Special investigation: The 11th hour change of mind over Norfolk’s incinerator revealed

The sun sets over the King's Lynn Incinerator site near Saddlebow. Picture: Matthew Usher. The sun sets over the King's Lynn Incinerator site near Saddlebow. Picture: Matthew Usher.

Tuesday, December 17, 2013
12:12 PM

A recommendation over which company should be picked to build the hugely controversial Norfolk incinerator at King’s Lynn was changed just hours before county councillors were due to make up their minds, it has emerged.

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

Focus on Norfolk County Council

Over the course of this week, the EDP is looking at four key county council issues – the incinerator, children’s services, the former RAF Coltishall and the Norwich Northern Distributor Road.

We will look at the past, the present and the future and show how:

An 11th hour change of mind altered the course of the King’s Lynn incinerator saga, while unelected council officers were allowed to vote on issues which led to decisions made by councillors.

Social workers have been struggling to cope with “unmanageable” caseloads in children’s services.

Almost £14m has been spent on the Norwich Northern Distributor Road before planning permission has been secured.

Almost 30 businesses have expressed an interest in setting up at the former RAF Coltishall base, bought for £4m by the county council.

It can also be revealed council officers were given votes on which company should be recommended for selection to run the proposed incinerator - a state of affairs described as “surprising” by the current council leader and “staggering” by another councillor.

Questions have been asked over whether officers did enough to mitigate the risk of the Saddlebow proposal not getting planning permission and if the controlling cabinet, rather than full council, had the authority to award the contract.

But a QC, in a report commissioned by Norfolk County Council’s cabinet and published yesterday, said proper process was followed.

Jonathan Acton Davis, QC, selected by anti-incinerator campaigners to carry out the independent review, said: “I can find nothing to lead me to conclude that any undue risk was taken. I can identify no areas in which I can see potential scope for the holding to account of officers. I have found nothing which would enable me to conclude that the cabinet exceeded its authority in authorising the contract.”

Mr Acton Davis, who said some of the emails he had been copied into during his probe consisted of “little more than abuse” stressed he was only asked to consider the process, not the political conduct of members.

He acknowledged he had “some difficulty” over whether officers had identified how to pay compensation should the plant not get planning permission.

He said he would have expected officers to have “at least considered” whether the council could pay that and identify the funds, but had found no evidence they had.

But, he said the officer explanation was it had not been forseen there might be a change of mind, that the risk of planning failure was low and that, before May this year, the council had sufficient reserves to pay compensation.

Council leader George Nobbs said: “We accept Mr Acton Davis’s conclusions and we expect everybody else to do the same.”

The EDP today investigates the start of the saga.

While it was the controlling Conservative cabinet which agreed, in November 2010, to appoint Cory Wheelabrator as the preferred bidder, the recommendation came from the Norfolk Waste Project Board.

On that board, unelected council officers were among those who voted, in October 2010, to put Cory Wheelabrator forward to other councillors for a decision.

Council officers Mark Allen, assistant director of environment and waste; Paul Borrett, strategic waste manager; Harvey Bullen, head of budgeting and financial management and Joel Hull, project director (residual waste services), were all members of the Norfolk Waste Project Board.

And, along with three councillors - James Joyce, Liberal Democrat county councillor (and now the county council’s deputy leader); Conservative Brian Long, deputy leader and environment portfolio holder at West Norfolk Council (and also a county councillor) and Ann Steward, then a Conservative county councillor and cabinet member for sustainable development - all voted to recommend to cabinet that they go for Cory Wheelabrator as preferred bidder.

And, in another twist, just hours before the waste project board meeting, the recommendation changed.

Until then, AmeyCespa, which proposed an incinerator at the same Saddlebow site, was to be appointed the preferred bidder.

Minutes of the meeting reveal a “major concern” about AmeyCespa’s bid. The exact concern was redacted, but it is understood it related to whether AmeyCespa could guarantee a certain amount of waste for the incinerator being transferred from Cambridgeshire.

The council acknowledges AmeyCespa’s bid was “slightly cheaper” than Cory Wheelabrator. The council will not give a figure, but MP Henry Bellingham, during a parliamentary debate in January said it was £47m cheaper, while other sources suggest it was closer to £70m less.

The council says: “Cost is only one criteria for assessing value for money. When all of the criteria, including quality of service, performance levels and guarantees were evaluated, Cory Wheelabrator’s bid achieved the highest score.”

