The proposed site of the incinerator at Saddlebow. Picture: Ian Burt.

War of words over King’s Lynn incinerator hots up

BY DAN GRIMMER
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
6:30 AM

The war of words between Norfolk councils over a proposed incinerator in King’s Lynn intensified yesterday as a County Hall cabinet member launched an angry attack on the borough council which does not want to send its waste to the plant.

Bill Borrett, Norfolk County Council cabinet member for environment and waste, criticised West Norfolk Council over its intention to take responsibility for its own ‘black bin’ waste rather than sending it to the incinerator planned for Saddlebow.

West Norfolk Council’s cabinet agreed last week to ask officers to procure a contract to recycle household waste through alternative technology to incineration.

It came days after a conference where West Norfolk council leader Nick Daubney urged other councils to unite to boost the county’s recycling rates by coming up with alternatives to the incinerator.

But, at a meeting of Norfolk County Council’s cabinet yesterday, in response to a question from member of the public John Martin over whether Mr Daubney should be congratulated for organising the seminar, Mr Borrett went on the attack.

He said the conference seemed to him to be “little more than a platform for two commercial operators to promote their technology”.

He questioned how much the alternative plant would cost, where it would be, how many years it would take for them to be up and running and asked why the borough council had not followed the lead of councils in Norwich and Broadland in taking up the opportunity to get incentivised payments for each tonne of food waste collected.

He said: “More than £200,000 of county council funding has been available since 2010 specifically to support a food waste recycling scheme in the borough of west Norfolk. A service like that would stop thousands of tonnes of King’s Lynn’s residents waste going to landfill every year.”

But Mr Daubney hit back. He said: “If Mr Borrett was a more experienced member he would understand we have to wait for contract cycles to come around.

“We are currently looking at food waste and there’s no doubt it’s a good idea. We have been delighted to see how it has worked in Norwich and Broadland and have a working party looking at it.

“But we cannot just break the contracts we have, we need to wait for the cycle to come around.”

Mr Daubney said: “We hope it would be cost neutral for the district, but I’m the first to admit this hasn’t been costed.

“But that’s why we want to explore it, to find out what it might cost and to look at the figures, and not rush in as the county council have done.”

Norfolk County Council agreed in March to award the contract to build the incinerator to Cory Wheelabrator, despite a borough council poll which showed 65,000 people in West Norfolk were against it.

The county, which has yet to sign the contract, insists the incinerator is needed to deal with the county’s waste and avoid landfill fines.

It hopes to receive £169m of government cash using PFI credits to help offset the £500m plus cost of the project.

Campaigners battling the plans will appear at the High Court in December to pursue their quest for a judicial review of the county council’s decision to award the contract.

dan.grimmer@archant.co.uk

Latest News

30 comments

Peter J, I agree that the way local government operates using the cabinet system needs to be changed. As to the claim that many councillors have been involved with the decision, you must refer to the 40 conservatives who attended the group meeting 3 days before the contract was awarded. I can assure you that those cllrs did not hear any expert view opposing the plan. The scrutiny meeting you refer to was on 19th April after the contract award. You will know that the chairman of that meeting Paul Morse has since called for a full independent external investigation into the whole procurement process and the behaviour of conservative members on 4th March, 7th March and 19th April. I attend all meetings when possible the EDP give a snippet of information which, until recently, often bore little resemblance to the actual words or behaviour on the day. Attend a cabinet meeting you will find it a real eye opener into how NCC operates.

Report this comment

Joy, King's Lynn

Friday, October 14, 2011
Joy, I'm afraid I don't know the answer. I imagine the reasons for this are that of statute. But after following the debate on the EDP for some time now, it's clear that it wasn't just the nine Cabinet Members. Going back a few months, there are articles relating to scrutiny panels that have looked at the proposals prior to the Cabinet decision. So it is not just nine people who have seen the arguments and helped make a decision. I also understand that the plant will need to go through Planning, which again is not a Cabinet body. So I think it's wrong to say that it is just nine people who have made this decision. The solution is a change to the way local government operates. All Councils in the country use the Cabinet system and while, in some cases, this unfairly warps the democratic process placing power in the hands of a few, I do not think it is Norfolk County Council's fault that this system exists.

