Incineration in Norfolk must be ruled out, says group

The site at Saddlebow where an incinerator was proposed. Picture: Ian Burt. The site at Saddlebow where an incinerator was proposed. Picture: Ian Burt.

Dan Grimmer dan.grimmer@archant.co.uk
Thursday, July 31, 2014
6:30 AM

A group set up to figure out how to deal with Norfolk’s waste after the plug was pulled on the controversial King’s Lynn incinerator has said it wants to rule out another large scale burner as a replacement.

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

Norfolk County Council agreed to pull out of the contract for the proposed £595m plant at Saddlebow earlier this year.

They did so after officers said the contract was no longer good value for money, following a delay in a decision by the Secretary of State on whether to ratify it’s planning permission.

While the council has agreed a short-term solution to send some of its waste to be burned in Suffolk, the authority must now look at how to dispose of the waste generated in Norfolk in the longer term.

And the council’s waste advisory group - made up of councillors and invited officers - met for the first time at County Hall yesterday to discuss a way forward.

Chaired by UK Independence Party leader Toby Coke, one of the first acts of the group, was to make a recommendation that Norfolk will not accept a mass burn incinerator in the county as a way to deal with waste.

Tim East, Liberal Democrat councillor for Costessey, said: “This is an opportunity for a fundamental review of how we deal with waste.

“We have got a blank sheet of paper and my view is that we need to rationalise collection and disposal so you have one group or area doing that.”

Alexandra Kemp, independent county councillor for Clenchwarton, said the council currently spends £36m getting private companies to dispose of waste and only generates £1.4m in income.

She said: “We have to turn this around and make money for every household in Norfolk.”

She said the county should incentivise district councils to improve waste collection rates.

A number of councillors suggested that the county council should take on responsibility for collecting waste, which is currently done by district councils.

But councillors said it was difficult to come up with suggested solutions at this stage without an idea of the total cost of collecting waste.

Officers are trying to collate that information from district councils so it is available at future meetings.

And councillors are keen to set up a conference to invite experts and industry leaders to showcase possible ways Norfolk could deal with its waste.

• How do you think Norfolk should deal with its waste? Write, giving full contact details, to Letters Editor, Prospect House, Rouen Road, Norwich NR1 1RE.

102 comments

  • As a PS I'd add that it's lovely to watch our old friend 'D' slide down the pan as the likes of Liz Truss pulls the chain. To add insult to injury it's nice to see that while the county cabinet hurried to push through the tie up with the Tories in Suffolk to send waste to their (already) unviable burner before the WAG was set up, there won't be any sort of deal to send waste to a volcanic facility to Lynn. And why? Because a senior county official is now on record as saying that there is now actually decades of space left at Blackborough End. How amazing that NCC forgot about that a few months ago - it appears that sticking things in a hole in the ground is much much cheaper than burning it after all - I wonder when 'D' will start singing their praises, seeing as he's all about saving taxpayers money?

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Fenscape 2

    Thursday, August 7, 2014

  • I'm amazed that anyone at the DCLG could find themselves being taken in by the pro-incinerator clap-trap here - as usual it's one person who has used an anonymous email address plus a fake name to go running to various officers saying that 65,516 people must be wrong, the campaign is run by a single person etc etc when the opposite is true - I would ask what sort of person would act in such a way in the first place? Well, the answer is simple - someone who has a vested financial interest in building an incinerator at Kings Lynn despite the overwhelming planning objections to the contrary. At the end of the day it's nice to voice opinions on a forum such as this but lets be honest - the massive amount of data that suggests that an incinerator is just not viable for a huge number of different reasons is always going to win the day.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Fenscape 2

    Thursday, August 7, 2014

  • 'D' says: "Never despise the snake for one day he may become a dragon." I'd advise everyone in Norfolk to ignore the dragon and focus on the snake here - anyone that can behave as he has on the EDP forums has all the evidence they need to form an opinion on this.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Fenscape 2

    Thursday, August 7, 2014

  • Just put in a search for sita efw suffolk and their website says it is due to open December 2014. We will have to wait and see how successfull it is for a while yet.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Canary Boy

    Wednesday, August 6, 2014

  • D is the incinerator in Suffolk actually burning waste yet? I understood commissioning was due the end of this year. A few weeks ago the tv live report was showing a project still under construction. Your claim that it is a success may be a little premature. Honest John probably knows the current status as that facility is on his watch.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Canary Boy

    Wednesday, August 6, 2014

  • Quite agree about business in Norfolk. There was a meeting of business leaders recently in London and Norfolk came up as a place to steer clear of when it comes to business investment. Cambrideshire is a better bet or Suffolk but Norfolk is a no go area for any business with a future. Fact. Of course this sort of fiasco with unqualified councillors interfering does not help matters.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Sherlock

    Wednesday, August 6, 2014

  • I can't see why incineration must be ruled out when they do it next door in Suffolk. If it works for them then it works for Norfolk. The trouble with our County is that is is afraid of change and behaves in a backward way which is why big business steps away from us all the time. No work and no real prospects around here for any forward thinking business. A dead zone. No one seems to want to touch Norfolk with a ten foot pole. Who can blame them?

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Diss 'N' Dat

    Wednesday, August 6, 2014

  • Not intetested in Boris either he is not involved in Willows. As for Eric's best mate everyone, except D it seems, knows that our very own Brandon Lewis wears that hat. Brandon is of course at high risk, in fact very high risk, of being ousted from his seat by UKIP. I would put money on a massive defeat if Farage does stand against him as has been rumoured. By the way D do give us your take on Margaret Hodge MP, MBE. Now she is an important figure in the incinerator battle!

