kicks in. The long-term savings of one of the many alternative solutions would help avoid a quarter of a century of painful cuts to the vital services you mention. Don't let this administration carry on the appalling mistakes of the last one.

    Report this comment

    Kadmos

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • I can hardly believe what Canary just wrote - and I quote; " I found Mrs Hill a very professional lady who bent over" Tut tut.

    Report this comment

    Lyn from Lynn

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • Sorry its a legal contract we can't get out off..... what a sop. You could not debate and discuss the needs of Norfolk either, could you? The fact that our landfill cost us 3 million per year was not an issue was it? You could not discuss the options and other plants, because you were told, were you not? By nine individuals whose sole decision you regarded as sufficient, no need for scrutiny from you or fellow councillors, not a single individual was concerned for not following the voters mandate. If you are a councillor in disguise, mythbuster, hiding here under a pseudonym, then you should be ashamed of your inaction, you are at fault and should resign. Why was it needed for members of the public to stop you polluting half of Kings Lynn? Is it because you are all wedded to your party politics and can't give a damn about voters? the only myth you bust here is your own.

    Report this comment

    ingo wagenknecht

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • What is going on ere ? After all this time we still ave no incinerator. It should be built straight away and best of British luck.

    Report this comment

    Inactive account

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • The 'link' has only been made by you actually. Which makes it worthless as usual. Yawn.

    Report this comment

    User Removed

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • Is that why you're standing for UKIP now??

    Report this comment

    User Removed

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • Yes Mick Castle, it does make sense in fact they could have it permanently. Others could take their share and that would do away for good the incinerator proposed for KL. You seem to be thinking straight for once or maybe you are realising that the antis are right. It is such a pity that you can't sort out the problem of telling the truth, being open and transparent and living in a democracy. These stalinist habits of secret dealings behind closed doors and underhand practices are shocking and an insult to the electorate. Thank goodness for the Suffolk whistleblower otherwise the electorate and the other councillors would not have known anything about the deal. I hope the voters of your constituency remember this sort of treachery when it is time to put crosses on the paper.

    Report this comment

    maryjane

    Saturday, February 15, 2014

  • Lets make one thing very clear no anti, to my knowledge, has abused Mr Pickles and neither did I see any disrespect displayed to Mrs Hill. The only abuser has been, as always, the man who hides behind obscene names! I found Mrs Hill a very professional lady who bent over backwards to make sure everyone who wished to make a point the time to do exactly that. I am sure most of us remember her quite fondly especially thinking of the time Mr Skerrit, bless his cotton socks, gave his critical views as a supporter! How we all laughed with the smile on Mrs Hill's face probably amongst the kindest! Of course one member of the audience was asleep so missed that!

    Report this comment

    Canary Boy

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • lets hear all the Kings Lynn opponents of the incinerator object to this on environmental grounds -hypocrites and Nimbys the lot of them

    Report this comment

    Daisy Roots

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • I'm still trying to remember the people yelling and shouting at the Inquiry that absolutely no one remembers and no one reported about... This is from the same person who tried to tell us that thousands of pro-supporters all turned up and couldn't get in - despite the fact that the people who ran the inquiry DID keep a record of how many people turned up for every session. The one trick pony kicks another bucket over to reveal the usual excrement it seems....

    Report this comment

    User Removed

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • Glad to see things moving ever forwards. I wonder why the handful of protestors are still bothering ? That Cllr Kemp must resign surely. The trouble caused by her is just too much to stand.

    Report this comment

    Stanley T

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • I remember talking to Alex Kemp, who I hold in the highest regard, some time ago and she did share her worries about the attitude of the Labour group to her. I told her that there was no way that a party devoted to the welfare of the people would behave in any way like Tories. OK OK I got it totally wrong. They are no different to the Tories and I am now in the corner wearing a dunces cap and writing out one thousand times, "Alecto you are a silly billy for believing that Labour would do the right thing." As Canary Boy says more and more of the Labour councillors are falling off their perches and refusing to oppose the incinerator. Cowards. Let's see who are proper members of the Labour party after the next vote and who are chancers who couldn't care less about the people of Norfolk.

    Report this comment

    alecto

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • Fenscape, just a thought... I bet you remember the tactics used in desperation to try and discredit the referendum result... It's an old political trick. Isn't this what is happening here? Certain posts trying to descend the discussion into farce because the pro incineration argument has no hope of winning through reasoned argument?

    Report this comment

    Kadmos

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • At this rate maybe D will actually reply with the same ID instead of popping up with the another different one

    Report this comment

    Bikerboy

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • I can recall several sources commenting on things being shouted at the Inspector and I did read several unpleasant remarks on line which from the content appeared to be from those on the anti side. Same treatment for Mr Pickles which I confess made no sense. The whole anti campaign appears to have descended into a rude farce.