Report this comment

Peter J

Friday, October 14, 2011
Peter J, you speak of our elected representatives making decisions on our behalf for the greater good. Explain how you view the behaviour of a cabinet of 9 people making a decision on the scale of the incinerator project without ANY consultation with full council. We democratically elected 84 members of council to represent Norfolk as a whole not 9. This cabinet have fought every attempt to allow those 84 members to see all documents and hear all argument relating to the proposal. WHY! Do you really consider that 9 people should decide on how to spend £500 million of Norfolk tax payers money? If there has been nothing wrong with the processes used or the need for this plant why do they not allow the other elected members to have their say, at the end of the day the tory whip would still win out and the conservatives would, under that, have to pass the project regardless of their own personal view. I just do not understand the reluctance to even go through the motions of being seen as fully consulting all members on the proposal.

Report this comment

Joy, King's Lynn

Thursday, October 13, 2011
LFB, democracy means voting in representatives in order for them to make decisions on behalf of, and not in thrawl to, the public. It is precisely this reason that the vote that was taken in West Norfolk was not a referendum - it was a poll. A referendum is legally binding; a poll isn't. Imagine a world where any council or group or body could organise a proper referendum on any subject they wished - nothing would ever get done in this country. Long-term planning would simply not exist. It's the same with HS2 - a project that is clearly beneficial to the economic growth of the whole country is being put in jeopardy by a few people who moan about their twee little village suffering from noise pollution. If the poll in West Norfolk sets a precedent, we might as well give up as a country right now as we'll never be able to achieve any kind of economic growth with people voting against every proposed building or structure.

Report this comment

Peter J

Thursday, October 13, 2011
Peter J the result of thr referendum was 65,516 people voted against (92%) I am a senior citizen, and as far as I am concerned that should have been the finish. Democracy means government by the people or by their elected representives. If the vote went the other way we would accept those who had the majority of votes, and before you say a referendum is not legally binding we know,but it is the principle.

Report this comment

LFB

Thursday, October 13, 2011
I have just come across this article in the EDP24 Norwich England. The following is similar to what has happend in Dublin. An American company and compensation! City Council leaves taxpayer ‘high and dry’ with botched incinerator deal - Andrews Posted on 310111 by Chris Andrews Dublin City Council has potentially exposed the taxpayer to millions of euro in compensation to be paid every year to a private US company following its botched and needless plans for an incinerator in Poolbeg, according to local Fianna Fáil TD Chris Andrews. Deputy Andrews said: "The reports this morning that the taxpayer could be exposed to between €187 million to €350 million over 25 years as a result of this bungled plan by Dublin City Council are truly astonishing. The officials at the most senior levels in the council still don’t seem to get it - Dublin does not need this incinerator!" "I have been opposed to the building of this facility from the start. I do not believe burning as much waste as we can get our hands on is the way of the future and the people of Dublin have effectively agreed with this by embracing recycling in their daily lives." "The news that the “put-or-pay” clause in the city council’s contract with Covanta could cost as much as €14m a year, on average is stunning and in my view calls into question the city council's authority to enter into such agreements on behalf of citizens." "It would seem that in return for accepting that a change in behaviour was needed and recycling on a large scale was the way forward that Dublin City Council has decided more is required of the public. Not alone are the residents in my constituency facing being lumbered with an incinerator, they face having to compensate the company involved because we won't be giving them enough waste to burn in our own backyard. This is utter madness." "I have not given up on this botched itself deal being 'incinerated'. The public don't want it, the taxpayer can't afford and it's up to the geniuses in Labour-controlled Dublin City Council to find a way to clean up their own mess and not dump it in the laps of the people of Dublin South East and the taxpayer at large."

