Back to list Medworth Energy from Waste Combined Heat and Power Facility

Representation by Louise Gratton

Date submitted
4 October 2022
Submitted by
Members of the public/businesses
  1. The location is very close to residential areas with a school in very close proximity (200m). I am concerned of the impact of pollution/emissions to health for local residents and for wildlife. Burning waste is bad for health. 2. There is a lot of farming land in proximity to the incinerator with produce entering the human food chain. I am concerned once again about the impact pollution from the incinerator will have on this and the affect of such produce will have. 3. The developer suggests the incinerator will require lorry movements 7 days a week from 6am to 7pm. The A47 will be the main route for around 600,000 tonnes of waste to travel. Wisbech does not have a rail station so road is the only option. The A47 to and from Wisbech is a single carriageway as are the majority of roads in Fenland. The Elm Hall Roundabout causes considerable hold ups, particularly at peak times. This will only be exacerbated by the volume of lorries bringing waste to the incinerator. Furthermore, crossing facilities for pedestrians is poor and I fear for children and vulnerable road users such as cyclists navigating this area. 4. Public consultation from MVV has been extremely poor with COVID used as an apparent excuse for this. The information produced by MVV is not easily palatable for the average person and I believe has been designed to promote the incinerator rather than fully inform residents and business of the pitfalls and health risks. 5. MVV has bypassed local planning by declaring the incinerator a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project. This shows a blatant disregard for a proper local consultation. The scheme needs to generate over 50 megawatts of energy to qualify as a national project. MVV talks of taking waste from “surrounding counties” in order to meet this threshold. To put this in context, it is twice the size of the Kings Lynn incinerator proposal that was rejected and twice the size of the developers next largest incinerator in Plymouth which powers the naval ship yard at Devonport. 6. MVV has failed to outline any reasonable alternative sites and state why this proposed location is the best option of all and why the others are unacceptable. 7. The incinerator will be built on land at risk of flooding (known as Flood Risk 3). Yet the developer is silent on the risk this causes of contamination including to drinking water, in addition to any risk of soil contamination during the construction phase. 8. The developer has stated that compulsory acquisition may be required to obtain land outside of this main site. What land does the developer plan to compulsory purchase, on what basis, and from whom, in order to build an incinerator of the scale required for its designation as a national infrastructure project? I am strongly opposed to the incinerator.