A byproduct of a boycott by Conservative MP Steve Barclay and Conservative councillors could mean they miss out on influencing how to spend an index linked £200,000 a year to be provided for community benefits by the company that won permission to build a £450m mega incinerator in the town.
The cost of the incinerator could be an under estimate since two similar schemes for London are now estimated to be costing between £500m and close to £700m.
MVV Energie has a legal undertaking to provide £200,000 a year as part of the agreement by the last Conservative government to allow the incinerator to go ahead.
But Mr Barclay is refusing to engage with a liaison group that MVV has set up to provide an initial link between the community and the impact of construction on Wisbech.
As they have done in other areas where incinerators have been approved, MVV says they are “committed to being part of the communities in which they operate and are keen to support them in appropriate and meaningful ways”.
And that means putting aside £200,000 a year on community projects that could include improvements to the town centre, new playgrounds, support for employment and skills, and help for local groups.
They also propose allowing residents to use a new visitor centre being built within their new plant “as a venue for events”.
A trust is likely to be set up as has happened in Plymouth for example by MVV which includes four local councillors and community representatives.
Cambridgeshire County Council is expected to be invited to establish the mechanisms of such a trust for Wisbech and help determine its parameters. If Conservatives continue their refusal to engage with it, others will be invited to support and help to run it.
It could pave the way, for example, for cash-stretched Wisbech and Fenland Museum to be considered for additional support but Wisbech is not short of local community groups struggling for cash.
With community groups and organisations such as the museum who are desperate for money as the town council has cut their contribution, some of this £200,000 per year would be a life saver.
Ironically working with the liaison group are members of WisWIN, the prime campaign that continues to lobby to stop it from being built.
Former independent councillor Ginny Bucknor has led – and continues to lead – WisWIN the main opposition to the incinerator in Wisbech.
But she has also felt the need to engage with MVV to help mitigate any harm and disruption for residents and to ensure that if it does eventually get built, residents will at least get some benefits from it even though opposition continues.
She was voted in as chair of the liaison group last Wednesday to ensure residents voices are heard. Scientist Alan Wheeldon was voted in as her deputy. The meetings are minuted so promises and agreements will be on record
As many have pointed out the liaison group is not a consultation and does not support or legitimise the incinerator: MVV will press ahead with or without it. It is also separate to the community funding organisation.
But it does provide a window of opportunity for residents to ask questions such as when construction might begin, issues around road closures, noise, dust and the expected influx of heavy lorries.
The liaison group has met twice and begun to raise such concerns, but for Mrs Buckner it has not been without a personal attack.
Tory councillor Sam Hoy – leader of Wisbech town council – posted on Facebook that “I can’t believe what I have just heard – Ginny Buckner is chair of MVV’s liaison committee. Given she has said she has been against it from the start, this supportive role seems a remarkable U-turn.
“Someone who was supposed to be leading a charge against them has got into bed with them. Or maybe she really has wanted it from day one?”
Not a single person at either of the two liaison meetings held to date would support that view, indeed many have expressed disappointment with the comments.
In recent weeks Mrs Buckner has written to Mr Barclay inviting him to raise a question in the House of Commons about environmental requirements for incinerators.
And she has written to county council leader Lucy Nethsingha as well as the county council chair of the environment committee Cllr Lorna Dupre “giving them an update on the current situation regarding liaison meetings with MVV.
“I assume they are not receiving any information from our Wisbech county councillors, nor will they in the future, given that our own MP and Cllrs Hoy and Tierney will not engage and raise issues with MVV”.
Mrs Bucknor has refrained from responding directly to the personal attacks, simply rebuking Cllr Hoy and Cllr Steve Tierney for making “false comments on social media about me” and criticising them for not attending meetings with MVV”.
Mr Barclay did not hold back.
“Having said I was concerned that the latest MVV consultation was a sham, and that some local campaigners risked being taken in by it, we now sadly have the confirmation this is the case,” he said.
His statement mentions a S106 agreement reached with the county council for MVV to provide £400,000 in two instalments to “spend on cycle paths, and not even cycle paths in Wisbech.
“Perhaps this is why the Lib Dem and Labour council candidates for election to the county council in May won’t sign my boycott to refuse to send waste to the incinerator?,” he said.
“It is also notable that the Lib Dem leader of the county council (Cllr Nethsingha) has been silent on this money.”
Mr Barclay appears to have mistaken the S106 agreement with the S11 agreement.
The S106 agreement is a fixed contract and was signed before the Conservative Government granted planning permission.
The details of this were hammered out on two dates in 2023, June 7th and July 4th.
Public records show that Cambridgeshire County Council, Norfolk County Council, Fenland District Council, and the Borough Council of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk were host authorities for this DCO (Development Consent Order) because “part or all of the scheme falls within their administrative boundaries. The two county councils are receiving the funding as the relevant local highway authorities”.
Cambridgeshire County Council has explained that whilst the majority of the project (including the main site) and its impacts are located within Cambridgeshire, but the proximity of the Norfolk County border to the site, as well as the connection to the substation falling within Norfolk, resulted in a percentage of the funding being allocated to Norfolk County Council.
This money is to create public footpaths, improve existing public rights of ways and other highway linked improvements.
Mr Barclay appears to have misunderstood the £200,000 a year community fund – a separate agreement – arguing instead that he wants people to “work to undermine the business case for the incinerator by starving it of waste from local authorities, by getting councils to commit to boycott it. Incineration is the dirtiest way to produce energy.
“There is sufficient capacity already nationally. So, this incinerator is not needed.
“Instead of being played for fools by the developer, council candidates standing this May should come off the fence and make clear they will have nothing to do with the consultation and pledge not to vote to use the incinerator.”
Under the legally binding agreement with MVV, the newly established Medworth Community Interest Organisation, will begin receiving £200,000 a year once it opens.
The money will be paid on the anniversary date of commencement and continue until the date of final decommissioning.
If each of the £200,000 payments is not used within two years, the money will be returned to MVV.
Under the agreement the board running the community interest organisation will have a minimum of three and a maximum of nine, “one of which shall be elected as chair.
“Membership will be drawn from the geographical area of benefit, local authorities and other stakeholders.
“Where it is not possible to attract suitable candidates to set up a board to manage the Medworth Community Interest Organisation, alternative administration and management vehicles will be identified and agreed between the developer and the local authority.
“Secretarial duties for the Medworth Community Interest Organisation shall be provided free of charge by the community liaison manager (paid for by MVV) or another agreed organisation at the developer’s cost.”
The geographical area of benefit has been determined, initially, as a 5km radius “from the centre line of the chimneys. However, this may be adjusted to include whole communities where the 5km radius bisects any particular community”.
The board will have the following core interests against which to consider activities and proposals:
The provision and/or improvement and/or maintenance of public amenity spaces.
Transport-related local well-being initiatives.
The improvement and/or remediation of underused land places and eyesores; and
The provision of youth facilities.
Community and social enterprise businesses especially where they are employment-generating and/or other regeneration projects that will have a positive impact.
Contribute to initiatives which improve health and wellbeing outcomes
Low carbon energy and efficiency initiatives.
The restoration of buildings and/or heritage features of historic and/or architectural interest.
Proposals to bring nature sites into positive management to deliver biodiversity benefits.
Proposals to use nature based solutions to manage and mitigate flooding and other climate challenges
Projects to promote recycling and the circular economy
One post to the WisWIN Facebook group summed it up like this.
“The incinerator is going to be built anyway,” they wrote.
“It seems absurd to block any financial support that is available that could really help community groups and organisations in Wisbech that are struggling to survive under the current financial climate.”