    Report this comment

    Jack Bantoft

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • True enough about the rude farce Jack. Reading this week by week has just made the anti campaigners look like a very nasty minded bunch. Just look at some of the things said below by one or two of them who seem to sign on in a variety of different names to do so. I also say check to IPs.

    Report this comment

    John Fisher

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • Running to plan with negotiations underway to send valuable feedstock to Great Blakenham. Suffolk Cambridgshire and Lincolnshire are desperate for Norfolk’s waste. Recycling has gone up and these counties overestimated feedstock to supply energy needed to sell on to justify pie in the sky savings. Most will be in the realms of paying huge penalties to their incinerator operators and further burden on ratepayers. The European Union soon will be rewarding districts that recycle plastics from waste as the petro-chemical process is bad for the planet. They are implementing reduce recycle and reuse principle and incineration has none of these only to convert residual waste to toxins. Good bit of advice is councillors who have shares in incinerator companies would better to cut their losses and sell.

    Report this comment

    Alan Allan

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • How many miles is it from Thornham in Norfolk to Gt. Blakenham in Suffolk? Most of the tonnage charge is for extra fuel and it does not get around having a proper debate aboput our needs for waste reduction, recycling and gas from waste, they eventually will have to engage with the issue after decades of filling up holes. It is sad to see that Cllr.s castle had to bully Cllr.Kemp, live on Radio Norfolk when he full well knows that the majority of his labour group voted against it last time. Are Cllr.s Nobbs and Castle trying to change those suporters vote by whipping and cajoling them into their views, when they themselves claimed to be against it before being elected on that claim?

    Report this comment

    ingo wagenknecht

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • The one calling himself fenscape is person who is leading anti campaign I think. They are losing battle and this is why he says these terrible things about mental health and so on. he is typical campaigner isn't it. Hope he is reading in morning after plenty black coffee.

    Report this comment

    Mr Raj Patel

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • As I have said in numerous articles over some time the atmospheric particle loss after the filtering system used is minimal. I have studied this issue very carefully and speak with some confidence. The filtering process is such that any potential harmful effects have been negated to a degree almost too infinitesimal to measure unless one deals with the microscopic end of the scale. What has been developed here is an efficient system of waste disposal that has benefited from earlier lessons and has given rise to a solution that is beneficial on every front. This system could be built without any adverse effect on an environmental level. The facility should be operational sooner rather than later in order to make advance benefits from the unit.

    Report this comment

    Professor Miles Radcliffe

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • It must be because it's Valentines Day, fenscape - since I took out the injunction he has a great deal of time on his hands and Jeff has obviously turned him down tonight.

    Report this comment

    Shirley Stalker

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • And rev if our peers say NO it should not be built!

    Report this comment

    Canary Boy

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • It is surely time for full transparency on all aspects of this project, data published to date indicates that the process will impact directly on the public both financially plus creating air quality degradation with impact on health and environment. The Council claim that “even without the waste credit the incinerator is value for money and would save taxpayers millions of pounds a year compared to landfill”. This fails to embrace the reality of increasing waste diversion to superior streams, significant reduction in residual waste to landfill and the need for any future process to be totally flexible in order to maximise use of best available technologies, both current and developing. The claim of millions of pounds to be saved each year by embracing this long term fixed burn requires full data backup to justify this , not the speculation presented to date especially when aware of the reality displayed by other incinerator projects. Lincolnshire incinerator project claimed millions of pounds would be saved each year but since the decision to build the plant the updated data displays a massive reduction in savings with further concerns created by confirmation that incineration is to take priority over superior recycling of valuable resources. This indicates both increased financial burden on the ratepayer and job losses compared with superior alternatives. The claimed waste availability requires serious scrutiny , just compare against the general reduction in UK landfill over recent years and fact of increasing competition for waste . A bizarre decision to charge for recycling obviously pushes waste towards landfill , cuts revenue from sale of recycled material, cuts jobs and most important it sadly supports waste processing that deliberately degrades air quality. Reference query from Honest John, can only comment that my experience over past 15yrs studying the impact of combustion projects confirms that the agenda applied by some Councils unfortunately totally ignores the facts and their basic function to make prudent use of public funds and crucially to protect local air quality. The support grant removal by the Government should have initiated a total rethink with the application of due diligence and duty of care becoming the basis of any decision. Can only hope that common sense will prevail.

