Boughton Church Window Gary Trouton

Favor Parker Village Liaison Committee Meeting

July 2002

Minutes from the meeting on the 14th of June

Mr Dave Robson (Principal Environmental Health Officer, King's Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council)

Mr Les Bonnett (Parish Councillor)

Mr Peter Burgess (Transport Manager, Favor Parker Ltd)

Mr Brian Harrison (Village Representative)

Mr Chris Hitchens (Managing Director, Favor Parker Ltd)

Mrs Pat Holton (Village Representative)

Mr Alastair Inskip (Assistant Mill Manager, Favor Parker Ltd)

Mr Kevin Moore (Environmental Health Officer, King's Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council)

Mr Mark Sherman (Village Representative in lieu of Mr Hesketh-Harvey)

Mr Ray Thompson (Editor of "The Village Pump")

Mr Ken Vine (Mill Manager, Favor Parker Ltd)

Mr Kit Hesketh-Harvey (Village Representative)

Mr Manley (Borough Councillor)

Mr George Patterson (Parish Councillor)

The minutes of the previous meeting were agreed to be an accurate record of the proceedings.


Mr Harrison read from a prepared statement;

Noise Measurements re: Favor Parker

At the Village Liaison Meeting held on 1st February D Robson (Principal Environmental health Officer) asked if any of the village representatives present at the meeting wished for investigations of noise levels to be made at their premises. I gave my name and address to him at that meeting with a view for measurements to be taken.

I find it quite unacceptable that at the time of this meeting (14th June) that is some four and a half months later, I still have not received the results of these readings. In fact the readings only being completed on 31st May, four months after the address of my house was given to the Environmental Health Department.

The only conclusion that can be drawn from this exercise is in my view one of the following.

? A total indifference to the problems occurring in Stoke Ferry

? A lack of efficiency in the Environmental Health Department

? Partiality towards Favor Parker by the Department

Whatever the reason for the delay in responding to the offer made at the meeting the result is the same a loss of confidence by myself in the ability of the Environmental Health Department in responding to actual or potential problems caused by commercial concerns in the Stoke Ferry Area.

Mr Robson refuted the allegations presented in the statement. He said that he was appalled by the allegation of indifference, and said that he had taken on board comments and complaints raised by residents, including Mr Harrison, both over the telephone and in written correspondence.

Regarding the efficiency of the Department, Mr Robson said that the Environmental Department had a wide remit with many demands, and factors outside his control, consequently the workload was prioritised and this did lead to delays.

Mr Robson reiterated that as he stated at the open meeting, in his role as Principal Environmental Health Officer he was completely independent of all parties, and it was his responsibility to investigate complaints.

Specifically in relation to the surveying of noise, Mr Robson said that there had been initial delays due to the weather with the wind preventing measurement out-of doors. There had been subsequent delays due to technical problems with the measuring equipment.

Mr Harrison said that after the open meeting there had been feeling that the complaints raised by the village were being listened to and understood. He said that due to the delay he had raised a complaint with the Borough Council and the readings had then been taken within a week.

Mr Robson said that readings had been taken prior to that and had been given to Mr Harrison, although the machine had recorded an incorrect date and time due to a technical problem, the readings given to Mr Harrison were valid and correct.

Mr Harrison said that he did not accept that the explanation given for the technical problems was correct. The original readings, taken with the incorrect date and time, were conducted on the 11th March and it was not until 31st May that the second set of readings was completed.

Mr Robson repeated that although the date and time recorded in the results was incorrect, the noise levels themselves were recorded correctly and given to Mr Harrison.

Mr Thompson asked how quickly the Council would normally expect the Environmental Health Department to respond to a complaint, and gave the example of the recent party held at Boughton.

Mr Robson said that the incident in question had occurred out of hours and the Department had responded following an out of hours callout. In recent months the Department has experienced difficulties due to staffing levels, but a restructuring since Monday has resulted in additional staff becoming available.

Mr Robson said that the results of the monitoring carried out indicated that further monitoring was required at specific premises, including the Post Office and All Saints Lodge, in order to determine whether there was a statutory noise nuisance.

Wax Deposits

Mr Robson said that Mr Moore had left petri dishes with residents to be left out to collect samples of the wax deposits.

Mr Thompson said that the dishes were rather small, and that the recent rain had prevented him from obtaining any samples as yet.

Mr Robson suggested that deposits could be collected as scrapings from hard surfaces, and Mr Thompson agreed to arrange with Mr Moore for scrapings to be collected.