Mr Long, one of those who voted for Cory Wheelabrator to be recommended to cabinet as preferred bidder, but who is now a critic of the scheme, said just two hours before the meeting, an email was sent saying the recommendation had switched.

Mr Long said: “My thoughts are that, at the time, it was all presented in a way that we would not have been able to make any other decision.”

QC Mr Acton Davis points out that the change was made so late that documents presented to the board still contained a recommendation that AmeyCespa should be picked, which he said was “perhaps an indication of the pressure that officers were under”.

But he said there were “no contemporaneous record of members being confused by that which was presented to them”.

In January 2011, there was another vote by the project board, recommending cabinet award the contract to Cory Wheelabrator.

Councillors Mrs Steward and Mr Long, along with Conservative William Nunn voted in favour, while Green councillor Andrew Boswell voted against.

The minute taker at the meeting recorded that they could not be sure if councillor Mr Joyce had voted in favour or if he had abstained, although it has subsequently been confirmed he abstained.

Council officers Mr Hull, Mr Allen and Mr Bullen, voted in favour and there was also a vote in favour from Mike Jackson, the department director, who was not present for the vote at the October meeting.

The final vote in favour of recommending cabinet to approve Cory Wheelabrator was from Richard McKenzie-Browne, a government officer from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. who was helping the council with the PFI project.

Tim East, Liberal Democrat spokesman on planning, environment and transport, said he found it “staggering” unelected officials had been given votes, albeit only in a recommending capacity.

He said: “This whole saga has been very unsavoury. The whole situation around the incinerator has been manipulated and we have been misinformed.”

And, given Labour’s manifesto at May’s elections contained a pledge that: “We will use all legal means to suspend any plans for building any incinerators in Norfolk so that a detailed study of current, suitable methods of waste disposal can be undertaken”, how does that square with the incinerator remaining in the pipeline, despite losing £169m of government PFI credits?

Mr Nobbs, leader of County Hall’s UKIP-supported Labour/Liberal Democrat administration, said: “It squares perfectly with it.

“The first thing we did when we took minority control was to seek legal advice on whether we could withdraw from the contract.

“Was there an easy way out? No, there wasn’t. There was no legal means to renege on that contract. We have, at all times, relied on the advice from senior officers and I hardly need reiterate the disastrous consequences of cancelling prior to any decision by Eric Pickles.

“There was a free vote at full council and the council had never voted on that matter before. I think what we have done has complied with the letter and the spirit of the undertaking in our manifesto.”

Mr Nobbs said it was “surprising” unelected council officers had been able to vote on what recommendations to put to cabinet, but that it was under the previous administration.

The decision on whether to ratify planning permission now rests with secretary of state Mr Pickles.

THE ‘DISASTROUS’ DECISION NOT TO TAKE PART IN THE WEST NORFOLK POLL

The leader of the county council has said a decision by his predecessors not to take part in the West Norfolk Council poll, where 65,000 people voted against the incinerator, was “disastrous”.

While the King’s Lynn Without Incineration campaign group presented its argument against the burner, the county council, on legal advice, did not.

And Cory Wheelabrator steered clear as well, with a leaked communications strategy from their consultants revealing spin doctors believed they could use their lack of participation to undermine the moral value of the poll.

For the county council’s part, they said their legal advice was that there was a risk in actively participating in the poll as the waste planning authority, knowing it would have to consider the planning application.

There was concern that taking an active part could lead to a challenge, especially as the procurement process had not been concluded.

The council said it advised West Norfolk Council it was happy for information which was already publicly available to be printed on the ballot sheet.

They said the borough council chose not to include it in printed form, but to provide a website link.

The ballot sheet also explained why the county council was not taking part.

County council leader George Nobbs said: “On reflection, I think that decision was disastrous in terms of the county council’s reputation, the project itself and relations within the county. However, I understand why the county council felt it right to follow the legal advice it was given.”

IS THE CONTRACT STANDARD?

One of the many issues opponents of the incinerator have is why Cory Wheelabrator stands to get so much compensation, should the plant not get built.

The Anglo-US consortium stands to receive about £24.7m if planning permission is not obtained while, if the council pulls the plug on the scheme, there would be an estimated compensation payable of £28m, according to an independent report by PriceWaterhouseCooper.

To anti-incineration campaigners, those sorts of breakage costs have aroused suspicion the contract Norfolk County Council has signed is not standard.

