http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-21061614?print=true

Engl

Advertisement

17 January 2013 Last updated at 13:27 GMT

5

• Share
• Facebook
• Twitter

Article written by Deborah McGurran Political editor, East of England

• More from Deborah

King’s Lynn waste incinerator plan under fire in Commons

Comments

Artist’s impression of the proposed incinerator

It’s not every day that a Conservative MP will tear into his local Conservative county council.

But then it’s not every day that you get a row like the the plan for a waste incinerator at King’s Lynn.

As we’ve reported before, this is an issue that’s divided the Conservative Party in Norfolk.

There have been acrimonious exchanges between the local district council and the county council.

Norfolk County Council leader Derrick Murphy has been reported (twice) to the standards committee and has now decided to stand down while he defends himself.

There was a strong turnout for referendum on the plan which was immediately dismissed.

The controversy cost the Tories dearly in last year’s local elections and it could do so again later in the year – and now Conservative MPs from Norfolk are holding debates in parliament to complain about the county council’s actions.

Local people ‘ignored’

“It is wrong for a local authority to ride roughshod over local people when local people have made their views crystal clear,” said Henry Bellingham, MP for King’s Lynn and West Norfolk.

“Localism often requires difficult and tough decisions, but democracy is ill-served if consultation takes place but its findings are ignored, particularly when they are as overwhelming as in this case,” said Mid Norfolk MP George Freeman.

Other MPs from the county nodded in agreement.

“Start Quote

It is wrong for a local authority to ride roughshod over local people when local people have made their views crystal clear”

End Quote Henry Bellingham MP (Con) King’s Lynn and West Norfolk

The proposed incinerator would burn 250,000 tonnes of waste, provide power for the local community and create 200 jobs. But Mr Bellingham finds a lot wrong with the plan.

“The county council couldn’t have picked a more unsuitable site,” he told the debate. “It is upwind of Norfolk’s third largest community and the internationally renowned Wash.”

Support for waste incineration was rapidly diminishing around the world, he claimed. He was also worried the contract did not represent value for money, there could be a risk to health and the uncertainty was blighting the local community.

But his biggest anger was reserved for the developers and the county council who had ignored the results of a local referendum in which nearly 93% of people voted against the plans.

“65,516 people voted no on a turn out of 61.3%,” he said. “Compared with the recent Police and Crime Commissioner elections, when the turnout was around 12%, that must have been one of the most decisive results in British electoral history.

Strength of feeling

“What I am saying to Norfolk County Council is please think again … why not sit down and talk to local MPs – and to the borough council of King’ Lynn and West Norfolk – and look for an alternative solution that could command public support?”

Because the matter is now in the hands of the planning inspector with the final decision being made by the Secretary of State, the Communities Minister Nick Boles couldn’t say much by way of reply.

But he noted that a number of MPs from Norfolk had turned up to the debate, a sign of the strength of feeling on the issue.

He also congratulated Norfolk County Council on having a plan for waste but said he always preferred it if the plan had the support of local people.

After the Prime Minister’s comments that he hoped planners would listen to local people, Mr Bellingham and his colleagues hope this is another sign that things are moving their way

Submitted by admin on Jan 17th 2013, 12:00am

Comment›Insight & Opinion

Andy Cornish and Michael Lau

Andy Cornish and Michael Lau say we can rally round a biodiversity plan

The proposed beach at Lung Mei, incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau, expansion of the Tseung Kwan O landfill into Clear Water Bay Country Park and a potential third runway at the airport have all provoked strong reactions from environmental groups and sectors of the public concerned about their impact on wildlife and the environment.

This is despite some of these projects having undergone environmental impact assessments, which have been accepted by the Environmental Protection Department.

Advocates for new infrastructure, housing and the like mutter that the green groups are anti-development whiners. This glosses over the real reason opinions are divided: there is no common understanding on what our cityscape should look like, or what biodiversity should be conserved in an increasingly crowded Hong Kong.

The proposal by the Civil Engineering and Development Department to reclaim more land illustrates the problem. It should be possible to find sea areas with low ecological value that could be sacrificed for the greater good. But Hong Kong has never discussed, let alone agreed on, the goals for marine conservation or a strategy to achieve that. With only 2 per cent of our waters protected under current arrangements, green groups have little option but to oppose any large-scale projects that will degrade the marine life we do have left.

As highlighted by the chief executive in his policy address, the Environment Bureau has kicked off a process that should address the issue. Under the Convention on Biological Diversity, which was extended to Hong Kong in 2011, the city has to develop biodiversity strategies and action plans in line with internationally agreed goals and targets, and begin implementing them by 2015. Clear guidelines lay out an open and participatory process.

The convention is a key planning tool for sustainable development. Hong Kong, with its dense population and dwindling land supply, needs such planning aids more than most. Through this process, society will learn to offer more informed ideas in decision-making on future development.

As well as potentially lessening conflicts around development, a good biodiversity strategy will ensure the sustainable use of our marine fisheries, freshwater fish farms and vegetable farms. It would recognise the cultural and ecological significance of maintaining fung shui woods, and the importance of protecting the insects that pollinate our plants and crops, the watersheds that minimise our dependence on imported fresh water, and the forests and mangroves that serve as carbon sinks. All these enhance our quality of life.

An example of the value of biodiversity to our crowded city was during the outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome in 2003, when many thousands of people wanting to escape the paranoia of shoulder-to-shoulder living visited our extensive country parks.

A good biodiversity strategy and action plan will not write and implement itself. A key lesson from other countries that signed onto the convention decades ago is that it will only provide lasting real benefits if biodiversity conservation is well understood and implemented across all ministries with impact on the environment, not simply those directly responsible for environmental protection.

It is too early yet to say whether this will be the case in Hong Kong, but the commitment to sustainable development outlined in Leung Chun-ying’s manifesto should lead us to be optimistic.

Andy Cornish is an independent ecologist based in Hong Kong. Michael Lau is acting director of conservation at WWF-Hong Kong

Topics:

Environmental Protection

Landfill

Lung Mei beach