    Report this comment

    Brian W

    Tuesday, February 18, 2014

  • No Kadmos a waste incinerator is not needed-what is needed is an integrated bio fuel and waste burning power station to make sensible use of waste which cannot efficiently be recycled or reused. We are seeing now the effect of dogma and ideology in government departments-for years Fenland IDBs have been battling the bureaucratic idiocies of the environment agency-academic led policies over lifetimes of experience, taking money to pay legions of pen pushers and quasi scientists. The events on the Levels have exposed the failings of the EA and one hopes there will be consequences. Waste disposal is a field similarly affected-assertions by "greens" with no real scientific backing are costing us money,

    Report this comment

    Daisy Roots

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • Loved the comment about 250 years though - a trip to the doors of Lynn Minster and the high water marks on there will show a totally different story. What a loser!

    Report this comment

    Sailor Bill

    Sunday, February 16, 2014

  • Keep spouting the fibs DelBoy, sorry Derrick! 700000 supporters where is your evidence? Oh I forgot the supporters have no evidence they just make up rude poster names like immature school boys to try and fool other gullable individuals there is support.

    Report this comment

    Canary Boy

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • Still trying it on D.icky? Tut tut, you must be really really worried by now seeing as you're pulling out all the stops on this one. By all means carry on all night!

    Report this comment

    User Removed

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • Agreed Bikerboy - we all have his measure now. I'm expecting a comment from tos.serl.ong next....

    Report this comment

    User Removed

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • I’m still wondering if GNobbs knows what the words open, honest and transparent actually means as yet again something comes to light that has been concealed. We have known talks have been on the cards since 2011, although laughably that was for Norfolk’s surplus because NCC had “only” committed to 170,000 tones.

    Report this comment

    Honest John

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • In five years time how many half-filled incinerators will be in operation within a radius of KL of say, 100 miles? Do Suffolk residents know how much it will cost them when KL and the imput from other areas pull out of this temporary agreement? The proof of building this thing in Suffolk is that it will be costly to run through lack of 'feed' so the ideaology of 'its good to burn' stands on its head and the protestors against the KIng's Lynn incinerator have been right all along. Admit it NCC. and if the so-called experts at County Hall, the pig-headed cabinet and their leader had bothered to turn up to the enquiry they would have discovered this ages ago. There is nothing wrong with saying sorry and admitting your mistakes, so let's hear it, Nobbs the truth has always been out there!!

    Report this comment

    maryjane

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • However much this fiasco costs the county in the end,it would not be right to further cut services to vulnerable children and adults,particularly those who rely on social care,to pay for it.These services have a statutory floor which have legal redress.It means a rise in council tax,unless you want all the childrens' centres and libraries cut as well.It should never be forgotten,though,who got us into this mess in the first place,one of the largest Conservative administrations ever in Norfolk, and probably the worst.

    Report this comment

    Peter Watson

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • No, D.icky dear - YOU are appearing like the dictator here. Just go to bed and worry about the hangover in the morning!!

    Report this comment

    User Removed

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • Sher.lock - you need a chat with Dr. Watson. He might be able to help you get your facts right. It's several of the other councillors that need to resign - certainly not Councillor Kemp. Her support is growing rapidly as it appears she has the guts to argue for democracy. It certainly isn't her that is the public disgrace.

    Report this comment

    Sandy.L

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • (* Sorry - make that 3 people as I forgot Cllr Rissole from Yarmouth.)

    Report this comment

    Shirley Stalker

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • He won't Bikerboy as he's a terrible coward. I love the fact he's so spooked and trying to use me to diss the campaign. Very funny.

    Report this comment

    User Removed

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • Too little, too late, Mr Castle. I listened to you describe the West Norfolk poll as "dodgy" and how such an incinerator would bring many jobs to the area. No doubt you were also involved in the dodgy Labour manifesto that has now been reneged upon. I wonder what other things will come to light over the next few months? The big guns are posting now. I wonder why?

    Report this comment

    democrat

    Saturday, February 15, 2014

  • Ah d1.ckens you make me laugh. You sound just like Alex Salmond

    Report this comment

    d, west lynn

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • Excellent news Mr Pewty, I think that is just what is needed, I also think we should be fair and accept that all these pro-incinerator comments are made by different individuals. So what would be an analysis of a group who make such incorrect and unfounded allegations? If we ignore their penchant for rather childish names, statuses to artificially elevate themselves, and the pretence of being foreign, what do we have? A group of individuals who take every opportunity to knock Daubney, Long and Bellingham, who are incidentally all Conservatives in West Norfolk, and a group who are against the members of the public who are pro-democracy, pro-recycling, pro-job creation outside of healthcare, concerned about people’s health and their environment, do not accept the artificially created need when the efforts to recycle are so low, who are able to see the long term haemorrhage of public money, should this outdated technology of the cheapest design to create maximum profit for CW, ever go ahead, and the knock on consequences to cuts in services across Norfolk for the next 25 years. This group of individuals were not interested enough to speak out at the Public Inquiry, and not even interested enough to get their facts right when posting on these webpages, just repeating what the other has said, so I for one welcome Mr Pickles reading these comments, he can then see the mentality of those who support the dinosaur.