An article published in a trade publication in June 2012 quoted Mike Harlow, a partner in KPMG, who worked on the Cory Wheelabrator contract, as saying: “significant discussion was had negotiating changes to the standard contract”, including to accommodate, among other things, compensation on termination.

A Freedom of Information Act request by anti-incinerator campaigners revealed that article prompted an email to DEFRA (who had agreed to award PFI credits to the council for the project) from Joel Hull, the county council’s residual waste services project director.

In it, he wrote that the report went into “intense detail about the financial elements and structure of CW’s bid; way more than we have ever released or would feel comfortable in releasing.”

The county council, when asked why Mr Hull felt that way, said it was “because it revealed financial information about Cory Wheelabrator’s bid which the officer considered was potentially commercially sensitive”.

They said he wrote to Defra to “clarify” that the authority had not released that information.

The county council line is that: “The contract complies with the principles and approach set by the government for all of the procurements that were run by local authorities under Defra’s Waste Infrastructure Delivery Programme.

“However, in some parts of the standard contract whilst the principles have to be adhered to the draft contract terms are not fully prescriptive.

“This is to accommodate the wide range of different proposals from different bidders that the government expected to attract through its programme, to make the process as competitive as possible and maximise value for money.

“One example of this is the ability to accommodate different funding approaches by different bidders. For example, some bidders fund their bids through corporate finance (where they fund the project from their own balance sheets and/or corporate debt – for example Veolia’s project for Leeds City Council) or project finance (where they fund the project predominantly through ring fenced bank debt, with some equity injection).

“In the case of Cory Wheelabrator’s bid it was a hybrid of these, they intended to borrow money from banks to fund the project and were prepared to stand behind some of that money themselves.”

WHY SUFFOLK HAD A SMOOTHER RIDE

While the proposal for an incinerator in Norfolk has generated considerable controversy and opposition, it’s a very different story over the border. Suffolk’s incinerator is due to start burning waste next year, which the council says will save £8m in landfill taxes. Paul Geater, political writer for our sister papers The Ipswich Evening Star and the East Anglian Times, gives his views on why the Great Blakenham burner has had an easier ride than the Saddlebow proposal.

“Suffolk County Council first announced it would sponsor the building of an incinerator (or “energy from waste plant” as it insists on calling it) in 2007 and said it had several sites under consideration – however, it was clear that Great Blakenham would be the one they went for.

“It was announced in January 2008 that the highways department at Blakenham was the preferred option.

Andrew Cann, county councillor for Ipswich, hit out at the proposal and tried to get a campaign going, but it was soon clear this would never take off for a number of reasons:

“The site was very close to that of a closed cement works. With modern emissions control there was a feeling that anything that put into the atmosphere would be less toxic than what had gone over the area for decades.

“The cement works had recently closed – the incinerator offered the prospect of new jobs for future generations.

Local residents were much more occupied with fighting plans for the “SnOasis” project which has never got off the ground and saw the incinerator as the lesser of two evils.

“The incinerator is well-sited, just off the A14 with a comparatively easy access and with a rail line beside it which could be used if waste is brought in.

“It’s opposite a massive landfill site which stinks anyway. People don’t believe the filtered emissions will be any worse than that. It’s also in an area surrounded by scrapyards.

“Over the last few years Suffolk County Council has won awards from national bodies for its consultation process.

“Although no one has ever said as much on the record, it is clear there is a fair degree of satisfaction that Suffolk has managed to get the plant built while Norfolk has found the whole subject so toxic.”

TOMORROW: Union leaders reveal how “unmanageable” caseloads and funding cuts has hit children’s services.

36 comments

  • Why do you think the surprise winner was tens of millions of pounds more expensive than the original?

    Report this comment

    alecto

    Tuesday, December 17, 2013

  • Sugarbeet. Whoever he or she is has known and predicted every step of this episode accurately for a few years on here so for those who have been following closely it has all been said already. Has been giving campaigners info every week and warned them over and over again about Cllr Brian Long and others. Spot on almost every time. Just a bit of trumpet blowing now it seems. Has also said in the past that consent will be approved in January and even given the reasons why so we will have to wait and see. I have no idea what the remark about the QC means but no doubt time will tell as usual. Not so much condescending or cryptic but you do have to read carefully. Possibly trying to avoid being rumbled. Not sure. Interesting though. See what the New Year brings I guess.