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Canary Boy

    Wednesday, August 6, 2014

  • Rob, before the changes made in the RPP, the original contract was to hand the incinerator back to NCC at the end of 25 years with the minimal clean up permitted by the EA, and a warranty to operate for a further 5 years. NCC saw this as an added bonus and made no allowance for the decommissioning costs, which they would have been lia.ble for, this is why incinerators go on churning out pollution for 50 years. As for upgrades during the 25 year contract, NCC would have been lia.ble for those too, despite the EU notification that better pollution controls will be required in the near future. While others recently built in Europe, like Oslo, have incorporated the latest technology ready for when that is introduced, CW’s technology was the most basic and cheapest available, designed for maximum profit, NCC simply fell for the carrot of electricity revenue, and looked no further.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Honest John

    Wednesday, August 6, 2014

  • Don't mention Boris it will confuse the chirping Canary who has only just discovered Eric Pickles best friend Baroness Warsi. Boris is from outside Norfolk although he was a fairly decent player of the Eton Wall Game unlike Henry. The chirper can look that up and educate itself further.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Del Boy

    Wednesday, August 6, 2014

  • Last week Boris Johnson was talking about increasing the London congestion charge for diesel vehicles including cars. Norfolk County Council should have investigated Kings Lynn’s poor air quality before even thinking about an incinerator. It was bad planning to send all our bin waste trundling from all corners of the county and I believe an extra 70,000 would have come from other authorities.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Cindy Mendona

    Wednesday, August 6, 2014

  • Canary Boy, to add to you valid point of the long planning time an incinerator needs! Having researched Cory Belvedere, it took 16 years in the planning. Norfolk has luckily escaped from a poor contract and bad deal. The contract would have run for 25 yes, and companies like Veolia manipulate a contract so as to extent up to 30 yrs. Too long when other contracts allow the capital investment to be recouped in 10-15yrs. Its always good to start at the back end of a contract, CW gave no undertaking of the cost to derig the burner after 25 years, clean up the site. This would leave Norfolk like Harrisburg , Pennsyl, with the council tax payer having to foot the clean up costs in 25-30yrs, or locals having to suffer a upgrade without any added need for planning thereafter. In 2004 I might have been persuaded, like a few niave comments here, burning rubbish for energy under the EfWCHP guises was a good idea; the longer one researches it, it is a really poor idea with better technologies alternatives doing a better chesper job! Last year I visited both Lancashire's Global Resource facilities at Fleetwood and Leyland. Much better solutions producing biogas for buses and waste vehicles.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Rob Whittle

    Wednesday, August 6, 2014

  • D, Wassi or Warsi irrelevant, just like you! She has had nothing at all to do with the incinerator battle and why would any of us be bothering to watch her? Now if it had been Neil Thornton, John Burns, Alan Sadler, Eric Pickles or Liz Truss I would have had more interest. Regardless of that you admit it is normal for such projects to take 20 years to get through planning and yet you were happy to see a contract signed that gave less than two years to achieve planning without massive financial penalties payable and that would see Norfolk paying 650 million to achieve delivery of waste disposal for perhaps 5 to10 years if we were lucky because the contract term was fixed from the point of signing Feb 2012 and fees payable between 2015 to 2040 regardless of whether the plant was built or a shred of waste was incinerated. You and your chums were laughing all the way to the bank were you not! However the reality now is that Norfolk taxpayers will pay no more to you and your chums other than the compensation payment that you and your chums have fleeced us all of. Time you received a Red Card old pal!

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Canary Boy

    Wednesday, August 6, 2014

  • Canary chirping again. Must have banged its head on its bell. I told HJ about Warsi not you to save you waiting for the Town Crier to announce it around your way mate. You seemed to forget who you are signing on as. You are behind with everything else up there hence the heads up. Perhaps this translation will help; "Cor what a header, penalty ref, offside, up the Canaries." What would Delia's Darlings do without simple folk like you? By the way her name is Warsi and not Wassi as you spelled it. I know she is not a footballer but do try harder. Never heard of her in your life until now have you?

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Del Boy

    Wednesday, August 6, 2014

  • Data from DEFRA, WRAP and Letsrecyle puts July 2014 Landfill + Tax at £; Incineration range between £68-95; median £75 per toone. MBT ranges between £50-80; median gate price £65 tonne.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Rob Whittle

    Wednesday, August 6, 2014

  • Bexley council taxpayers must be paying hand over fist for their incinerator to subsidise CWs failed planning applications. This is the only incinerator CW has built in the UK spanning over 18 years and still an empty order book. Wheelabrator has not built an incinerator in the USA since 1994 but earn more than a decent crust even after paying huge fines for pollution and fraud violations. How on earth did NCC get involved with this outfit.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    NCIS

    Tuesday, August 5, 2014

  • Yes they did wait patiently for 16 years for Bexley and despite all the same problems and squabbles they got it. Same with all these really big developments. Always ages and ages and loads of arguments and a big roller coaster ride before they get what they want. Even my house extension took four years in the end so I suppose this is about right for something so big. I reckon they will be pouring the cement soon myself.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Arthur Pewty

    Tuesday, August 5, 2014

  • Thanks for the info blue flag. CW had taken 16 years in planning to get the Bexley burner built. Best course of action is to recycle all our waste and never get involved with incinerator companies as it is worse than any pyramid sales scam.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    NCIS

    Tuesday, August 5, 2014

  • It might be what campaigners want to hear about plans being dead and the planning application being all wrong and out of time but unfortunately it does not work that way. This is big business with a proposal and a huge investment. All that matters is if the application was lawful and nothing else. Only a major flaw in planning would derail it and it would need to be a planning blunder of biblical proportions which is very unlikely isn't it ?

