A DECISION on whether or not the latest plans for a controversial £500 million incinerator will be approved has been postponed.

The plans had been due to be discussed at an Essex County Council committee meeting on Friday but were delayed.

The next available date for a decision on the plans is on May 25 which will be more than eight months after the latest plans were initially submitted.

The latest application submitted to County Hall, is to increase the stack height of the incinerator to 58 metres.

James Abbott, Silver End councillor, said: “My understanding is that they have more objections to go through and they need more time to look at all of them.

“But these plans have been going on for years - it began as a landfill site and slowly the plans have turned into one for an incinerator and it’s just unacceptable.”

Regarding the delay, Tom Walsh, a member of campaign group Parishes Against Incinerator (Pain), said: “My concern would be that these are not new objections and were submitted when the plans were submitted last August.

“But this has been going for 25 years, blighting the lives of people for the best part of a quarter of a century, and justice delayed is justice denied.”

A spokesman for Essex County Council said: “The determination of the planning applications for the Rivenhall Integrated Waste facility has been delayed.

“This is to allow sufficient time for the waste planning authority to fully consider of all the issues and impacts related to the applications, including matters raised by the community.”

Priti Patel, MP for Witham, is backing residents’ No Essex Incinerator campaign and previously called the site “unsuitable”.

Campaigners want the application to be called in by Michael Gove, Secretary of State for Environment and Rural Affairs.

The decision to postpone the decision came as members of Pain visited the office of a law firm representing the company behind the plans.

Campaigners Tom Walsh and Paul Thorogood visited the Braintree offices of Holmes and Hills in an attempt to discuss their representation of developers Gent Fairhead after claiming they had not received responses to letters inviting the firm to public meetings.

Holmes and Hills were approached for comment.