Letters: Jeffrey Reed, March 20, 2015

editorial image
0
Have your say

I feel I must write to you again after reading the letter last month from Mike Knights, which is an unctuous missive of fulsome, yet entirely misplaced, praise of our local councillors and politicians.

The KLWIN campaign, one of hysteria, misinformation,nimbyism and possibly vested or personal interests, and the dogged opposition by the borough council (using ratepayers’ hard-earned money with gay abandon) have together resulted in the loss of a much needed EFW facility.

This is without any doubt the worst and most expensive mistake ever made in this county in my lifetime.

On Friday the 13th, a most appropriate day, you ran the news story that the planning inspector had granted permission after the long inquiry.

We are now told that the decision was given to the minister on 30th September 2013.

The incredible, and completely inexcusable delay, can only be attributed to misguided pressure from some MPs.

I have seen and studied a copy of the 289-page report, which recommended planning permission be granted subject to usual conditions, a submitted S 106 agreement,and that the development to commence not later than three years from the date of the permission.

Elizabeth Hill gives a full detailed rebuttal of all objections on health, environmental, air quality or flood risk grounds.

The application should have been approved at that time by Eric Pickles, and the people of Norfolk need a full explanation as to why he did not do that.

Representations and pressure from MPs biased against the scheme are not an acceptable reason. It is of little comfort to me, and the others who supported the EFW plant, despite continued unfounded criticism ,and numerous letters to your paper from readers who seemed unable to understand the real issues, but we now have complete vindication of the efforts we made.

The county is still without any long term waste plan.

Absolutely nobody has come out of this with any degree of satisfaction, least of all Cory Wheelabrator, as the £33.7 million paid by Norfolk families only compensates them for their costs, a large amount of which were necessitated by the unnecessary and protracted public inquiry.

To make a final reference to Mr Knights, and any respondent who might consider attacking my views as has happened with nearly every letter I have sent to you on this subject, I would just ask how any sane person who has the interests of local Norfolk people at heart, as I certainly do, can celebrate this disastrous fiasco.

Mr Knights hopes to have “a big party”. Even if he were to pay for it himself, which I doubt, I am unclear who would want to come. I will not expect an invitation.

Jeffrey Reed,

Downham