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Canary Brain

    Tuesday, August 5, 2014

  • Sometimes these things are donkeys years before they are settled. Twenty years in planning is not uncommon and during those periods there are loads of ups and downs but they almost always end up with development. This one has all the signs of being in the bag.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    The-Blue-Flag

    Tuesday, August 5, 2014

  • Obviously the Cory incinerator plan is dead! I looked at the July 2014 Planning Report to Pickes which basically states the proposal timed out and was 2 years behind schedule, and is a planning failure essentially. Having 10 years residual technology research it is interesting that 14 County Councils have now got affordable non incinerator MBT plants fully operational. At today's E:£ currency exchange rate the SRM MBT AD long water scheme (the MBT was Italian, the AD Belgian) would now be affordable.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Rob Whittle

    Tuesday, August 5, 2014

  • I must say that if the company are saying they will go ahead with this and they get permission it looks like they will build it. I suppose there are others who will want to use it apart from NCC. After all these years they are hardly likely to give up are they?

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Not A Nimby

    Tuesday, August 5, 2014

  • It`s been known for months that the King`s Lynn incinerator will not be built. Even Norfolk CC has now accepted this. Why one person, (who has just multiple posted) will not accept this remains a mystery to some, but not to others. The group has started well and are open in their views, although no doubt a certain person will suggest that they aren`t. As the options available become apparent, then more and more Norfolk voters will wonder why these were kept from them from the start.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    democrat

    Tuesday, August 5, 2014

  • You have to look at the big picture. There are always a few nimby's against something or other and I sympathise with fenscape and his band who live nearby but the rest of Norfolk had no say in this and we need a burner for the future. There is no other realistic alternative. All the protesters have done is cause a fuss, delay and a big bill for the local tax payers.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Lyn from Lynn

    Tuesday, August 5, 2014

  • The main problem with this new group is that it is made up entirely of people of one opinion. The bias is so profound they are defeated before they begin. Imagine forming a group on the other side of the fence and the first act is to hold a vote in favour of incineration ! Of course those against it can't see that can they? They would be screaming like spoiled children. None so blind.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Mrs Willingale

    Tuesday, August 5, 2014

  • The thing is if they build this and there are no alternatives that stack up financially then they will have to go for it. It is a massive investment in the area which is what councils want anyway. Jobs, investment and a solution to waste is a hard one to beat.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    John Fisher

    Tuesday, August 5, 2014

  • On balance when you weigh it all up it does look more likely that the incinerator will be built. I have to say that I think it would be a sensible solution.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Richard The Third

    Tuesday, August 5, 2014

  • Interesting single cell HJ mentions a brain. Another subject he has no experience in. By the way Baroness Warsi has resigned. Just though you should know as you seem to be about six months behind with everything else in Norfolk. The news will no doubt trickle your way eventually.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Del Boy

    Tuesday, August 5, 2014

  • The Canary is chirping again. Must have spilled its seeds whilst talking to itself. "Er off side guv, handball, in off the post, know what I mean, that was a penalty mate. " The campaigns very own little yellow mascot is pecking its mirror once more.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Del Boy

    Tuesday, August 5, 2014

  • So according to D, who is obviously one of the controlling brains at NCC, DCLG or CW, Norfolk County Council officers, Government Officials and NCC members are all cor.rupt and working secretly against the will of the people of Norfolk!! What an awful County we live in. Alternatively D is just an insignificant little nobody who li.es through his back teeth to try to get people to speak to him sad little person.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Canary Boy

    Tuesday, August 5, 2014

  • That last one by D had me genuinely laughing out loud!

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    LynnLegend

    Tuesday, August 5, 2014

  • That’s an interesting account D, but Suffolk was being processed long before WAG was set up, it needed to be signed off before WAG’s first meeting, and I see no problem with what they are doing because the grounds for doing so have now changed. Of course in order to build the plant, CW need NCC’s permission as owners of the land, and as this decision has been taken away from the officers and Cabinet to rubber stamp, it’s not quite so cut and dry is it? What was once a very straight route for CW has become rather meandering, and CW are likely to find they have become their very own oxbow lake.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Honest John

    Tuesday, August 5, 2014

  • As for WAG it is a smoke screen of deceit. Politicians of conviction do not vote in favour of something for Suffolk and shortly afterwards form a group supposedly against it in Norfolk. The reasoning of the actions relate to a need to maintain an outward appearance to mask the guilt of a secret reality. A few last minute adjustments to the original application have assisted in clarification of some outstanding issues that were deemed salient in order to negate the concerns raised by a certain politician. The relevant planning issues have been addressed and the case file has been updated to assist the department in arriving at the correct decision. The project is ongoing and the consortium have announced that in their press statement. NCC are welcome to enter into a new contract before the new plant is finished.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Dickens

    Tuesday, August 5, 2014

  • Welcome back Dic.kens, so you still believe NCC are going to renew the contract then? By ‘the Incinerator Group’ do you mean the WAG are working towards keeping the incinerator alive? Hard to believe old pal, I thought they seemed a good bunch of chaps. We all know what CW said in the press but I heard a rum.our there were stiff conseq.uences following one of the submissions to the SOS.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Honest John

    Tuesday, August 5, 2014

  • You really wouldn't make a good detective D. as you appear completely clueless as to what is happening. I have to admire your persistence though - there must be a lot at stake for you.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Sandy.L

    Tuesday, August 5, 2014

  • As for the campaigns other silly notion of using multiple names on the governments website that was also daft. My contacts informed me some time ago that they were aware of the same IP addresses appearing over and over again with different names. Hence off the record the whole lot were deemed to be of no practical value. Nice try but no bunch of flowers. Who has been advising this lot ? Let me guess - Fen 2 by any chance ?