Report this comment

mikenelson46

Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Fenscape you are correct. This would be a good opportunity to build an MBT plant or similar technology as the Borough suggests as they produce more power than incineration and MBT plants can be situated on flood zones. No Air pollution.

Report this comment

Choice

Wednesday, October 12, 2011
I expect NCC were aware of the power station closing down prior to Cory Wheelabrator submitting the planning application. This should have been entered in the NCC s scoping opinion report NCC088759. And Cory Wheelabrators dodgy scoping opinion report that is full of no significance. If not they know now and the planning application for a mass burn incinerator should be refused. I agree the borough should proceed with their waste strategy and this will create jobs. I suspect £20.5 million penalty clause was the carrot dangling. Not bad just for a paper exercise. I suspect some NCC staff will be called to explain what went wrong at NCCs head office, at Cory Wheelabrator, Boston USA.

Report this comment

Choice

Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Sadly, the power station has always been a bit of a red herring - it's true that it offers a connection back into the National Grid but it doesn't have to be in any sort of operational state to do that. (In fact, didn't the incinerator planning app say that it'll connect up with the grid somewhere under the Willows service road and NOT at the power station?)

Report this comment

Fenscape

Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Martin Rowland’s.. I had been trying to find the information about the power station. It was published in yesterdays EDP24. I found the article online by typing "redundancies power station". How do NCC get out of this one and you seem to have come up with the answer?

Report this comment

batemansusan

Wednesday, October 12, 2011
My last post should read the new gas turbine may well be shelved. Have a nice day.

Report this comment

martinrowlands80

Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Centrica have announced yesterday that the Kings Lynn power station will close and it is unlikely the new gas turbine plant will be shelved because of the increase in wind turbines. This is bad news for the staff. Cory Wheelabrator will now have to resubmit the application excluding the power station. One of the reasons for by NCC was the incinerator will be situated next to a power station. The best solution is the Boroughs idea of alternative technologies such as MBT and so on. This would deal with the waste issue and guarantee many more jobs. Kings Lynn’s air quality is now critical due to the power station and Palm Paper. What I could not understand is how building an incinerator would improve air quality that is a now critical in Kings Lynn.

Report this comment

martinrowlands80

Wednesday, October 12, 2011
LFB - I wouldn't go so far as to say I'm a supporter of the incinerator, as if it were a football team. My issue with this debate is the hysteria and hypocrisy coming from some quarters. We know the KLWNBC offered the site to the County Council 4 years ago - now that the County Council is using the site I find it hard to swallow that KLWNBC are now so opposed - I believe elected officials should stand by their decisions which the Councillors in West Norfolk clearly have not done. I also think that some of the comments on here re: increased recycling are far too idealist. The UK is already good at recycling, but in order to improve we need increases in taxation to pay for it to be sorted - the public, I feel, will not accept such a rise. Elsewhere in the world they collect your recycling everyday, and you don't have to sort it into 4 different bins - it is all done for you. But this costs money. People just throw things away - I am not going to take apart my old kettle, separating copper wire and bits of steel and all the rest just so each bit can be recycled properly. To think anyone would is folly.

Report this comment

Peter J

Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Peter J we do not throw all of our toys out of the pram.We take them to the recycling plant at Saddlebow to be sold and the proceeds are then donated to charitable causes

Report this comment

LFB

Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Peter J it is obvious you are a supporter of the incinerator and are oblivious of the broad consensus results More than 97pc of people who commented on the planning application are opposed to the plan. So are almost 66pc of town and parish councils across Norfolk, according to figures released by Norfolk County Council.Of those 2,524 (97.4pc) objected to the incinerator and 27 (1pc) supported it. some from statutory bodies such NHS Norfolk or the Environment Agency. Ninety-three parish and town councils also responsed to the consultation. Of those, 61 (65.6pc) were opposed and nine (9.7pc) in favour, This is not a case of "not in my backyard" we do not want a incinerator in Norfolk full stop. It is time to deal with the cause not the symptoms

Report this comment

LFB

Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Alecto County have 20 days from the date of the meeting to get the audio recorfdng on their website. Should be a number one in the Hit Parade.!

