11/00713/F - Borough Council of King's Lynn & West Norfolk

Involvement of the County Council in the Decision Making Process
There are concerns over the ability of the County Council to deal objectively with this
application as Minerals and Waste Local Planning Authority. These have been well
rehearsed elsewhere and are merely summarised here:
� Norfolk County Council is the PFI-partner to Cory Wheelabrator, which has lodged
the Application. If the application is not passed, Norfolk County Council will be liable
to pay a £20.3 million penalty to Cory Wheelabrator. The risk of its decision being
tainted by the appearance of bias has only been heightened by the recent disclosure
that Conservative County Councillors met prior to the County Council’s 7 March 2011
Cabinet Meeting to determine how, en bloc, they would vote on the award of the PFI
contract to Cory Wheelabrator. (They did vote to award it to Cory Wheelabrator.);
and
� Unless called-in by the Secretary of State, the matter will be determined by a
Committee of Norfolk County Councillors. Compared with a local public inquiry, that
is not a forum in which the planning merits of the application can be fully tested and
in which interested parties can make substantial and detailed contributions.
Given these concerns, representations have been made to the Secretary of State to call the
application in for his determination using powers under Section 77(1) of the Town and
Country Planning Act 1990.
Assessment of Alternative Sites
The ES contains an assessment of alternative sites. Although the Non-Technical Summary
states that this is not a requirement of the EIA Regulations, this assertion is incorrect. The
need to consider alternative sites stems primarily from the requirements under EIA
Regulations. The Regulations state “An outline of the main alternatives studied and an
indication of the main reasons for this choice taking into account the environmental effects”
should be included in the ES. Paragraph 83 of Circular 2/99 which accompanies the
Regulations notes that: “Although the Directive and the regulations do not expressly require
the developer to study alternatives the nature of certain developments and their location may
make the consideration of alternatives a material consideration…”
The applicant states that ‘The purpose of carrying out this Alternative Site Assessment
(ASA) is to provide an assessment that determines whether the choice of site for the
proposal is robust based on a ‘high level’ up-to-date comparative analysis of potential sites
within Norfolk’ (Appendix 16.1, page 2, para. 1.1.5).
The appraisal scoring took place under a number of key headings termed ‘positive
attributes’: Site Allocation and Policy; Planning Vision; Sensitive Human Receptors;
Landscape and Visual Consideration; Natural Environment; Historic Environment & Built
Environment; Road Access; Rail or Water Transport; Energy Utilisation; Flood Risk;
Groundwater Vulnerability; Aerodrome Safeguarding Zones; Air Quality Management Area
(AQMA); and Proximity to Waste Arising.
11/01064/CM Development Control Board
25 July 2011
23