The proposed site of the incinerator at Saddlebow. Picture: Ian Burt
Karen Colebourn to give evidence on ecology at Incinerator inquiry
Monday, March 11, 2013
10:11 AM
The public inquiry into the plans for a proposed incinerator at Saddlebow, King’s Lynn, will recommence today.
Due to the length of evidence and cross-examination there have been some delays to the original schedule so Karen Colebourn will begin giving her evidence on ecology today.
Ms Colebourn, who is speaking on behalf of Cory Wheelabrator, was due to finish giving evidence on March 8, but is yet to start.
A major topic that Ms Colebourn is likely to approach is the effect of such a facility on Roydon Common, a nature reserve near King’s Lynn.
Others who are due to begin giving evidence this week include Professor Jim Bridges, on health, Simon Aumonier, on carbon and Roger Miles, who will be speaking on planning, need and alternative sites.
The case for Norfolk County Council is scheduled to begin on March 14, with Neil Cameron QC calling Mark Broomfield who will be giving evidence on air quality and health.
After Mr Broomfield has been cross-examined, Richard Smithers will be speaking on ecology and habitat.
Caroline Jeffrey is then intended to give her evidence on planning policy.
Next week, commencing on March 18, is due to be a non-sitting week with the inquiry returning at 1pm on March 26.
The inquiry continues today at the Professional Development Centre on Kilham’s Way, King’s Lynn.
Other News Articles
- Photo gallery: City of Ale launched in Norwich
- Norwich walk-in health centre at risk of closure
- Photo gallery: More Norfolk and Norwich Festival fun this weekend
- Bid to end stalemate at Norfolk County Council
- New deal could end deadlock at Norfolk County Council
- Muslim community in Norwich condemns brutal killing of soldier in Woolwich
- Race abuse case against Norwich defender Sebastien Bassong dropped
- Update: Road reopened after man airlifted to hospital after crash involving lorry and van near Bungay today
- A couple were rescued by Hunstanton Hovercraft today after their car was cut off by the tide
- Norwich child sex offender will not be re-sentenced
ADVERTISEMENT
14 comments
Has anyone spoke up for the reclusive Saddlebow Bog Dwellers yet? They exist on diet of discarded rubbish, paper mush soup and the odd Great Crested Newt. I fear that if the Bog Dwellers are forced to move because of the incinerator, then we could be heading for a plague of Great Crested Newts or even worse.
Report this comment
popeye
Friday, March 15, 2013
Inquiries of this type are often political exercises to appease the electorate. A democratic decision (like it or not) taken by elected people (council in this case) cannot be overturned unless a Public Inquiry can provide evidence that the decision was fundamentally flawed and contained errors sufficient to provide enough reason to quash that decision. To date there has not been anything that clearly demonstrates any wrong. Not liking Councillors, calling them names and shouting out at Public Inquiries does not count. Nor does living near a new development you do not agree with, trying to claim it is unhealthy, dangerous, nasty, ugly or a big fiddle. Strong evidence is needed here - and fast.
Report this comment
Dickens
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Legal action will be the way to stop this farce dead in its tracks. I have no faith in or expectation of the inquiry. DaveCam said that the people must have their say, but to what end? He said much the same about Leveson and then obediently bowed down to the vested interests. From a populist perspective it seems that agreeing to a public enquiry keeps a lot of voters happy, perhaps because they incorrectly assume common sense will prevail and they will get what they want.
Report this comment
Police Commissioner ???
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
There is no case for legal action after this Inquiry. Nor any appetite for it.
Report this comment
Dickens
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Ingo this makes a good case for legal action and also all anomalies should be sent to Eric Pickles after the inquiry finishes via political representatives.
Report this comment
Choice
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Mr. Bridges is clearly a compromised witness. With CW refusing to specify the grade of filters they will use its becoming clear that they are hiding vital information were it counts. The quality of filter is not a commercially confidential issue, it is necessary for both, public and the inspector, to see what emissions are filtered and what regime is proposed for exchanging them. Further, Ms. Colebourns expertise is in ecological design and environmental planning, her evidence totally avoids the human ecology or the impact on public health, her main concerns, and she is working with undisclosed figures regards to filtration, is that of Roydon common. She fails to take account of the impact on Norfolk's biggest blueberry growing Farm at Fairgreen, within two miles of the planned waste burner, 40 acres of soft fruit grown, directly exposed to CW's emissions on 280 days of the year. Her evidence is selective.
Report this comment
ingo wagenknecht
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
I recall from the opening "evidence" a suggestion that CW will fund many worthwhile community projects during the lifetime of the operation, one of which could well be free cigarettes handed out at local schools, thereby masking the effect of its toxic output. Bridges can put them in touch with the right people. And don't be so hard on the old boy, he's just topping up his pension, albeit on the back of the suffering of millions.
Report this comment
Mr Cameron Isaliar
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
I think you will find that Professor Sir Richard Doll made the causal link between toxins from smoking and lung cancer many many years ago. If you deny that then you must be a member of the Flat Earth Society. The Government has graphic adverts on the TV showing what happens if you inhale toxins. So why are they so keenly enthusiastic on a technology that spews out even worse toxins than cigarettes and affects everyone in the vicinity not just those who choose to insert a cancer stick in their mouth and incinerate the other end? With 100 of these poison makers planned I can only assume they are trying to thin out the population.
Report this comment
Electra
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
If Professor Bridges retired pre 2009 his evidence is worthless as he giving information from the past. His product knowledge would be suspect because he would have to prove he is conversant with today’s technology and retired means retired.
Report this comment
Choice
Monday, March 11, 2013
This is the same Professor Bridges that worked on behalf of the tobacco industry. Extract from the Vancouver Sun News paper 2009 “Jim Bridges, a retired professor of toxicology at the University of Surrey in England, testified in 1995 at U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration hearings into the issue of indoor air quality, including second-hand tobacco smoke. At the hearings he questioned a then-recent Royal College of Physicians study that found there was sufficient evidence to suggest a connection between smoking and cancer, saying: "In terms of the animal studies which have been done with tobacco smoke, it's generally been the case that cancer hasn't been shown."
Report this comment
Knee deep In Toxic ash
Monday, March 11, 2013
Not exactly on time for the start yourself though were you d.ickens? There was enough hot air from Bridges to replace the incinerator.
Report this comment
Honest John
Monday, March 11, 2013
How many protesters turned up today ? No wonder the press lost interest. It does not pay to over egg the pudding early on.
Report this comment
Dickens
Monday, March 11, 2013
Looks like the EDP live blog and reportage from Kings Lynn has run into the long grass of irrelevance. After all we are getting our updates from live tweets and direct emails which are more detailed and with less spin.
Report this comment
ingo wagenknecht
Monday, March 11, 2013
The impact on the ecology is determined by the self regulatory pollution testing regime. It will be the polluters who are in charge of emission testing and the intervals when this is done.
Report this comment
ingo wagenknecht
Monday, March 11, 2013