Report this comment

bedoomed

Tuesday, October 11, 2011
In answer to some of the points - bedoomed no plastic is sent from Kings Lynn to china as far as I am aware. JCW - the process of recycling does produce some residues. A well chosen process will create residues which are far less in terms of mass and toxicity than those from incineration and provide a genuine raw material for product. In answer to Choice the cost of hauling waste is expensive a figure of £3 million has been suggested to get Norfolks waste to King's Lynn to be burnt. Following the proximity principle lets deal with Norfolks waste here in Norfolk near to where it arises in smaller plants. Newer technologies do not need massive tonnages to be fiancially viable. It is better that West Norfolk have clearly set out thier thinking in an open an honest way - it compares well to the alternative practiced elsewhere in the County

Report this comment

The Bin Man

Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Yes, John Martin, this is wholly unimpressive. But then has that not been the modus operandi of the County Council since the outset? To not debate this matter or consider better alternatives at all? And when are we to have access to the recording of the shameful meeting where they disgracefully howled down the right and proper Lib Dem questions in an open meeting with the Chief Executive using the so-called Chairman of the Council (one can only use the word loosely as she should be able to control a meeting herself) as a ventriloquist's doll.

Report this comment

alecto

Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Could I just mention this? The question that Dan Grimmer reports me as asking was, in fact, the second of two. The first asked which members and officers of NCC attended the seminar. I really had been expecting to hear that Cllr Borrett, as the waste portfolio holder, and Mike Jackson, as director of environment transport and development, would have been in the contingent. In fact, only one person attended on behalf of NCC, namely the "strategic waste manager" whoever that is. I view that as a pretty negative approach.

Report this comment

John Martin

Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Well, that's confirmed it for me. When Mr Borrett leaves the County Council as he surely will at the next election he has a career ahead of him as a comedian.

Report this comment

alecto

Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Reading some posts here looks as though recycling waste is a good idea with no reduction in air quality. It has to be cheaper for many reasons including the PFI grant but most importantly Air quality will not be compromised in any way. Talking about affordability can we afford not to have clean air technology instead of stone aged technology like incineration with a chimney puffing out dioxin 24 hours a day for 25 years.

Report this comment

Knee deep In Toxic ash

Tuesday, October 11, 2011
JackH-1938.. You make a good point but most of the parish Councils in all Norfolk that sent their opinions in have said the incinerator at Saddlebow incineration is a bad idea. If you search the internet incinerators are controversial whatever part of the World you live in. America has not had an incinerator built since 1995 but the strangest thing is American companies have targeted inexperienced County Councils in the UK. The world famous incinerators at Copenhagen and Vienna have had problems as the service period has been shortened as the filters have not been working properly and has increased the running costs as waste has to be stored of shipped off to other plants. The cost at these plants has escalated but they do not get many complaints from locals as they get fee electricity for breathing in the dioxins and toxic ash.

Report this comment

CleanAirPlease

Tuesday, October 11, 2011
The whole debate is about clean air. The only waste treatment facility to be built at Kings Lynn is 100% Recycling Mechanical Biological Treatment plant (MBT) as there are no toxic air emissions and no dust from toxic ash. It is just down to bad planning. I agree that NCC should explain to the public why they did not report back after their fact finding trip to Cory Wheelabrators head office in Boston USA, Waste Management Wheelabrator had been fined $450 million for fraud and ongoing investigations about dumping toxic waste and breaking dioxin air emissions. A couple of months ago fined $7.5 million. NCC seem to be very close to this company and needs investigation sooner than later.