    Report this comment

    Honest John

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • Who would support KLWIN after reading this ? I am astonished at the level of abuse from the campaigns supporters. banter is one thing but this is on another level. I have a meeting on Monday and I am taking a copy of this thread to it to be read out and then I am posting it to the Ministers dept dealing with this. Shocking ignorance.

    Report this comment

    Arthur Pewty

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • 700,000 people? That's funny - an ex-deputy mayor and a local bed seller leaves you a mere 699,998 people short.....

    Report this comment

    Shirley Stalker

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • Why can it not be long term and perhaps Suffolk don't hold any secrets from their electorate Nobbs!

    Report this comment

    Marigold

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • "Almost every person I talk to says they want to see this built on that site". You need to get out more and speak to the people in West Norfolk. 65,516 have said they don't want it.

    Report this comment

    Bikerboy

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • Good to see that the anti mob have been let out to make their personal remarks again. That lot can never stick to the argument and always resort to abuse. Upbringing I suppose. I blame the parents. Small wonder they lost the campaign with that sort involved. Probably the same bunch that were shouting the odds at the Inquiry. Rabble.

    Report this comment

    Inactive account

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • I wrote to NCC recently about the 'waterworks' problem and the reply I received was : "Thank you for your email. Members of the Council are not employees of the County Council they are representatives of their local communities sent to the Council by those communities. In return they receive an allowance to contribute towards the costs they encounter in fulfilling their role. I do not believe that it is my role as Chairman of the Cabinet Scrutiny Committee to lecture Members on items such as the one you raise in your email. They are answerable to the electorate at every election and I have faith in the people of Norfolk to choose their representatives carefully." Does that pose another question we need to ask before we elect then?

    Report this comment

    Sandy.L

    Wednesday, February 19, 2014

  • And there we have it. Three post in a row from Pugh.

    Report this comment

    Bikerboy

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • 50 lorries per day, up and down the A140? The figure of 30,000 tonnes is 17th of Norfolks waste production of 210,00 tonnes. On this basis then, if Gnobbs has his way and the Incinerator is built, we have will seven times that number of lorries up and down the A47. 350 lorries per day - 1750 per week - 91000 per annum. This proposed Incinerator is not about being the best solution to Norfolks waste problem. It's all about making money - lots of money - for lots of people.

    Report this comment

    mrsmurphy

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • Honest John, of course the contract covers the eventuality of cancellation due to corruption... The same exit fees are payable by NCC to the contractor. Incidentally, does anyone know how much NCC will be paying per tonne to burn this waste?

    Report this comment

    Kadmos

    Monday, February 17, 2014

  • Over 700,000 people in Norfolk are in favour of an incinerator being built. That is a majority so build it.

    Report this comment

    Del Boy

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • It would be interesting to see any data in support of this long term fixed burning project when aware of the current waste scenario. Residual waste has been falling consistently over the past decade creating incinerator sustainability concerns, we are aware Authorities are achieving landfill diversion targets avoiding punitive fines and taking away any urgency thereby allowing space for a reasoned decision . Recycling achieves far higher energy return e.g. recycling cardboard brings 70% higher energy gain and technology is rapidly developing to expand recycling of difficult materials including plastics providing processes that are far superior to burning. Incineration automatically guarantees air quality degradation with each tonne burned. Why embrace processes that deliberately degrade air quality when cleaner, eco friendly and more economical alternatives are available ? Check specified emissions data against EURO 6 vehicle emissions, deadly fine particle pollution equates to 694,800 km travelled locally each hour by diesel carLGV. Advances in incinerator technology render the Lynn process obsolete , why embrace a technology that is only capable of processing a percentage of the material and unfortunately creates further hazardous waste requiring specialised treatment and storage when technologies are now available that have the capability to safely destroy all waste? Authorities report that they are recycling 70% of household rubbish and detail waste to landfill reducing by 10% per year confirming a commitment to long term fixed burning would appear to be a serious mistake. Those taking the incinerator route are detailing that it will divert material from superior streaming including recycling which confirms poor use of resources, failure to maximise job creation and deliberate degradation of air quality. The waste reality is a consistent fall in residual material to landfill with waste containing calorific value having far superior uses and biodegradable waste best used in anaerobic digestion for production of energy. Where is the support data for this very expensive waste disposal process that guarantees a pollution burden many times higher than alternative power sources?