    Report this comment

    Lyn from Lynn

    Wednesday, December 18, 2013

  • Thanks Fenscape, that is exactly what I thought would be the case. It proves beyond doubt, if there has ever been any doubt, public sector workers are incapable of negotiating a commercial contract.

    Report this comment

    andy

    Tuesday, December 17, 2013

  • Christophe, my view is that we could be paying people will have exactly as much bias on such matters as those who are paying the bill, no?

    Report this comment

    BernardJuby

    Monday, December 23, 2013

  • Honest John.. The multi-username person regularly has a dig at KL Borough & County councillors and promotes the incinerator. This leads me to believe we are dealing with an ex-councillor with an axe to grind. I am sure if the incinerator gets built will definitely be the end of the conservative party in west Norfolk and I bet the multi-username person will be on cloud nine and no stopping insults.

    Report this comment

    Interpol

    Friday, December 20, 2013

  • Arent we now great friends with Suffolk.?Please take our waste We will give you 20 seats at home games and Delia will bake you a cake

    Report this comment

    No to tory boy

    Tuesday, December 17, 2013

  • Christopher, the incinerator is a bad decision for all those who still can rememeber what mandate we gave NCC in 2000, you obviously can't and are forgiven for that. To accuse those, who apply the only scrutiny to these self serving puppets, of wasting millions, when you yourself are prepared to suffer the most expensive, 624 million option, the malodorous pollution heaped on to three schools and the resulting health implications, is a tad OTT and pathetic.

    Report this comment

    ingo wagenknecht

    Sunday, December 22, 2013

  • Very well said, Daisy. The antis get to pick the QC and because the don't like the independent opinion they are now coming up with conspiracy theory about the scope of the report. Ridiculous.

    Report this comment

    DT

    Tuesday, December 17, 2013

  • I wonder how long it will take for the anti mob to work out the Jonathan Acton Davis link ? Not from my lips. He is a fine upstanding fellow and a professional in every respect. As said 2 years ago; “Avoid the law. It will prove a very frustrating and costly exercise. You will be shafted from this point on “

    Report this comment

    Dickens

    Tuesday, December 17, 2013

  • JAD2, as the report already seems to be known, really makes not a jot of difference to the situation in which we find ourselves, save for rendering the officers bomb-proof. Looking at where we are after six years, the waste infrastructure credits worth £169m have been lost, planning permission has yet to be obtained, NCC may shortly have to find £26m in compensation, it has probably already spent around £8m and we have no long-term solution to the waste problem. If Mr Pickles refuses planning permission, then this all falls in and we shall need to ask once more who is to blame. Well, if it isn’t the officers, it must be the previous administration. JAD2 leaves it perfectly open for that conclusion to be drawn.

    Report this comment

    John Martin

    Tuesday, December 17, 2013

  • NIMBYS - the incinerator is not a bad decision, You just don't like it. WE are paying professional people (who have no bias on such matters FACT (QC?!). So get lost with your idiotic conspiracy theories. YOU are the ones wasting millions of OUR tax money.

    Report this comment

    christoph

    Saturday, December 21, 2013

  • A rather interesting point is that the report says that if the contract is cancelled it will cost £28m whereas the officers were scaremongering that it might cost up to £100m!!! We can have no confidence in them so what have they got to say for themselves? Daisy, who I am sure has some connection with the Murphys, ignores the fact that Amsterdam have offered to process our waste for far less than the Cory plant. Please also note that DEFRA says that we (the UK) do not need the capacity that KL would provide. We need some reassurance that there is not some penalty within the Cory contract that we must provide a minimum quantity of waste or a penalty clause is invoked. Answer please???

    Report this comment

    andy

    Tuesday, December 17, 2013

  • The decision of the full council of NCC on 28 October 2013 is incapable of being a material consideration for the purposes of section 70(2)(c) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Accordingly, no regard should be had to it by the Communities Secretary in the determination of the planning application.

    Report this comment

    John Martin

    Tuesday, December 17, 2013

  • Sugarbeet, you’ve highlighted the reasons why Dic.kens was ignored by the campaigners and Fenscape uses only one name. Lyn from Lynn should have paid a little closer attention to what Dic.kens has said, other than ranting about Daubney and Long at every possible moment it has been a combination of dubious guesswork and post events I told you so. Brilliant article by Dan Grimmer today on the QC's report.