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Del Boy

    Tuesday, August 5, 2014

  • Poor Fen 2 has been using hundreds of aliases in an attempt to shore up the campaign but it failed. The Planning Inspector and Pickles offices was informed long ago about the fictitious names being used by the campaign to make them look more impressive than the half dozen they really are. What a shame. All those weeks spent typing up letters and making up names and all the time they were being ignored. Waste of stamps wasn’t it Fen ? Caught bang to rights as they say. What do they say in China? ‘Never despise the snake for one day he may become a dragon.’

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Del Boy

    Tuesday, August 5, 2014

  • Oh 'D' - I see you're still on the LN website despite having several of your usernames closed down here at the EDP because they sussed you out. 'Seymour Knockers'? - I should cocoa! I can well imagine that username would come to mind after staring at the mirror long and hard, natch!!

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Fenscape 2

    Tuesday, August 5, 2014

  • 'D' has got one thing right for once - the reason that CW have withdrawn all their cuddly websites and contact lines is because they no longer have a mandate to tell us all how super an incinerator on our doorstep is any more because they have lost the backing of both the public and local government too. Look out for the website that finally tells it like it is, complete with all the truthful data about air pollution and infant mortality that they have tried to hide from us all in the meantime..... Willows? How whimsical and camp; More like Deadly Nightshade FYI.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Fenscape 2

    Tuesday, August 5, 2014

  • How funny - 'D' says "At least that bit of trickery was exposed in good time with several well aimed letters" but my contacts at the DCLG say that he didn't use his real name and he didn't include a home address either - and why do we think this is? I'll tell you why - because he's just posting on here in the hope that he can demonstrate his sad 8 letters in support of an incinerator when the people of Norfolk voted 65,516 against such a development and wrote in their thousands against it on NCC's planning portal. Fact.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Fenscape 2

    Tuesday, August 5, 2014

  • How funny - 'D' says "At least that bit of trickery was exposed in good time with several well aimed letters" but my contacts at the DCLG say that he didn't have the courtesy of using his real name and he didn't include a home address either - and why do we think this is? I'll tell you why - because he's just posting on here in the hope that he can demonstrate his piffling 8 letters in support of an incinerator when the people of Norfolk voted 65,516 against such a development and wrote in their thousands against it on NCC's planning portal. Fact.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Fenscape 2

    Tuesday, August 5, 2014

  • Give over C. Go figure. As you are a football hooligan I will use a language you will understand. “Look ref he’s got the ball but he was off side but still running with it. He’s crossed it but the other side picked it up……..they’re running now but hold on they’ve fumbled it and lost it again…and again …and again……cries of handball and lots of fouls but they’ve steamed up the pitch and stuck it in the back of the net and no one saw that one coming. They thought it was all over……...It is now”

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Del Boy

    Monday, August 4, 2014

  • I would say it is very decent of the Incinerator Group to offer Norfolk Council the opportunity to renew their contract in the future given all that has gone on. The consortium maintain that they are pressing ahead with the project, as per their statement to the press, and they await ratification from the SOS following further submissions to that office.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Dickens

    Monday, August 4, 2014

  • D you are such a fool!! Give it up man everyone knows that you have totally lost the plot we understand that you find defeat hard to cope with but you simply must.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Canary Boy

    Monday, August 4, 2014

  • Watton lad- tend to agree. Bees create wealth and accumulate resources for themselves in a circular way, and benefit other species. As humans we shirk this behaviour and throw to a place called "AWAY"; polluting to the landair by landfill or by incineration. The solutions are recycling more plastics and other resources to 70% plus. Mechanically sorted different plastic gardes, triangles numbers, commands a price of £50 to £200 per tonne at the MRF gate. Incineration will be completely obsolete in a few years time when waste is designs out more and technologies like plasma gasification or MBT are more standard smaller scale solutions. Any further pursuit of EfWincineration in Norfolk is a complete, utter, absolute, nutty waste of money, resources and human endeavour.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Rob Whittle

    Monday, August 4, 2014

  • Plastics are produced from crude oil and this process is harmful to the environment. Burning plastics in incinerators is harmful to the environment. All heavy duty plastic benches, seating and street signs in the country are made from recycled plastics. They are indestructible; most have been in use for the last 25 years and still look new. Cannot comment on the cost of production but I believe we cannot afford not to recycle plastics for environmental sake. The EU are keen to councils to start reclaiming plastic food trays, containers to convert to fuel for cars. The EU legislation prohibits glass from being sent to incinerators as this product is recyclable. This is bad news for incinerator companies because they need glass to bind incinerator bottom ash. I expect Incinerator bottom ash will be sent to landfill sites similar to flue ash.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    wattonlad

    Monday, August 4, 2014

  • D from the number of pro comments here, using your strange logic, we can summise only a dozen folk actually supported the burner. Which is probably fairly near the truth!

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Rob Whittle

    Monday, August 4, 2014

  • A few might want to rule it out for political gain but the rest want to press ahead for financial gain. What else can they do with it all? Bury it ? Make highly expensive products from recycled waste that no one will ever buy? Or just burn it?