    Report this comment

    Brian W

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • Fenscape-he probably is a CC judging by how little knowledge he has.

    Report this comment

    maryjane

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • I`m against transferring rubbish to Suffolk to burn and I am anti-incinerator and live in King`s Lynn. There are people in Norfolk who have principles Daisy. It`s just a shame that there are too few of them at County Hall! Still at least the conversation on rubbish disposal in Norfolk is now moving on.

    Report this comment

    democrat

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • I remember well enough the campaigners yelling insults at the Inquiry and the Inspector having to tell them to stop over and over again. dreadful display.

    Report this comment

    Richard The Third

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • I also read about those things the anti campaigners said about Mr Pickles as well. What I could never understand though were those rather horrible slogans about the Planning Inspector. Why did they feel the need to have a go at her ? There were also some nasty comments about her on here from the same sources close to the campaign. Quite why the anti lobby think attacking everyone is the way forward remains a mystery to most. About time they started to be polite. Bit late now the damage is done.

    Report this comment

    George Peters

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • Ed MillibandBBC News today had concerns about the jet stream altering the UKs weather pattern . He should email the leader of Norfolk County council (Labour) to warn about flooding at Kings Lynn and also cancel the burner contract!

    Report this comment

    LynBin

    Sunday, February 16, 2014

  • Fenscape-he probably is a CC judging by how little knowledge he has.

    Report this comment

    maryjane

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • Kemp should resign. She is a public disgrace.

    Report this comment

    Sherlock

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • Honest John - regarding your comments on those Councillors who regard voting time as a time to leave the chamber to go to the bathroom would it not be a good idea for the Chairman to announce like all good parents do to their children - use the potty-before mealsgoingoutetc? It would eleviate this problem immediately.

    Report this comment

    maryjane

    Sunday, February 16, 2014

  • What a good idea Maryjane. If a councillor doesn't want to vote, they should abstain, not that there is any excuse for that either. They are receiving an allowance for being there and should vote one way or another, not skulk off to the toilet during a vote. It just proves they don't take their role seriously.

    Report this comment

    Bikerboy

    Sunday, February 16, 2014

  • At least 19 different ID's so far, he's well and truly rattled now Fenscape

    Report this comment

    Bikerboy

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • And what about the piles of toxic bottom ash stored out in the open and left to blow around then Prof?

    Report this comment

    Bikerboy

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • V, do you know stupidly I actually did think that councillors worked for those who put a cross in the box!! Now I know that only a very few exceptional people do represent us but unfortunately most just jump to the tune of their political group. Surprised at some of the turn coats though!! On another note I have just been looking at the Sita project and while I do not approve of incineration, my gripe is the IBA dust, unlike that proposed in Lynn the Suffolk project process AND STORES the IBA in enclosed buildings. That is my problem with Willows here it is being stored in the open in massive mountains. The wind will blow it everywhere. The people in Gt Blakenham will at least be somewhat protected from that at least. By the way as far back as January 2011 it was known that Cory Wheelabrator said waste from Gt Yarmouth was going to Great Blakenham so no real news there. Loads of mentions in cabinet questions, the planning consultation and at the inquiry of course an answer was always sidestepped by NCC. If my memory serves Gt Yarmouth produces in the region of 30,000 tonnes. Coincidence I suppose, or is it a way to proceed with their intended plan without egg splattered all over their faces.

    Report this comment

    Canary Boy

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • The Con Club at Downham is a sad little watering hole filled with failed grey heads in cheap suits on a self importance trip. The motley collection of has beens inhabiting that pit of iniquity waste countless hours of what little time they have left contemplating naff all whilst using as many words as possible in failed attempts to sound vaguely intelligent. The most important thing any can hear is the whine of their own voices as they attempt to out do each other over exaggerating their non existent achievements. Renamed the Down Club at Con em. Shameless is not even close. It is worth noting however that the stale pale and male brigade are not to be held account for this debacle. That particular honour goes much further up the chain of command.

    Report this comment

    Up The Lefties

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • Wasn't there also a ridiculous claim of writing comments about Pickles on walls? I suppose these follow on from claims from Rockliffe and Murphy about damage done by protestors that could be substantiated, wonder what they’re up to these days, must have plenty of time on their hands?

    Report this comment

    Honest John

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • Honest John is bang on the money. Some sad old man has obviously got in touch with the campaign and thrown his toys out the cot when they ignored his cryptic advice. All his silly behaviour is down to a prolonged hissy fit from someone who is old enough to know better but thinks he is some sort of elitist that holds the moral high ground solely because he's rubbed shoulders with the odd town councillor in the dim and distant past. He must have a 10" nose as he spends all of his time looking down it at the residents of West Norfolk who have firmly said 'No' to this development.