    Report this comment

    Honest John

    Friday, December 20, 2013

  • Yes Kadmos-public participation in decision making-only this decision affects all of Norfolk from Cromer to Diss and Walpole to Yarmouth, it uses our council tax to dispose of our waste and to avoid us paying EU landfill tax. Now why then should only the residents of West Norfolk get a direct say? We elect our councillors to make those decisions and the officers were right in expecting there not to be a problem Maybe they should have foreseen the hysteria of misinformation whipped up by certain borough councillors and campaigners aided by the EDP but if you want everyone to be involved in decision making directly we would have to run local government by referendum

    Report this comment

    Daisy Roots

    Tuesday, December 17, 2013

  • 'look into my eyes, into my eyes' only, do not look at my dirty shoes and ragged cloth, or my malnourished body, just 'look into my eyes'..... Good point about the Aarhus convention, Kadmos, sadly democracy is dead now and we have to take every decision of our councils as they come, whether its from hand raisers or from the unelected human resources that usurp and assume positions they are not suited or fit for.

    Report this comment

    ingo wagenknecht

    Tuesday, December 17, 2013

  • Perhaps Dan Grimmer would find out the exact remit the QC was asked to work to as this investigation appears to be little more than determining whether NCC put a staple at the correct angle on paperwork and taking their word for it being correct. NCC may be crowing over the outcome of this report now, but we may find later when a proper investigation is conducted that by limiting it in such a way there has been an actual conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. There is a silver lining, at least we know NCC do have a Plan B, the hole this lot are digging for themselves will soon be big enough to accommodate a few years worth of landfill.

    Report this comment

    Honest John

    Tuesday, December 17, 2013

  • Sugarbeet please ignore fenscape because it is a pot calling a kettle who uses around 60 different names.

    Report this comment

    Not A Nimby

    Thursday, December 19, 2013

  • Have I just read this right? The council acknowledges AmeyCespa’s bid was “slightly cheaper” than Cory Wheelabrator and that this "slightly cheaper" is of the order of £70 million pounds? This is not "Slightly". This is a huge figure cheaper - of the order of three times the amount of money for cancellation that has recently been the subject of so much press coverage in that it would bankrupt Norfolk. Why is the County Council apparently so cavalier with the cost (to Norfolk) that it awards a contract that will cost us more than was necessary - to the tune of three times the amount to which, in the same decision, it has put the county at risk of going bankrupt if the Sec of State does not grant planning consent? As for there being a “major concern” about AmeyCespa’s bid related to whether AmeyCespa could guarantee a certain amount of waste for the incinerator being transferred from Cambridgeshire. Why should this be a concern? AmeyCespa run the whole waste business for Cambridgeshire and so are in complete control over what they do with the waste from Cambridgeshire. Currently they do not burn it in an incinerator but I bet they have plans to build one, fuelled by all the waste that is still a by-product of thei MBT plant at Waterbeach - currently, all that goes to landfill (STILL!). Cory mainly operate in the London waste market, so I suppose they would be able to ship any shortfall of waste up to Norfolk from the capital, should Norfolk not be able to produce enough waste to keep the incinerator burning. This would beg another question though - why should the health of the good people of West Norfolk expected to be put at risk to enable disposal of some of London's waste? or even Cambridgeshire's waste come to that. (Although I'm sure dirty London waste would be much worse than Cambridgeshire waste which would probably be cleaner overall, on account of it having a higher paper content from all the academic university papers produced there whereas London waste would be really awful, being full of toxic industrial residues).

    Report this comment

    BernardJuby

    Saturday, December 21, 2013

  • Funny that - a bunch of un-elected officers can sit around a table and have a casting vote in this, but when over sixty five thousand people have a similar vote, they get brushed aside. NCC isn't fit for purpose and hasn't been for a long time.

    Report this comment

    Fenscape

    Tuesday, December 17, 2013

  • Far from ignoring 'D' everyone seems to have been livened up by himher. More info from that source than any other. You lot are just jealous I say. That's how it comes over anyways.

    Report this comment

    Ben Dover

    Friday, December 20, 2013

  • Dickens, if you've got something to say, then just say it. For those of us who aren't politicians, campaigners or council officers your condescending cryptic comments are just tedious and meaningless.

    Report this comment

    Sugarbeet

    Wednesday, December 18, 2013

  • This whole saga smells worse than any incinerator can chuck out.