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Mr A. Schicklgruber

    Monday, August 4, 2014

  • I thought it was strange that when the project was at the planning stage there was no evidence of a big campaign group. It just turned out to be two or three individuals with a hidden agenda ( house prices) who took their families and friends to meetings to swell the numbers to ten or so. What seems to have upset the powers that be is that someone informed them about the campaigners trick of sending in letters under assumed names to give the impression of a large lobby against when the truth is there was none. At least that bit of trickery was exposed in good time with several well aimed letters. Mind you they are still doing the same thing on here.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Del Boy

    Monday, August 4, 2014

  • "I have always said I was never against incineration. I felt King’s Lynn was too big given the amount of waste Norfolk needed to deal with." - E.Truss MP.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Jack Bantoft

    Monday, August 4, 2014

  • Jack Magwith, there is no evidence or rationale for a smaller commercial burner. The planning process ended at Pickles, which is reliance on the contract that was cancelled, waste and heat clients- there aren't,t any and the site which is NCC owneddetermined. Officers no another burner whatever size isn't a goer locally or politically. Again for a commercial contract any other waste and mineral EfW allocated WAS sites are limited around Norfolk, subject to NCC planning DBERR Vince cable approval.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Rob Whittle

    Sunday, August 3, 2014

  • It’s marvellous, while the planning application was active CW needed as many members of the public the write in to support the incinerator. Less than a handful did write in supporting and a couple attended the public inquiry. I would have thought people commenting in the EDP24 promoting incineration would have also written in to NCC planning as all members of the public were invited to comment. This could have potentially doubled the supporting letters to eight. This reflects badly on consensus to justify an incinerator.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Interpol

    Sunday, August 3, 2014

  • It looks very much like some improvements may have been made to the submissions to Mr Pickles office and that following ratification a plant of some sort will be built. Some of these things are 20 years in the pipeline. I read some tweets suggesting NCC are preparing a new deal following on from some secret top level meeting or other at the end of last month. That is probably what has sparked the formation of this new group.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Jack Bantoft

    Sunday, August 3, 2014

  • Clearly something going on hence the set up of the new 'group'. New smaller burner version probably. Hardly likely to advertise it with web sites given the fuss before are they ?

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Magwitch

    Sunday, August 3, 2014

  • Mad dog, I can see you are imagining; there is absolutely no evidence of any new development stage by Cory Wheelbarrow in Norfolk.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Rob Whittle

    Sunday, August 3, 2014

  • You are behind the times because those web sites and numbers were dumped ages ago due to the changes. Making way for the new one I would imagine. Switching from application to development stage.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Mad Dog

    Sunday, August 3, 2014

  • You are behind the times because those web sites and numbers were scrapped ages ago due to the changes. Making way for the new one I would imagine. Switching from application to development stage.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Mad Dog

    Sunday, August 3, 2014

  • Rob not only is any mention of Willows from their website been removed but the websites willowsprc dot co dot uk and fuelnorfolk dot org dot uk have also vanished. The phone number 08082611504 for fuelnorfolksfuture is disco.nnected and 08456000168 willows prc responds with the message this number has been dis.abled, bit like the in.cinerator. I expect once the com.pen.sation is paid over the 4 willows power and recycling companies will be dissolved.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Canary Boy

    Sunday, August 3, 2014

  • Cory-Wheelbarrow have totally irradiated its Norfolk willows page, guess D is trolling in a total fantasy world, without two wet matchsticks to rub together. Any commercial burner contact will simply not happen in Norfolk, no contract, no planning, no waste or heat clients, no PFIwaste grants money, no profit, no future.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Rob Whittle

    Sunday, August 3, 2014

  • Sounds like Canary Troll has emailed himself by mistake again. That reminds me I must nip out and get those two short planks from the DIY store.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Del Boy

    Sunday, August 3, 2014

  • Had a really intetesting email late last night poor old D Its virtually all over and he is going to have to come to terms with total defeat not to mention loads of sticky egg all over his face. I hope he can find another proposal to become NCC's number 1 supporting troll for. Suggest the NDR as it has a strong collaboration of very learned opponents battling hard against it. Stephen Heard and his chums will make excellent combatants for old D to try to defeat with his ill informed garbage.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Canary Boy

    Sunday, August 3, 2014

  • It`s nice to see, at long last, that real progress is being made. I expect this group of councillors and officers will come up with some meaningful proposals. The incinerator is dead and buried (no pun intended).

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    democrat

    Saturday, August 2, 2014

  • All these posts today and nothing from Dic.kens, come on old pal, I’d like to hear whether you still think NCC are going to support CW behind closed doors and what your take is on this WAG. Clearly it doesn’t stand for Women Against George after all.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Honest John

    Saturday, August 2, 2014

  • George, surely you mean KLWINSWCSH&95%MONSF,Kings Lynn Without Incineration etc etc and 95% most other non stupid folk?

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Rob Whittle

    Saturday, August 2, 2014

  • My life there is nothing wrong with a campaign to stop an incinerator to keep up house prices. I read about someone who ran a campaign and managed to stop a wind farm just so he could sell a house already. Makes good business sense. These campaigners have a lot at stake. One of them said he managed to get rid of one property already. Good luck my boy.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Solomon Cohen

    Saturday, August 2, 2014

  • Cheers Watton nee Canary Democrat. What I meant was King’s Lynn Without Incineration So We Can Sell Our Houses, or KLWISWCSOH, as it is known throughout Norfolk. Missed off the 'S' for Sell.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    George Peters

    Saturday, August 2, 2014

  • Officers are trying to collate that information from district councils so it is available at future meetings. That statement from your article says it all really, the Districts and County should already have this type of information about how much collection costs.The realisation that they now have to have a better relationship with businesses and their waste costs isn't rocket science.It needs Government to urgently legislate for a county wide overarching collection and disposal system.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    bedoomed

    Saturday, August 2, 2014

  • George nee Del. How wrong you are mate. I used to live near Watton when the incinerator debate raised its ugly head and now moved to Dereham but still opposed to any form of incineration of household waste. Suffolk CC has committed its ratepayers to supply waste to the incinerator for the next 30 years or pay huge penalties. When Norfolk 2 year contract comes to an end Suffolk will have to plead with other counties for waste to burn. If Suffolk recycles more in turn reduces feedstock and they are obliged to burn more waste from outside their county. Amsterdam are now desperate for feedstock or end up pay penalties to residents or businesses to supply energy. No incinerators have been built lately as it is still the most unpopular form of waste treatment. Cory Wheelabrator only UK incinerator at Bexley built after 16 years in planning stage speaks volumes. They still have an empty order book proof incineration is controversial as ever but rewarding to shareholders! Since 1995 not one incinerator has been built in the USA and Europe has turned its back on incinerator technology in favour of recycling.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    wattonlad