    Report this comment

    User Removed

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • In the interest of fairness, Dickens is not the only one claiming inside knowledge. Fenscape also has magic powers: "(Although you haven't had the nerve to copy in any Minister up to now because I've checked so who's to say you'll actually do it this time??).

    Report this comment

    Sugarbeet

    Saturday, February 15, 2014

  • Mythbuster, if there is no Labour whipping on the incinerator issue, a quick check on the recorded vote of Full Council in January, shows 5 Labour councillors previously opposing the RPP, having a sudden change of mind then? Along with Cllr C.owardly Collis who did not want it to be seen how he would vote thereby taking a convenient trip to the toilet. As for Cllr Wilkinson, finding herself £13,186 per annum richer as a result of also being a Cabinet Member, must have been a difficult transition from being outspoken against it as a Borough Councillor, to for it since the RPP vote – the arteries standing out in GNobbs neck when she voted against the RPP were visible in the public gallery! If anyone were really interested in stopping this in the least financially damaging way then they would look into the legality of the contract, something NCC or GNobbs certainly wouldn’t want doing now would they? Particularly worthy of note was that even Nick Conrad corrected himself on Radio Norfolk last Wednesday, from GNobbs was against the contract before the election, to “appeared to be,” Keep up the myths.

    Report this comment

    Honest John

    Saturday, February 15, 2014

  • There are of course one or two other little gems still under wraps with regard to this matter and none are in the domain of another authority. Only the top of the NCC tree, George and 3 trusted members have been briefed so far. Suffice to say the campaigners have been out manoeuvred along with some others. Wrong tree being barked at as usual. Politics is a very dirty business. The deed is done time for fun.

    Report this comment

    Dickens

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • Could someone please tell me when, and where in Norfolk, 700,000 people turned out and voted in favour of building a mass-burn waste incinerator on the outskirts of King's Lynn?

    Report this comment

    Nemesis

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • Honest John - regarding your comments on those Councillors who regard voting time as a time to leave the chamber to go to the bathroom would it not be a good idea for the Chairman to announce like all good parents do to their children - use the potty-before mealsgoingoutetc? It would eleviate this problem immediately.

    Report this comment

    maryjane

    Sunday, February 16, 2014

  • Let`s not get involved with the rubbish spouted by D. That`s exactly what he wants us to do!

    Report this comment

    democrat

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • The problem with another vote is that we now know that councillors are being forced to follow the party line by both Labour and the Conservative groups. The vote last time was 38 v 40 with 9 Labour voters opposed to continuing with the project. I wonder how many of those 9 will dare to go against party orders after seeing what has happened to Cllr Kemp? Of course the whip Cllr Sands will have to whip himself as he voted against the RPP last time!

    Report this comment

    Canary Boy

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • Anyway, back to the story above. So if Suffolk county council hadn't let the cat out of the bag, when were NCC going to announce the news that they were in talks to send waste to Gt Blakenham?

    Report this comment

    Bikerboy

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • Mr Reread could I just point out that many people found it quite offensive that not only did you snore quite often but your habit of taking one shoe off in public before nodding off realy is not the done thing!

    Report this comment

    Canary Boy

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • If it were to become long term Norfolk would need to pay for major road improvements on the A140. There are plenty of lorries on it without adding a further 50 return trips a day.

    Report this comment

    John Haseltine

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • I was at the Inquiry and I don’t remember anyone from either side shouting the odds, perhaps I was asleep and missed it?

    Report this comment

    Jeff Reread

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • Oh I would keep quiet about it. Despite the worst wet weather in 250 years the site of the incinerator remained as dry as a bone. Not even a hint of flooding. Says a lot more than any computer based chart. Perfect spot it would seem. Get building.

    Report this comment

    Del Boy

    Sunday, February 16, 2014

  • Norfolk taxpayers will have to pay a penalty for the loss in electricity generation, in addition to the ludicrously high 105 pound per tonne gate fee, for any waste it fails to deliver below the 170,000 tonnes per year contract. Money for nothing...

    Report this comment

    Kadmos

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • So have you apologised to Alex Kemp yet Mick for the email you sent?

    Report this comment

    Bikerboy

    Saturday, February 15, 2014

  • I am doing checking and finding more than 800,000 person in Norfolk but only 65,000 doing vote so plenty people want to see built. Building burning station is good thing and creating work for us local people.

    Report this comment

    Mahatma Coat

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • ... and up pops Bantoft right on cue.

    Report this comment

    Honest John

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • The attack on Alex Kemp has been an absolute disgrace. She is not alone in opposing the incinerator but she has certainly been at the forefront of the campaign. Labour opposed such a structure in its manifesto. How could they be trusted in future? It`s easy to say that when you get into power then reality sets in. If that`s the case then they shouldn`t bother with a manifesto at all!

