Dear Mr Salter I have some concerns about the incinerator MVV are proposing to build in the town of Wisbech. I live here and I was born here. I would be grateful if you could answer these questions for me: 1. Over what timescale do they expect to get to 50 megawatts? 2. How much waste will this involve to deliver 50 megawatts? 3. The incinerator will have a chimney up to a massive 95 metres high. From how many miles will the incinerator be visible? 4. The incinerator will be just 200 metres from one primary school, 500 metres from another, and 750 metres from the largest secondary school in our district, Thomas Clarkson Academy. The ACIS Eye Clinic is just 350 metres away. Why is this site so close to three schools and the Eye Clinic the best site given the volume of lorries, impact on air pollution, and odour concerns amongst others? 5. Why does the scoping request fail to include valid alternative locations? 6. What alternative sites / solutions were considered? 7. What is the methodology for site selection and when will it be published in line with best practice? 8. How did it consider sensitive receptors like schools, community impact like odour and noise, and visual impact? 9. The scoping request was issued over the Christmas holiday period, yet the report reveals that “the Inspectorate queried whether the scoping request would be premature given the current stage of development”. Why did the developer ignore the inspector and issue this scoping report over the Christmas holiday period? 10. Why has the developer failed to follow best practice in developing a proposal in consultation with the community, which it does not plan to consult until Spring 2020? 11. The developer suggests the incinerator will require lorry movements 7 days a week from 6am to 7pm. Yet almost all the roads in Fenland are single carriageway. The incinerator will require over half a million tonnes of waste, with the report suggesting 523,500 tonnes a year (i) How many lorries a week will be required (ii) how far will they be travelling including from surrounding counties ? 12. 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. Why is flood risk land suitable for a waste incinerator when the Environment Agency has raised concerns at house building on such land? 13. What is the risk of contamination in the event of flooding? 14. Later this month the Cambridgeshire Combined Authority will publish its 15-month long report on the next phase of work for Wisbech Rail, yet the incinerator developer appears to plan to dig up the Wisbech Rail line for a Combine Heat and Power (CHP) connection. How would the incinerator plans impact on Wisbech Rail? 15. The developer suggests two proposed options for connection, a 132kv line at the Walpole substation and one joining the National Grid 400kv line to the east of Walsoken. Yet it is not clear whether these are part of the Development Consent Order (DCO). What impact will this have on the local community, and is it part of the DCO? 16. The developer says they have an option on the main site from the current owners, and that it is used for aggregate storage, but then add that compulsory acquisition may be required to obtain land outside of this main site in order to build an incinerator of the scale required for its designation as a national infrastructure project (i) What land does the developer plan to compulsory purchase? (ii) on what basis? (iii) from whom? 17. Why haven't the particles PM 2.5 been measured in the surveys and only PM 10, which are less harmful to human bodies? 18. Do you consider that MVV believes Wisbech to be a softer target than Waterbeach and King's Lynn, where incinerators have been blocked? I look forward to hearing from you. Carla Johnson

Dear Ms Johnson, Thank you for your email of 18 March 2020, regarding the proposed Medworth Energy from Waste Combined Heat and Power Facility. The proposed application by MWV Environment Ltd is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process. Therefore, the Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. The Planning Inspectorate also does not have the power to intervene in a developer’s pre-application programme. The process for applying for a Development Consent Order (DCO) is set out in the PA2008. The timing of the application’s programme is at the discretion of the Applicant. The Developer is currently carrying out their first round of non-statutory consultation. Further rounds of consultation will take place and the Developer will advertise these before they are due to commence. Therefore, I would encourage you to contact the developer directly with regard to your concerns. The developer has a statutory duty to have regard to all consultation responses received and this should be demonstrated in the Consultation Report as part of their DCO application. However, if you feel your comments are not being taken into account, I would advise you to write to your local authority and set out why you think the Applicant is failing to conduct its consultation properly. Your comments should be taken into account when the local authority sends the Inspectorate its comments on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The local authority’s comments on the Applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Acceptance Inspector makes their decision whether to accept the application for Examination. Should the DCO application be accepted by the Inspectorate for Examination, the Applicant has a duty to notify the local community when providing information on how to register as an Interested Party for the purpose of the process. The process under the PA2008 has been designed to allow members of the public and statutory stakeholders to participate in examination of all DCO applications so that anyone interested in the proposed developments, their potential impacts and any relevant matters can be fully engaged in the examination process. Once the Examination begins, the Examining Authority will assess all information submitted in the application documents and will consider whether the Applicant has provided the necessary level of information. The Planning Inspectorate has produced several Advice Notes to help provide an overview of the PA2008 process and the opportunities to get involved. They are available at the following link: attachment 1 The following are particularly relevant; Advice Note 8: ‘Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others’. Advice Note 8.1: ‘Responding to the developer’s pre-application consultation’ Advice Note 8.2: ‘How to register to participate in an Examination’. Please be assured that anyone interested in the proposed development, the potential impacts and any planning matters can be fully engaged in the examination process. A copy of your correspondence has been placed on our records and will be presented to the Inspector at Acceptance together with the application documents and Local Authorities’ comments on the Applicant’s consultation. With regard to the current Coronavirus (COVID-19) situation, please refer to the Planning Inspectorate’s published guidance which will be updated as the situation develops. attachment 2 We have also published a Frequently Asked Questions document regarding Pre-application consultation and this can be viewed on our website here: attachment 3 Please note, in accordance with Section 51 of the PA2008, a summary of your query and our advice will be published on the project’s webpage of the National Infrastructure Website. I hope you find the above information useful.