    Saturday, August 2, 2014

  • King’s Lynn Without Incineration So We Can Sell Our Houses, or KLWISWCOH as it is known, is the campaign group for those who have a house to sell near the site for the new incinerator. Join today and help them hoodwink some gullible politicians.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    George Peters

    Saturday, August 2, 2014

  • Del, its simple to understand,perhaps not in your case, why WAG's first move is to rule out incineration Norfolk wide; its to control money wasting officials (who aren't simply trusted), stopping the likes of rogue councillors like Cllr Monstrosity and Cllr Pratt and alike from proposing another burner and aligning county policy with that of Norwich City Council. The chap who semi caused the burner mess has made a side move to North Somerset for his mess. Obviously Suffolk isn,t a long term solution, and I see one of your tactics is to unearth double standards,when short term pragmatism is called for in the short term. I am not a supporter of Cllr Coke and chums, indeed the actual balance on this decision is Labour and anti burner Tories. So I and many others can't really follow your ralionale,as its not really there,trolling dressed up as a different opinion, which is obvious to all. Next instead of a capital intensive burner, the alternatives such as Zero Waste centres MBTAD technologies are proposed! In 2005 Cllr Monstrosity and cabinet chums could have easily chosen a non burner direction,with little cost difference, he didn't, so 10 years of mess; so blame Uncles Cator and Bev et al for this complete mess, and indeed for giving Toby C and chums a winning issue to ride on.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Rob Whittle

    Saturday, August 2, 2014

  • Micro examination of specific text in planning law! Why? Could it be that CW have had a tip of as to why the recommendation from pins legal bods is refusal! The problem for CW all along was depending on cherry licked extracts of text which backed up their cause while ignoring the sections within the same document which went contrary to their cause. Planning law must be applied in full context of the law, cherry picked words wont cut the mustard! Additionally if they are paying experts of such calibre, at their own cost for once, they must be getting really desperate.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Canary Boy

    Saturday, August 2, 2014

  • Oh and Canary I know it is hard for you what with being a football fan but do try and get your facts right. It is your alter ego Demo who said in January this year on this very blog; “Pickles has made his decision. The decision has been made. On environmental grounds of course. Not wise. Just in the know” .................I am still laughing along with everyone else..........talk to your mate and get it right. Just for once.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Del Boy

    Saturday, August 2, 2014

  • Oh Lynn, I know the article invites people to comment and rightly so. Try explaining that small thing to Demo and Canary. They think they know so much and no one else must have a view that is contrary to theirs but of course every reader here can attest to their input. I have kept a careful note of their gems of wisdom on a postage stamp I found in the back of my desk drawer.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Del Boy

    Saturday, August 2, 2014

  • Toby says incinerating Norfolk waste is OK........in Suffolk...... and pushes for it. Now on the other hand we have the anti mob claiming it is all over and nothing else to be said or done yet low and behold a new group is formed (with no power) to study the impact of incinerators. Their first stupid move is to vote on no incinerators which of course speaks volumes for their credibility and also the Chairman who voted a week ago to burn it all in another County. The question is if it is all over then why do we have a new group who appear very worried about incineration and want to ban it (except the Chairman who likes it in other places) and also a company pressing ahead with their original plan and still spending large sums on experts to provide accurate information in respect of several micro examinations of specific texts of planning law ?

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Del Boy

    Saturday, August 2, 2014

  • Del. The article invites readers to comment “Incineration in Norfolk must be ruled out, says group” So I am responding and my point is officials must do more site investigation before committing £millions of Norfolk tax payers money to any project. Proximity principle must prevail to reduce vehicle movements and districts should be taken to task if they do not meet recycling rates. If the pro-recycling lobby stopped giving input I expect the anti-recycling lobby would accuse them of stopping the incinerator but don’t care where our waste ends up. The anti-recycling lobby did not care about dioxins with the harmful flue ash that would have been dumped at Kings Cliffe landfill site. All contents of the black bin is recyclable and Norfolk should work hard to achieve zero waste.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    LynBin

    Saturday, August 2, 2014

  • Democrat excellent news on another massive file going to pins its usually our side providing reading materials for Mr Pickles but I am sure we will submit an equally massive file in the near future. Whoever submits it the result is months of further delay on a decision being announced. Strange that D s friends have caused such a further delay when he has insisted for months that Mr Pickles had made the decision. Nevermind with the general election looming, if the blues want Truss and dear Brandon to continue in power, they will not be announcing anything that may rock the political boat. Chances of Brandon holding Yarmouth get slimmer by the day but granting consent ti a company that have fleeced Norfolk of over 30 million would simply be political sui.cide.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Canary Boy

    Saturday, August 2, 2014

  • You simply don`t get it do you D? Or perhaps you do, but you cannot face failure. Accepting it might actually help you. Walk away from your problems. How did you know it was an ex-council house?