    Report this comment

    democrat

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • I agree with you both, particularly as frequent trips can be related to aging, but Bikerboy is right, councillors should be present for the vote and let their electorate see what they’re doing. They still have the option to not attend on the day to avoid being exp.osed, that’s still going on of course. Poor old Morphew even had to book himself a holiday to escap.e involv.ement in the RPP, clever being able to hold a hand up at a later date and say “I wasn’t there” …. Oh I forgot he started doing that already last Monday.

    Report this comment

    Honest John

    Sunday, February 16, 2014

  • The waterworks issue occured at a Full Council Meeting and therefore comes under Leader Gnobbs, why did Borat reply, unless you wrote to him by mistake?

    Report this comment

    Honest John

    Wednesday, February 19, 2014

  • Of course it might not be quite the Mr Castle you all seem to think it is................by the way my real name is Elton John - what's yours ? Don't you just love these anti campaigners. Now where did I put those two very short planks......?

    Report this comment

    Del Boy

    Saturday, February 15, 2014

  • It is all very well making comments and having a bit of banter on this site but the EDP should be very aware that a certain person, who I am sure they are able to trace quite easily by his IP number, is telling lies and making slanderous comments about the proceedings at the Inquiry. The EDP had reporters there some days so I am sure they can confirm these rantings are not true and if they continue, then maybe a complaints to the Press Commission will be in order.

    Report this comment

    Sandy.L

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • I see that Suffolk County Council has proudly boasted they are saving £5 million a year because of the Great Blakenham incinerator. That's odd because it doesn't open until the end of this year so how are they managing this saving. Are they just piling the rubbish up against the doors? And are Norfolk going to do the same?

    Report this comment

    alecto

    Monday, February 17, 2014

  • PS - Dr 'WHO'? You still haven't answered my previous question about your 'doctorate'... I wonder why?

    Report this comment

    User Removed

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • As you are aware D, it is the microscopic pollutants released by incineration that are the most dangerous. Just for information of course. Miles Radcliffe indeed.

    Report this comment

    democrat

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • I see Shirley knows what day it is.......there's a first. Did you mean injection dear ?

    Report this comment

    Lyn from Lynn

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • Lynn Bin mentioned Ed Millibands concerns about the gulf steam and rising tides! The bottom ash lagoons will be 10 feet deep. The wall of the lagoons will be lined and floor will be soil run off. The water table is significantly high this time of year and toxic ash water will run into surrounding properties. I have written to Cory Wheelabrators insurers to make them aware of Ed Milliband concerns about rising tides and the site is in a flood zone 3. Worth noting damage at Jersey burners ash pits Jersey Post March 17 2009. “Toxic ash pit is punctured at incinerator site” “A SECTION of the construction site of the new £100 million incinerator at La Collette was closed off at the weekend after contractors punctured the membrane of a pit holding toxic ash”.

    Report this comment

    wattonlad

    Sunday, February 16, 2014

  • We should all come together and respect the decisions made by our peers whoever they may be. If an incinerator is to be built then we should rejoice and be accepting.

    Report this comment

    Right Reverend Fuller

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • Yes Raj. The dark coffee is a good idea and perhaps add a couple of paracetamol as well to shift the headache. Next time he needs to take it easy or stay offline.

    Report this comment

    Dr Barrington-Smythe

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • Gnobbs will have to get Castle and Sands cracking their whip over Suffolk Cllrs for allowing facts that NCC need to keep secret out into the public domain.

    Report this comment

    Canary Boy

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • Honest John - regarding your comments on those Councillors who regard voting time as a time to leave the chamber to go to the bathroom would it not be a good idea for the Chairman to announce like all good parents do to their children - use the potty-before mealsgoingoutetc? It would eleviate this problem immediately.

    Report this comment

    maryjane

    Sunday, February 16, 2014

  • Agree about banter but silly to think one person is pro incinerator. Seems to me that the anti group have a big go at anyone who does not agree with their view and then they cry foul when they get some back. Thats how it looks on the outside. They are also being led along and being forced into making rude remarks online to make them look bad which they do seem to have fallen for for whatever reason.

    Report this comment

    Mrs Willingale

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • mythbuster - you wouldn't actually happen to be one of our illustrious County Councillors by any chance?!?

    Report this comment

    User Removed

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • Well Dic.kens old pal, at least we will know that you are to blame if this ludicrous project goes ahead then won't we? And don't say KLWIN didn't want your advice, I have it on sound authority someone replied to your Mark Davidson email, so did you make any attempt to help? I suspect not, you'd rather pretend to be informed and then jump on the bandwagon afterwards. I must say old pal, you're coming across to be another of those dis.tasteful poc.ket liners.

    Report this comment

    Honest John

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • The King's Lynn incinerator isn't needed. If it were built it would have to compete with a 150Ktpa North Hykeham incinerator being built in Lincs to the North, a 85Ktpa incinerator about to be constructed in Peterborough to the West as well as the 269Ktpa Great Blakenham incinerator to the South. All of these are significantly over-specified. Add to this West Norfolk's ambition to send its waste for recycling via food waste collections, dry recyclable collections and the Material Works contract. We should also take into account the Government's statistics that project falling waste arising and increased recycling, year-on-year. The 169 million pound PFI grant was pulled because there is no national need for the incinerator. An incinerator plant in Amsterdam is offering to collect and ship Norfolk's waste for incineration at a fraction of the cost because our neighbours in Europe are at overcapacity. What is clear is that if the King's Lynn incinerator were to proceed, it will turn the Waste Hierarchy on its head.

    Report this comment

    Kadmos

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • Mythbuster, can you help me out here please? West Norfolk took a vote, 2 years ago, with a result that showed 92% of respondents, that is 65,516 people and an overall majority rejecting mass-burn incineration. As a consequence, the Borough Council has pursued a policy of recycling to the point that it intends to recycle in excess of 90% of West Norfolk's refuse. That means a minuscule proportion of the Borough's waste could end up being burnt. How is it in any way reasonable for the rest of Norfolk to palm off copious quantities of what it can't be bothered to recycle in King's Lynn?

    Report this comment

    Kadmos

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • I'm afraid the councillors who called in the cabinet decision this week rather undermined their own argument by suggesting in their proposals that waste should be sent to Suffolk or the Netherlands to be burned! He can you stand up so vehemently against something in your own county, yet want to palm off what you are against on a group of citizens who happen to live elsewhere. The irony of the UKIP leader suggesting using one of our EU partners was not lost on me. There clearly is no whipping system being used in the labour group on this issue, as the recorded voting record shows. I actually respect the labour councillors who voted to enact the decision of full council desire the vote not having gone their way previous day. How could they have complained loudly that we are in this mess because the Tories never took the decision to full council, then refuse to implement an (albeit close) vote of full council because you didn't like the answer? I have re read the labour election manifesto, which said to use all legal means. Whether we like it or not we are saddled with a contract that is legal. A QC and financial expert have examined the contract at great expense. Yes it's a rotten contract that no one in their right mind should have signed. But it is a legal contract. All that can be done is to try and stop it using the least financially damaging way. Al this shows that mighty corporations such as cory wield way more power than any council or even government. Commercial confidentiality seems to override everything. UKIP and the conservatives fully support such power for corporations, and would like to see more. A lot of vitriol has been spouted, but All I see is people trying to make a least worst decision to protect services in the face of £100s of millions of central government cuts.

    Report this comment

    mythbuster

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • Oh dear I must have nodded off again. Canary Boy, my snoring did not exceed the permitted decibel level and I took my shoe off because my foot swells up, the one thing you could always be sure of was my socks were clean. I like cleanliness it is very important. I would imagine very few of the people passing comments visited Riverside Incinerator as I did so they would not have been able to witness how clean it was.

    Report this comment

    Jeff Reread

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • That`s the point. Norfolk is not legally saddled with a contract with Cory. It can buy its way out of it, albeit at the cost of other services, until future savings come on line. The manifesto document is cleverly worded to imply Labour was against the incinerator but when push came to shove....

    Report this comment

    democrat

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • Don't forget C.boy that there are those in the labour group who voted against the incinerator one day and then for it the next! Was that party whipping or just self preservation? Councillor Kemp shows them all up - a woman with principles. Let's hope more of our councillors find the courage to take the same line at the next vote. It seem that with Suffolk 'wanting' our waste they now have time to dismiss plan A and start finding a plan B.

    Report this comment

    Sandy.L

    Friday, February 14, 2014

  • Forgive me, I'll rephrase my last question to make it clearer. Does anyone know what gate fee is NCC paying to burn our rubbish in Suffolk's incinerator?

    Report this comment

    Kadmos

    Monday, February 17, 2014

  • Don`t worry, he`s going to get his comeuppance soon. I remember fondly how he went AWOL for a while when the scrapping of the £169m funding was announced. It`s where Norfolk CC should go in future that matters now, not a somewhat strange man.

    Report this comment

    democrat

    Friday, February 14, 2014

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

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Norfolk Weather

Sunny

Sunny

max temp: 25°C

min temp: 18°C

Five-day forecast

loading...

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT