Incinerator plan 'perverse' in fight to halt climate change, Norfolk county councillors warned
County councillors are being urged to join the fight against a large waste incinerator which is planned for land just a few hundred yards from the West Norfolk border.
Borough representatives have already signalled overwhelming opposition to the proposed development at Wisbech.
But now, a motion is set to be debated at a Norfolk County Council meeting next week, urging its members to oppose the scheme too.
The call is being led by Lynn councillor Alexandra Kemp, who last week quit the main independent group on West Norfolk Council in protest at expressions of support for the technology by some of its members.
The motion, which has been seconded by the Green Party's Jamie Osborn, urges members to oppose the scheme because of its likely impact on West Norfolk and efforts to tackle climate change.
The developer, MVV Environment Ltd, claims the plant will be beneficial by generating renewable energy and reducing methane emissions from putting waste into landfill.
But the motion argues: "The incinerator will increase climate change as it will act as a perverse incentive not to reduce residual waste or carbon emission producing processes.
"The world is embracing zero waste so incineration is a backwards step."
The motion also argued that more jobs could be created if a manufacturing use for the site had been pursued.
And it is also critical of the developer over its handling of public consultations on the scheme.
Events were held in Marshland St James, Walton Highway and Walpole St Andrew during a consultation process in the summer.
But critics say more consultation events should have been held within West Norfolk, because of what they say will be the impact caused by emissions being blown over the borough on the prevailing south-westerly wind.
The motion said it was "outrageous" that the company had failed to conduct consultations in Lynn.
The issue is due to be debated at Norfolk County Council's meeting next Monday, September 27, having been held over when a scheduled meeting in July was cancelled.
The authority has also faced pressure from anti-incinerator campaigners to set out its position on the issue, amid fears it may send waste to the plant in the future if it is given the go-ahead.