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    democrat

    Saturday, August 2, 2014

  • Democrat our best chum - D - seems to think we are just a load of nimbi's he doesn't realise yet that the aim is to make sure that no mass burn incinerators are built anywhere in Norfolk to deal with our residual municipal waste. Yes sadly, on the downside, our aim will pro.tect Daisy & Mi.ck over in Gt Yar.mouth, Bor.rett & Jo.rdan in Breckland and even Som.erville wherever she has found a stone to sli.ther under. On the up side those with ve.sted interests in burning our waste are going to be sadly disappointed. Hey Hoo I am sure they will have their fingers in other pies with so much development planned! For example I am watching to see if an application is put in by the Jo.rdan family over in Colt.ishall to enlarge their campsite business. Also keeping an eye on Cir.clet Homes.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Canary Boy

    Saturday, August 2, 2014

  • Signed in as Democrat now have you? Don’t get too excited about the house. Ex council properties are the ones that most often fall through. As said if it is all over why has Toby and friends set up another group to oppose it ? Not over at all and they know it. You do realise that the company involved does not need anything from NCC don’t you? Obviously not. Why do you think they have just sent to London a massive file of additional supporting documents ? Wakey wakey.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Del Boy

    Saturday, August 2, 2014

  • Waste of time trying to wise up Canary. Tunnel vision. If it's not about football you can forget it. I tried to explain the a simple thing to him once about planning process but I would have had a better response from a fish finger.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Stanley T

    Saturday, August 2, 2014

  • D, you will be pleased to know that I`ve had an offer on one of my houses, but I think I shall hold out for more now that prices are increasing with the knowledge that the incinerator won`t be built. I`ll be happy then. That, of course, was the only reason I was against it. Not because they are extremely dangerous to health. This was over months ago but you didn`t listen, probably because you refuse to let your wound heal. You know what I mean, don`t you?

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    democrat

    Saturday, August 2, 2014

  • I am talking about the group set up with Toby and friends. If it is all over and no chance of incineration why set up the group? Far too deep for C.Boy. I will try to include the terms ‘off side’ ‘hand ball’ and ‘penalty’ in future to simplify things even further for you. Waste of space.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Del Boy

    Saturday, August 2, 2014

  • C Boy what are you on about ? I know you are a football fanatic but even someone with your limited skills should see I am talking about the group set up by Coke & Co. Crikey two short planks is not even close. Forget this subject chum. The sports pages are at the back. Stick to what you know.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Del Boy

    Saturday, August 2, 2014

  • D whatever are you on about? As usual you make no sense at all. Mind interesting they you state anti incinetator mob and setting up unofficial groups etc. Does that mean they number more than a handful of people, as you have always insisted were the only objectors, who managed to foil your plans so well. Dont expect a protracted exchange with me, I have broken my own resolve to ignore your drivel, but your latest rant was just so stu.pid, and contrary to your normal chant of just a handful of noisy protesters, that I had to comment. Get it into your head that no incinerator built by your American friends will ever be built at Saddlebow I have absolutely no doubts on that at all.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Canary Boy

    Saturday, August 2, 2014

  • Cor that’s funny. I thought the anti incinerator mob were shouting from the roof tops about this being all over and done with but here we have a nervous bunch of no hopers in a flap forming un official groups and running to the press with silly statements. Not so sure now are you ?

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Del Boy

    Saturday, August 2, 2014

  • The photo shot above illustrates Kings Lynn has enough pollution. This is the power station and will be replaced with a larger plant. Adjacent Palm Paper has a humongous paper recycling plant and no wonder Kings Lynn’s air quality is below EU standards. You can see why residents of west Norfolk were not pleased to have an incinerator on their door steps. The extra 1100 movements per week would considerably increase Nitrous oxide levels and the UK has been warned to keep below limits or face huge fines. Officials at County Hall should have raised this issue before considering incineration and it was Cory Wheelabrators duty to advise NCC air quality would deteriorate due to extra vehicle movements.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    LynBin

    Saturday, August 2, 2014

  • Canary Boy- this has been the problem, many Tory councilscabinets (not always). not having the the faith to run with local collective business solutions, and going to mega waste transnationals with stock burner solutions. NCC officers have been seriously been kicked in the goo lies, but frankly it has all been self inflicted. They knew since 2006, pushing an incinerator through was a high stakes poker proposal, which they lost, and sucked the Norfolk tax payer unnecessarily into a £30 million bill, with no waste solution, not a brick laid after 10 years.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Rob Whittle

    Thursday, July 31, 2014

  • Bright Green were also looking to develop a zero waste centre on a 17 acre site at Ketteringham back in 2008-09 SNDC didnt follow through on the project but at least back then they were looking at technologies a million miles from incineration. Hardly surprising as SNDC had been through their own incinerator battle at Costessey.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Canary Boy

    Thursday, July 31, 2014

  • 2 million residents in the city of San Francisco recycle 70% via their 3 bin system plus glass. This is very similar to Norwich's blue bin system that has seen a pitiful 15% rate in 2006 rise to 50% this year. Great Yarmouth is the weak link and needs to adaptcatch up. Into is correct for the last 30% we will need designing out waste, incentives, MBTplasma of residual landfill mining. Norfolk needs to get groups of private businesses int o 3-4 Zero Waste centres as was proposed by Brightgreen for LowestoftWaveney in 2007.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Rob Whittle

    Thursday, July 31, 2014

  • D. I thought you had Toby in your back pocket! Is the honeymoon over?

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Canary Boy

    Thursday, July 31, 2014

  • Toby Coke, that’s the guy that is all for incineration in Suffolk, has now joined a small group claiming he doesn’t like the same idea a few miles over the border in Norfolk. This little biased group of self serving Councillors then have the nerve to claim they are responsible democrats who like to see fair play and yet their first task is to announce they will not listen to any discussion about incinerators. An odd position for a Chairman of anything worth listening to should adopt. In short the group should be re named Toby’s Not So Bright Ideas Group. Shall we all chip in and buy him a drum to bang or shall we let him continue blowing his big trumpet ?