This matter had been resolved at the last meeting.


Mr Bonnett reported that as far as he was aware the Parish Council had still not received a reply from the Highways Authority in relation to the points raised. He would discuss this with the clerk and this would be pursued further.

Mr Thompson said that he had observed that many of the vehicles parked outside the Post Office were not customers of the Post Office and these contributed greatly to the traffic problems on the junction of the Furlong Road and the High Street.

Mr Hitchens said that there was nothing new to report in relation to the top gate access to the site.


Mr Robson said that he would comment on this item latter in the meeting.


Mr Vine reported that the sweeper was continuing to sweep the area from the Buckenham Drive entrance, up the Wretton Road to the junction with the High Street, along the High Street to the edge of the site boundary, and then up the Furlong Road to the grain store.

Mr Thompson said that although he had not seen the sweeper in recent weeks it did make a great difference to the village.

Mr Hitchens reported that the repair work to the hall roof had now begun.

Current Matters

Mr Bonnett reported that the conveyors over the silos were loose and rattling.

Mr Bonnett asked if anything was progressing with the Dukes Head and commented on the number of broken and boarded windows.

Mr Hitchens said that completion of the sale of the Dukes Head was expected to take place shortly. However if the sale should not complete then the company will carryout the necessary repairs to the building.

Mr Bonnett reported that at 14:20 that afternoon a contractors lorry (not a Favor Parker vehicle) travelling up from the mill had shed dust from its trailer. Mr Robson said that he had seen the vehicle and it had been travelling with its sheet open.

Mr Burgess said that there was an instruction that all vehicles must be sheeted before leaving the site, he will determine from the time which vehicle it was and pursue this with the haulier concerned.

Mrs Holton said that her major concern was with odour from the site, which varies with the wind direction. On the day of the last meeting she had spoken to the company about the noise which she felt was louder on that day than on others.

Mr Hitchens said that the processes occurring in the mill were constant and there was no variation in the noise produced.

Mr Harrison said that he was also experiencing odour from the site, he had spoken with the company and the problem was worst on dull, heavy days when the plume was held at low level. He also expressed continuing concerns over noise and dust.

Mr Bonnett suggested that the smell could be sweetened with additives.

Mr Robson said that this had been tried on other sites, but odour is a subjective matter to the person experiencing it and the use of sweeteners can cause further problems.

Mr Sherman asked where the source of the odour was, Mr Robson replied that the odour came from the product coolers, the airflow from which was treated to remove as much odour as possible by passing through a cyclone and a wet scrubber.

Mr Thompson said that the strong odour of fish was most noticeable at low level from the base of the plant for short periods of time.

Mr Vine said that he would monitor the area when fishmeal was being tipped.

Mr Harrison said that it was unlikely to be the fishmeal itself as this did not have a strong odour when cold. Mr Hitchens agreed and said that the nature of fishmeal was such that it did not form dust.

Mr Thompson asked what materials were tipped inside the top gate, Mr Inskip replied that these were bulk minerals, such as limestone and salt.

Mr Hitchens said that the area around the intake and the new part of the building opposite the village hall would be critically examined to determine the source of the odour and how it can be minimised or prevented.

Mr Vine reported that the company was continuing with the cladding of the mill, and the scaffolding had been erected for the area at the back of the intake, behind and above the silos, and three sides of the intake elevator tower (the fourth side faces into the mill). The cladding is to be double skinned with an 80mm layer of insulation. This type of cladding has been specified by the company to replace the tin sheeting in order to provide sound insulation.

Mr Robson reported that he had carried out a site inspection the previous Friday and discussed a number of issues with the company:

- the discharge heights of the wet scrubbers were discussed and the possibility of raising these in order to aid dispersion;

- redirecting the outlet from one of the grinder bag filters to aid dispersion;

- odour and emissions of PM10 particles were discussed in relation to the suggested alterations in stack height and the improvements that computer modelling suggested this would bring.

In response to a query on the composition of the committee, Mr Hitchens said that at the original meeting in February the intention had been that the meeting would consist of the following:

* Principal Environmental Health Officer of the Borough Council

* Representatives of the company

* Two representatives of the Parish Council

* The Borough Councillor

* Mr Thompson as editor of the Village Pump

* Two village representatives from those nominated

It was agreed that this was an appropriate size for the committee to operate effectively.

There was no further business

Friday 13th September 2002 at 2.30pm was agreed as the date of the next meeting.

Copyright remains with independent content providers where specified, including but not limited to Village Pump contributors. All rights reserved.