Report this comment

Hugh L Montgomery

Tuesday, October 11, 2011
NCC should have a plan “B” as it looks very unlikely the incinerator will be built at Kings Lynn. Up to now it has cost the rate payers of Norfolk £6 million and rumoured to be £9.5 million and up to now not a brick laid. I would hope there will be an inquiry of where this money has ended up! It is lining some pockets. If planning consent is given for an incinerator there will be many obstacles in the way and costs will escalate. The power station has made it quite clear they are worried about bottom ash pits and no safeguard in place for their workers. If the incinerator is built there will be three air polluting company’s on the Willows business park. Air quality in Kings Lynn is critical and one of the reasons is the emissions from the power station. How do you police who is the polluter. Cory Wheelabrator has a long history of breaking emissions and fraud. The main problems is getting the PFI funding is proximity principle. This rules out the county getting this funding but the Borough would be eligible if the new plant was local to Kings Lynn for West Norfolk’s waste. The easy way is to send the waste to be treated to Rotherham in the short term while a new state of the art recycling plant is built. No chimneys no big bucks for the fat cats.

Report this comment

Choice

Tuesday, October 11, 2011
This does seem to be a very "throw all your toys out of the pram" approach from KLWNBC. Not only will they cost their own residents more council tax money by procuring on their own and losing the economies of scale, but if the plant is still built in King's Lynn then more waste will need to be shipped in to make up for their shortfall. It's all very remove-the-nose-to-spite-the-face.

Report this comment

Peter J

Tuesday, October 11, 2011
I have lived in the King’s Lynn area for only three months. All I have seenread about the incinerator has been negative. I want to be able to make an informed decision. The “Not in my Back Yard” is classic. It reminds me of where I used to live. There was the inevitable campaign against a wind farm proposal. The: “we are in favour of renewable energy but not here” certainly didn’t win me over. I cannot help but form the opinion that the residents of the King’s Lynn area would be happy if an incinerator were to be built in say Thetford or Great Yarmouth but they don’t want it on their own doorsteps. If incinerators are in general a good idea (are they? I don’t know), where should they be located? Anywhere but here, or so it would seem. Jack

Report this comment

JackH-1938

Tuesday, October 11, 2011
If anyone can find an economical and environmentally acceptable way of reusing or recycling the contents of the general refuse bins then that should be supported. Separation is usually labour- or capital-intensive and leads to the interim storage of a diverse range of materials that then need to be amalgamated with other stockpiles by transporting in uneconomic loads. By contrast, incineration is a "one process destroys all" method that is economical so long as the unwanted by-products are not fully neutralised. Too much plastic waste is already going in the residual waste stream because it is not suitable [or wanted] for reprocessing. As other elements are increasingly segregated out through better recycling awareness and procedures then the waste left to be burnt has an increasingly high plastic and other toxic content. Assuming King's Lynn & West Norfolk BC do find a contractor to do what they want, where will the ultimate residues go, and at what cost? And how will their council-taxpayers escape paying Norfolk CC as well?

Report this comment

JCW

Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Mr Borrett . It is obvious you have not seen the results of the "broad consensus" for all of Norfolk. More than 97pc of people who commented on the planning application are opposed to the plan. So are almost 66pc of town and parish councils across Norfolk, You need to listen to the people of Norfolk,and your own constituents

Report this comment

LFB

Tuesday, October 11, 2011
What is now needed are nationally enforcable recycling targets for industry's take up of recuclables into new materials. Government's have not anticipated how good householders are at recycling, they failed to create a market that is regulated, favouring the voluntary approach. How can NCC, any council have a contract with a company when the waste they are dealing with is not theirs? Should they not ask us? and when they get an answer, a direction with regards to waste srategies, should they not act up to It Mr. Borett?

Report this comment

ingo wagenknecht

Tuesday, October 11, 2011
King's Lynn cannot be faulted for looking into other ways of dealing with their residual waste. They should also look into source separation as seen on "Dispatches" last night as this maximises income from recyclables.However as Cllr Daubney says this has to depend on new contracts.When are King's Lynn contracts renewable? If we know that, then we can see how they shape up. How much plastic waste is sent to China for recycling from KIng's Lynn?

Report this comment

bedoomed

Tuesday, October 11, 2011