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Mr A. Schicklgruber

    Thursday, July 31, 2014

  • part two.Zero waste sites are another option, replacing the now expensive 'one sheet of plaster only' sites. Zero waste sites should ideally pay us for what recylables we bring to them at our costs. Any public waste contracts we enter into should be of a time limited kind, as to allow for the evolution of waste management to modernise our process at intervalls. Solutions that do not intend to reduce landfill considerably, that ignore enhanced landfill mining, are a continuance of non committal. We need to act sustainably in the long term, not leave thousands of landfill sites as a dangerous legacy to our children.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    ingo wagenknecht

    Thursday, July 31, 2014

  • Daisy wants to spend 300.000 on asking us all, doubling up. We have been asked already, but DR likes to and further delay the inevitable. Incineration is dead and dusted, now lets look at the real solutions that can reduce landfill charges, options which can ameliorate landfill sites and return them to woodland without polluting all and sundry. I agree with Rob's suggestion of remunerating us, the recyclers, after all the waste belongs to us. Then we can make the decision to spend it locally. In return we have to accept an MBT plant or a gas plasma plant, modern means to recyle and re use of materials. Norfolk businesses can be cajolled into recycling more and those who use recycled materials for new products deserve publicity for their efforts. This obviously does not include newspapers who like the green image and talk of their use of recycled paper, whilst advocating incineration in print. Norfolk needs to deal with its resources and we could start with blackspots such as Gt. Yarmouth were the public sector mindset seems to be in the 19th century, still, due to the lack of resolve by their representatives in the past.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    ingo wagenknecht

    Thursday, July 31, 2014

  • So a group is set up to look at future disposal and the first thing they do is declare no to a mass burner. Now would that be biased, pre-determined, arrogance or just pure stupidity. Would they prefer lots of little ones? Who knows what incineration will be available in the next 5 years. If they have a clean sheet then all options should be fairly and equally considered, which includes moving away from some green options. We only buy solar panels because they are so heavily discounted. Technology will catch up, eventually and then perhaps the greener options may become more viable rather than milking the public financially to appease a minority.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Andy T

    Thursday, July 31, 2014

  • I expect 90% of black bin waste is made up of supermarket bulky plastic food trays. This is a valuable commodity and needs to be collected separately or utilise the green bin. I can see no reason why the black bin should not need collected on a monthly or two monthly basis. I assume all Norfolk residents use the grey food bin so there would not be a health issue. I believe some other counties have monthly plastics and glass collections. The easy way would be to have one bin and use MBT AD or equivalent technology.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Knee deep In Toxic ash

    Thursday, July 31, 2014

  • Norfolk Waste Advisory Group ? I think they call that a dog with no teeth. Good PR though.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Inactive Account

    Thursday, July 31, 2014

  • Daisy here we go again you only see a choice between landfill and incineration! For heavens sake research your subject or better still concentrate your brain on the NDR and your nimby objection to it. The NDR will inconvenience you so you are squeeling like a stuck pi.g before you accuse me again of nimbyism over here I would just point out I have objected to the NDR on financial grounds. The road will not impact on me personally at all but Norfolk cannot afford it no more than we can afford an incinerator.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Canary Boy

    Thursday, July 31, 2014

  • It's finished and if won't happen as people now have there eyes open. These articles are put on here to stir people up and to get Toby Coke's name in the paper. The man hasn't done anything like the rest of NCC, he is all talk like the rest of them.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Sweet cheeks

    Thursday, July 31, 2014

  • Daisy you really couldn't be much more behind the times. Can't you see how badly we need green technologies? How "set fire to it" can ever be a solution is beyond me.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    LynnLegend

    Thursday, July 31, 2014

  • So this is the complete death knell, private or public of incineration in Norfolk. Sorry DB, NCC won't be a waste client for a private burner, so that from DB was drivel. Norfolk needs to get up to 70% recycling to reduce the £75 per tonne landfill tax, and spend less on this from council tax. Householders need cash incentives, wardstreetcommunity based incentives to get to this level. Councils get only £1 out of the value of £35 value of recyclables from companies, which isn't enough, and zero cash back to households for their efforts again isn't enough. Sorting trash must mean cash at the community doorsteps for communityparish level and spending on aspects like extra tree planting, seats, planting schemes, kids play area improvements, Bikeability bike training schemes for youngers, evening events at community hallketc, things that are oh a priority basis currently. At the individual householder level it won't work as this will mean bin chipsbin policing which has failed. Also the quality of recycling by council contractorWCA has to improve to get the best prices from MFRs, and this needs better doorstep messagesfeedback, something that has reduced over the last 3 years.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Rob Whittle

    Thursday, July 31, 2014

  • NCC should be prohibited from entering into any recycling agreement where they do not have proof and the evidence of their own eyes that the materials are recycled and reused in the UK. There is nothing green about recycling milk cartons to have them end up in a pile in Indonesia or China and never recycled, nor about any scheme which is a cover for dumping and not recycling.Nor should they particpate in any scheme which uses energy for collection and processing to create an unnecessary end product. Better to have a unilateral Norfolk ban on plastic packaging !

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Daisy Roots

    Thursday, July 31, 2014

  • Ask the people of Norfolk as a whole whether they want to pay landfill taxes and higher council tax to pay for these high minded ideals and to continue polluting the earth and potentially polluting ground water. Or if they want to waste money and energy on fiddling "green" schemes which are about as green as the Sahara. Or whether they would back money saving or even making power from biomass and refuse burners. Just to see once and for all who really supports the hypocrisy of refusing incineration or power from waste in Norfolk but continuing to send our nasty stuff to Lincolnshire and Suffolk. That policy stinks as much as any incinerator would. And ask only council tax payers, because looking at the article the emphasis is not on efficient processes but on how much they can get away with charging those of us who pay.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Daisy Roots

    Thursday, July 31, 2014

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

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Homes24
Jobs24
Drive24
LocalSearch24
MyDate24
MyPhotos24
FamilyNotices24
Weddingsite

loading...

Classifieds, browse or search them online now

The Canary magazine
Order your copy of The Canary magazine

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT