Expert Advice & Support (Click to read more)

Councillors willing to throw more money at incineration!

NEW • 18/11/14 - Ten Councillors voted for having incineration in Norfolk’s waste strategy. Council tax payers are well aware Norfolk has ‘blown’ around £30million trying to force incineration on two Norfolk communities (Costessey then King’s Lynn) with nothing to show for it except anger and mistrust of the County’s decision makers.

Some Councillors cling to outdated incineration, when other technologies have surpassed it. Even previously difficult waste such as nappies can be treated economically without burning or burying. New methods save money and don't force communities to breath microscopic particulates.

It’s incredible to think anyone would want another go at forcing incineration on Norfolk. What on earth persuaded 2 Labour councillors to back a Conservative incinerator proposal; after Labours’ election pledge opposing it?

December 15th will be a test of the entire County Council, who can be trusted, will they finally stop throwing public money at incinerator companies?

If you oppose the incinerator do join us at County Hall on 15th December. If you would like to car share there is ample free parking (at your own risk) at Fairgreen Farms, Hill Road, Middleton, Norfolk, PE32 1RN, you would need to arrive by 08:30 latest. The meeting at County Hall starts at 10am.

For more information email:

How can the ‘Willows’ Incinerator Save Money?

Norfolk County Council officials have no idea how to negotiate the best deal. At £105 per tonne the ‘Willows’ represents the most expensive incinerator on this scale anywhere in the UK (according to official figures published by the Waste Research Action Programme). The UK average cost is £78 per tonne!

The ‘Willows’ needed a Government subsidy to help it compete, after losing £169M of subsidy it is nonsense to say the ‘Willows’ would save money.

Paying above the going rate for 25 years matters, UEA Economist Dr Chris Edwards found better value proposals could save up to £8.5M every year instead of using the ‘Willows’ incinerator. Even if Norfolk has to pay a ridiculous £20M-£30M penalty to abandon the contract it is still cheaper to get out than continue.

Click here to

↓ Click on image below for more information. ↓

Government Subsidy withdrawn.

Government Subsidy withdrawn.
18th October 2013 The Government subsidy for the incinerator has gone. This is a most welcome spending cut and a very sensible move, just in time to prevent a great deal more money being wasted by Norfolk County Council.

This now means NCC can reject the incinerator on October 28th without being tempted by a Government subsidy (PFI). If NCC does nothing the incinerator contract will be terminated at the end of October 2013 limiting the compensation Cory Wheelabrator might claim.

We now need your help to finish this off, please write letters.

Henry Bellingham MP debates the proposed Incinerator at Westminster Hall.

• Henry Bellingham MP tells Parliament a rival bidder would have been £46M cheaper for Norfolk's Taxpayers.

• Why did officers make a last minute change of their recommendation to favour the more costly bidder?

• Why was a £20M planning failure clause signed after the applicant had already decided to apply for planning permission?

Planning Committee Locality

It came as no surprise when the same Council officers who proposed the incinerator, recommended it gets planning approval.
Look at the map to see how democratic representation on the planning committee was abandoned. The Dept for Communities and Local Government prefer planning decisions to be made locally...
How is this Local?

The nearest planner lives 25 miles away from the proposed incinerator.
The Council’s determination to award planning permission for its own project is not in any doubt. Planners also know the Council is committed to pay £20M compensation to the developer if planning is not awarded.

Leaked Documents

Leaked strategy document extracts. Norfolk County Council made false claims against the official incinerator ballot, along with DEFRA they supported a strategy to “undermine its moral value”.
Click to see Leaked Document

First Americans, now Europeans lose their appetite for building incinerators.

In the 1990s Americans realised EfW incinerators were costly and inefficient profiting developers at taxpayer’s expense. A Wall Street Journal article by Jeff Bailey 11th August 1993 illustrates the point. Parallels with present day UK are striking, lessons should be learnt instead of mistakes repeated. Since a 2009 report on incinerators in Germany it looks as though they ‘learnt the hard way’. The German Government does not intend to build any further EfW incinerators.

Modern Incinerator at Stoke. A working ‘modern’ incinerator (Stoke 2005). The constant plume of fine particles is usually invisible to the naked eye.

Aerial View, Location Matters.
Click Image for Full Size.

Campaign over view and objective

We understand Norfolk must reduce its dependency on landfill and support the County Council in seeking a better solution. We disagree with the Council’s choice of technology. There are proven technologies better than incineration offering the necessary reductions in landfill without polluting the air and surrounding farmland. The local population will have to live with the consequences and therefore we demand a say in which solution is used. The impacts on health, transport and the local economy make incineration unacceptable. Only an environmentally responsible solution is acceptable such as Anaerobic Digestion, Mechanical and Biological Treatment, Autoclave and Advanced Composting. The only thermal treatment that should even be considered is Plasma Gasification. It is our objective that Norfolk’s waste is treated in the safest and most environmentally responsible manner, which minimises its impact on peoples health and the environment.

Environmental Consultant investigates incinerator ballot result

Latest Campaign Flyer