    Report this comment

    norman hall

    Tuesday, December 17, 2013

  • Which way is the wind blowing Cllr Long!? You voted for it, my friend. No good blaming others if you can't be bothered to make your own informed decision.

    Report this comment

    DT

    Tuesday, December 17, 2013

  • If no "undue risk" was taken, then when the contract was signed by an officer on 7th February 2012, the result of the planning meeting, eventually held on the 29th June 2012, must have already been determined. There is, at least one, small legal problem here... The UK has signed up to the Aarhus Convention which guarantees public participation in decision-making. I wonder what the Aarhus compliance committee would make of all of this?

    Report this comment

    Kadmos

    Tuesday, December 17, 2013

  • "Officers had not foreseen..."- why not for crying out loud. This is nothing more than negligent pre and post contract due diligence and the mealy mouthed excusing of it will not wash.

    Report this comment

    guella

    Tuesday, December 17, 2013

  • It is unusual for the Sec of State to request further information from those involved at a late stage and engaging a process to add weight to an Inspectors report is an interesting development although which way it is weighted may prove to be controversial in content. The recent vote in favour of the project was not included in the original evidence and it is that single piece of information that was required to tip the balance. A democratic vote in open Council is a powerful piece of play. It seems that once again the anti campaigns desires have ended up thwarting them. The question one needs to ask is does this mean that closer scrutiny is needed to adjust the fine balance of a decision or does an approved decision awaiting final release require firming up? The people of Norfolk are likely to be made poor indeed for the want of SOS ratification. No pressure there then.

    Report this comment

    Dickens

    Tuesday, December 17, 2013

  • He wasn't right about the PFI'S though. Kept telling us they were safe despite me keep telling him they were not.

    Report this comment

    Bikerboy

    Wednesday, December 18, 2013

  • How can we read the minutes of the Norfolk Waste Project Board? Is there a special link on the County Council's website that we don't have access to, or have they been redacted since your report?

    Report this comment

    bedoomed

    Tuesday, December 17, 2013

  • Where do I apply to attend closed-door meetings to vote. I have not been elected anywhere which makes me as suitable as the employees of the County Council. Or do I just turn up and sit at the table? This total disregard for democracy should make everyone involved hang their head in shame but if this is the way they intend to run the County Council then there are many I know would like to vote despite not being elected.

    Report this comment

    alecto

    Tuesday, December 17, 2013

  • In matters of planning when all else fails there is always the ‘exceptional departure from policy’. A rather tidy method of ensuring that what needs to be included can be and that which needs to be overlooked can be placed into the margins. This one looks to be a classic example.

    Report this comment

    Dickens

    Tuesday, December 17, 2013

  • Selective censorship again EDP ???

    Report this comment

    "V"

    Tuesday, December 17, 2013

  • A Lawyer with only answer the questions heshe is asked. In this case the brief was somewhat limited. If the questions had been specific to the conduct of certain councillors, the outcome would probably have been somewhat different. The truth is never likely to come out! Keep up the good work Dan.

    Report this comment

    Little fish

    Tuesday, December 17, 2013

  • Brian Long - Councillor or comedian ? Does he take the voters for their worth or for fools ? The anti campaign were advised over 2 years ago to keep their distance from Long but once again they refused to listen. Who do they think fed back information on the anti campaign early on ? Do they need an anvil to drop on their heads? You cannot help some people.

    Report this comment

    Dickens

    Tuesday, December 17, 2013

  • Well well well So it turns out the democratically elected council for Norfolk, spending Norfolk council tax ( to comply with the instructions of the former Labour government to reduce landfill on pain of penalties) actually acted properly. And all the fuss and row we have endured is because the NIMBY vote catchers at KL council were not content to see the structured local council democracy in action and preferred policy by lobby group, campaign and hysteria. Perhaps now QC Mr Acton Davis might look at the poll ( and the returns-results) as conducted on behalf of West Norfolk and King's Lynn council.

    Report this comment

    Daisy Roots

    Tuesday, December 17, 2013

  • "Officers had not foreseen..."- why not for crying out loud. This is nothing more than negligent pre and post contract due diligence and the mealy mouthed excusing of it will not wash.

    Report this comment

    guella

    Tuesday, December 17, 2013

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

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Norfolk Weather

Partly Cloudy

Partly Cloudy

max temp: 17°C

min temp: 10°C

Five-day forecast

loading...

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT