W10. Residual waste treatment facilities

I find it deeply concerning that Norfolk County Council (NCC) has chosen to rekindle the idea of Incineration here in West Norfolk by including it in its Minerals and Waste Plan.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the idea of siting a Incinerator here in West Norfolk (or indeed anywhere in the county) was dead and buried. I thought that the message had been received loud and clear and had, indeed, been accepted by the NCC that residents of West Norfolk stand firmly against this type of waste disposal. This fact being proven by the referendum that took place when 65,000 West Norfolk residents said NO. I confirm that this belief firmly remains today.

I find it incredible that NCC have included incineration in their Waste Plan. They wasted £30 million of tax payers money fighting their corner a few years ago; the only beneficiary of their efforts was Cory Wheelabrator. The taxpayer ended up footing this bill.

And so I urge the NCC to remove Incineration from their Waste Plan. Its not wanted here. I am convinced that if residents were faced again with the same prospect, the people of West Norfolk would rise up and fight again. Does the NCC really want to face this prospect, and are they intent of reinstating the East/ West divide?

65,000 West Norfolk residents voted NO, including myself, to incineration in the Borough Council poll so the Plan must say incineration is unacceptable in West Norfolk. The Plan must say incineration is unacceptable in West Norfolk, as it would affect the Wash, a protected area and West Winch Growth Area.
I have lived in West Winch since 1966 and have seen this village crowded out with housing development whilst lacking the infrastructure. There is no more space! Health and safety are at risk.

Would the planners themselves agree to this near their back door - they would not. Everybody needs to live in a healthy environment

I wish to be express my concern that the subject of incineration is on the agenda again in Norfolk County Council just 5 years after 65,000 people voted against it followed by. a lengthy government review resulting in a withdrawal of the incinerator planning for the Willows Industrial Estate King's Lynn. It was unacceptable then on health grounds and environmental damage nothing as changed other than people are more knowledgeable of the damage to the environment take note of the demonstration in London just now. I hope we don't have to waste more tax payers money fighting this same fight again but we will if we must. Both my husband and myself are absolutely against this policy and ask you politely to remove it from your waste management plans.

65,000 West Norfolk residents voted NO to Incineration in the Borough Council poll so the Plan must say incineration is unacceptable in West Norfolk, as it would affect the Wash , a protected area and West Winch Growth Area.

This household voted no to incineration when it was put to the population a few years ago but we have since changed our minds and feel that it should have gone ahead then so we are now in favour of having an incinerator built.

Objection to AOS E - Land Between Marham and Shouldham and includes Shouldham Warren
I object to AOS E, including Shouldham Warren and the overlap with formerly SIL 02, in the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan. I strongly object to the fact that Norfolk County Council has deliberately misled residents by announcing the removal of SIL 02 when in reality a third of it is now/still included in AOS E.
As a member of the community, I echoed the concerns held by the Ministry of Defence when they objected to these proposals, due to the fact that the plan of a wet working and restoration in close proximity to RAF Marham, well within the statutory 13 kms limit, will increase the risk of “bird strikes” or worst-case scenario, end in an aircraft crash and potential loss of life. The economic cost of such a mishap would be greater than £100M just to replace an F35 Lightning II; add to that the costs for the emergency services and for the immediate and subsequent treatments through the NHS for the physical and mental injuries caused, and the financial costs become an unaffordable risk.
Permanent loss of agricultural land will impact rural Norfolk, its farming jobs, jobs of local employees i.e. British Sugar, including the increased need for home grown food, due to the impact of Brexit.
I object to the negative impact on villagers’/visitors’ health. According to Public Health Profile 2018, our villages have higher levels of respiratory problems and reduced respiratory function (Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Asthma), silica particles will exacerbate these conditions. Loss of natural spaces has been proven to adversely affect health, mental and physical. This fenland and forest (Shouldham Warren) is our community’s public open space, our gym and our sanctuary, hundreds of people use it daily for physical recreation and social wellbeing interactions.
I object to the fact that the plan would ruin the Landscape, Shouldham Warren, the Countryside, including habitats for birds, animals, and insects. The Warren is home to 64 species of conservation concern, including endangered bats, nightjars and woodlarks. We need nature and trees now more than ever to combat pollution and climate change.
I object to the unsustainable use of a finite mineral resource, when the county only recycles a fraction of the glass already in circulation. There are national government policies and guidance including DEFRA and the Dept for Business Energy & Industrial Strategy that are clearly being ignored in order to allow a privately-owned Belgian company to profit from the devastation of our community asset, landscape and environment.
I further object to the worrying possibility of damage to our Public Water. It is very concerning that if quarrying was allowed to take place, whether through wet or dry working, the water supply could be affected, as the whole area of AOS E has very productive to moderately productive aquifers.
A further objection relates to the lack of restoration plans. Any restoration would take in excess of 30 years, until then the community would suffer from a devastated industrial landscape, increased flow of heavy articulated lorries, preventing any appreciation of its landscape and countryside. Sibelco has a poor track record for restoration in the area, and have failed to ensure safety of sites after extraction - its Bawsey site was the cause of deaths by drowning. The company has not been a ‘good neighbour’ and has done nothing to engage with the community or alleviate residents’ concerns.
Lastly, I object to the fact that there would be no benefit to the local community or economy if this proposal goes through. What is clear is that a number of local communities will bear the brunt of a hugely disruptive and harmful industrial process; that a very popular public amenity enjoyed by a much larger section of the population will be permanently lost; and the only beneficiaries of this development will be a few landowners, Norfolk County Council, but principally the private owners of the Belgian company Sibelco.
Given that County Councils are responsible for the provision of public services for taxpayers and community wellbeing, and not the promotion of harmful and irresponsible businesses that present no local benefit, but with multiple risks, dictates that Norfolk County Council should put public interest before private profit.
Please record this as my objection,

I would also like to express my extreme objection to "incineration" even being part of NCC's plans for disposal of waste. We are constantly hearing from World Health Organisations that air pollution is deadly for young and even unborn babies and yet local pollution by incineration is conveniently ignored.