There has been widespread positive media coverage following the announcement that new waste incinerators will only receive planning approval if they meet strict new local and environmental conditions.
Publications including BBC Online, Independent, Daily Mail, Morning Star and Dorset Echo amongst others covered the announcement, which marks a significant step in the Government’s approach to dealing with waste in a way that works for communities, is fit for the future, and delivers on the Plan for Change.
Over the last 14 years, England has seen recycling rates stall, meaning too much waste is dealt with through incineration or thrown in landfill. Almost half of all waste (49%) collected by local authorities in 2022/23 was incinerated, with just 40% recycled.
New evidence – published today in the Residual Waste Infrastructure Capacity Note – shows that tougher new requirements for proposed waste incinerators will not negatively affect the country’s capacity to process waste and should decrease the amount sent to landfill.
Circular Economy Minister Mary Creagh said:
“For far too long, the nation has seen its recycling rates stagnate and relied on burning household waste, rather than supporting communities to keep resources in use for longer.
“That ends today, with clear conditions for new energy from waste plants – they must be efficient and support net zero and our economic growth mission, before they can get the backing needed to be built.
“This is another vital step on the pathway to a circular economy, where we reduce waste to landfill and boost the economy, while also ensuring those facilities maximise the benefits to communities. This will also help us deliver on our Plan for Change in a decade of national renewal.”
18 comments
Comment by Frances Stent posted on
Our local Incinerator Beddington Lane Croydon which is adjacent to London Rd., Wallington SM67EA.where I live consistently breaches set limits of pollutant it emits and no government body takes them to task, no one cares about the health of residence in the surrounding of which we are one.
Many times these breaches are reported in the media to no avail.
Virido is responsible for this Incinerator and its surronding area, to date it has not forfilled it obligation to renovate the Wetlands and Nature reserve grounds and trees promised for many years and part of agreement to build
In the light of Viridor's miss management it should be closed but only be a recycling plant
Comment by Neil Halliday posted on
I note the Government`s proposal to limit new incinerators and insist on stricter standards regarding new incinerators. I welcome this.
If I am interpreting things correctly, these new proposals do not go as far as the Conservative Manifesto proposal which called for a moratorium on all new incinerators. This is disappointing.
Personally, as someone who works in Wisbech where a huge mega Incinerator has been proposed, I would have thought there was a very strong case for reviewing all approved unbuilt new incinerators as "standards and expectations have changed". Surely in the light of new standards these all need reviewing.
Locally, there are serious concerns regarding environmental harm and lack of adequate carbon capture. Surely, there is a case for a review?
I welcome comments regarding the stagnation on recycling rates which I completely accept.
Individuals, organisations and government bodies need to work together to give this issue focus. And I include myself, as someone who has perhaps not personally given this issue sufficient personal focus, in that.
I previously worked in Environmental Education and my perception is that Environmental Education almost disappeared under the previous Conservative Government. Education is key. And I would suggest a hearts and minds approach with the young who can act as fabulous role models and champions.
The Fenland area, where I live, had a recycling rate of 37% in 2022 and I think there is massive scope to improve this if this is given focus which it appears is the plan of the Labour government.
I note the plan to send less than 10% to Landfill by 2035 and welcome the proposal for a drinks return scheme by 2027, extended producer responsibility for packaging in 2025, and while I am not aware of detail I welcome the idea for simpler recycling.
In essence, the Government appears confident that it will be able to improve recycling rates.
Surely, this adds to the argument for putting the Wisbech Incinerator on hold as, without sufficient non-recycled waste, it will have nothing to feed it.
I am fairly sure there is an appetite to reduce volumes of non-recycled waste in Wisbech and suggest the town be given the chance to reduce before the mega-incinerator is built.
Comment by Anthony Clee posted on
There is little clarity about those incinerators which already have planning permission but not yet built. So we're still in limbo. Nothing about overcapacity in incineration now or the near future. Wasn't there supposed to be a survey to provide an answer to this?
Too much emphasis on keeping waste out of landfill, but little really to reduce incineration. Why not tax it in the same way as landfill? In what way can it be said to benefit communities when incineration does not support net zero or your economic growth mission. This Wisbech incinerator does not even have carbon capture, and local businesses want neither the steam nor this facility so close to them. Some have have warned that this dirtiest form of energy capture is detrimental to nature of their business which is about food, harvesting and processing.
Comment by Linda Pollard posted on
How can clever people be so blind as to see the impact of these monstrosities on our health and future of our beautiful planet. Shane on those who allow these to be built.
Comment by Annette Dalby posted on
Planning permission was granted for the Shelton Road incinerator in Corby over 5 years ago and recently gained a permit, although no works have yet started. However, before and since then, several thousand new homes have been built and are continuing to be be built close by. No mention is ever made of this or the fact that the incinerator will be built close to two schools and a nursery with a third school due to be built. In fact the homes are being built on the same brownfield site as the planned incinerator. Surely the decision to permit this incinerator should be rescinded or at the very least the recently announced restrictions on new incinerators be applied? No-one want this incinerator (we already have one that takes waste food) and after many years of a dirty polluting steel plant it is about time that the people of Corby were given a break!
Comment by Cllr Dave Tchil posted on
I welcome the proposed plans to reduce waste at source assuming it materialises and is not watered down. Evidence shows incineration capacity is already too great and the guidance should have a stronger recommendation to roll back capacity alongside further detail on a review of the health impacts of incineration on the environment and health, especially within built up urban environments. The industry benefits from a weak Environment Agency and emissions thresholds which gives too great a leeway to manage emissions exceedances. There was no mention in any great detail of carbon emissions which are excessive in comparison to energy creation by other green sources and the false economy of tying in district heat networks to ERF Incinerators, which only increases the longevity of their use.
Comment by Elizabeth Hoare posted on
I believe we should stop building new incinerators and do more to ensure that recycling is prioritised. Living near an incinerator has increased the congestion from traffic delivering the waste 24 hours a day and we have experienced several breeches of emissions levels . Despite local concerns and objections the incinerator was not only approved but also allowed to increase their capacity recently. Our objections to the council fall on deaf ears and we have no voice at the meetings which are often shut down before any proper debate can take place and objections put forward.
Comment by Avril posted on
In light of the new development of planning permissions for such. Wisbech should be looked at again. A47 towards proposed incinerator is certainly not suitable. I expect it’s been surveyed. Would certainly like to see report. Tidal river one side and huge drop other. Single track lanes.
Built up area and 2 schools in immediate area.
Comment by Alan Boughen posted on
Please end the introduction of incinerators. The biggest in Europe allegedly planned to be built in a small rural town, within less than 1 mile of schools, established food industry and housing. However, the area itself doesn’t generate that amount waste so much of it will be shipped in by lorry on a poor road network. There is no other option. Therefore additional pollution through increased vehicle movements at slow speeds in residential areas and passing schools. The local recycling rate is very poor and needs addressing before any burning of such items.
Most frustrating is the location is known to be deprived and was clearly chosen as an easy target for exploitation. We’ve already a high proportion of the population requiring medical intervention and such a develop would only increase that need in the decades to come.
Comment by Glenn Shales posted on
No brick has been laid on the site of the Wisbech incinerator and anyone with a modicum of sense and local knowledge knows it would be an environmental and economical disaster for the area if it was allowed to be built.
Locals have been screaming the bleeding obvious for years but but the powers that be see fit to ignore it.
Are we now in the mist of leaders who hold health of many above the profit of a few?
Time will tell if this is just lip service!
Comment by John Dancy posted on
Portland would be in the completely wrong place.
Comment by James Hewitt posted on
The Residual Waste Infrastructure Capacity Note stipulates that further incinerator developments must demonstrate “that they can be built carbon capture ready”.
No definition is given for “carbon capture ready”. Does it merely require that the land area of the site will be sufficient to accommodate a carbon capture facility which
(i) captures the incinerator’s post combustion CO2 at a rate of 90% or more during routine operation (such rates are implausibly optimistic) and without any increase in the discharge of pollutants (including of amine derivatives),
(ii) but also sufficiently decontaminates the captured CO2 and
(iii) compresses it
(iv) either for direct discharge (in dense phase) to a pipeline (specifications for which have yet to be established) along which it is pumped for permanent geological disposal (permanence is imperative but cannot be guaranteed),
(v) or for temporary, liquified storage on the site prior to intermittent transfer to vehicles on land or water which transport it for permanent geological disposal?
Is the requirement to be carbon capture ready merely a delaying tactic – to allow construction of further incinerators until such time as the number of underperforming carbon capture and/or permanent geological storage sites obliges recognition of this “solution” as false (if not fraud)?
Will government and the industry then pursue other even less plausible "solutions" for the financial rich, such as SAF, in sequence so as to delay the achievement of a peaceful, equitable, economic transformation commensurate with the climate, biodiversity and waste / pollution emergencies?
The probability of underperformance may jeopardise investments in “carbon capture”. The financial and energy cost of achieving an operational performance anything like that proposed for planning approval and marketing purposes may well be commercially unviable – even if government has any money left to subsidise such foreseeable failure (and the public allows government to do so).
Given that the UK has no substantial pulp mills, the CO2 released on combustion of paper in the UK derives from feedstock grown overseas. For convenience, the UK government has chosen to ignore that such CO2. As is widely recognised – especially in relation to power stations which burn imported wood pellets – this combustion of woody biomass is not carbon neutral, even if the management of the forested land from which the feedstock derives has been retrospectively manage sustainably. The pace of climate collapse is now such that trees felled today are far less likely to recover the CO2 sequestration foregone (and ecosystem services lost) by clear-felling in the time available before the global carbon budgets for 1.5C and “well below 2C” are exhausted. CO2 emitted when incinerators burn biogenic waste (including recycle paper) deriving from trees should not be deemed carbon neutral.
Comment by Susan Edwards posted on
I am disappointed with the government’s announcement. It is clear that there is already enough incineration capacity to deal with our waste going forward and yet the government has done nothing to prevent the many incinerators already granted planning permission and environmental permits from being built. This is, in my view, irresponsible and leaves “working towards a circular economy” in jeopardy. How can we “work towards a circular economy” whilst allowing the building of yet more waste incinerators? I agree that any new incinerator projects are unlikely to go through, as the new rules will prove to be prohibitively expensive, but there are far too many incinerators beyond the planning and permit stage that will be unaffected by the new rules and may even be emboldened by these new rules which will incentivise building the less restrictive variety of incinerator (more environmentally damaging). Incineration cannot be considered part of a circular economy. We need an immediate incinerator moratorium.
Comment by Jade posted on
But who will ensure that these measures or stuck to?! The EA doesn’t do enough to keep our rivers clean, so they’re not going to get involved with waste incineration.
Incineration needs to be stopped entirely, if we need to stop using coal and it’s now proven that incinerators generate just as much, if not more, harmful pollution than why would any more be allowed to be built or to continue to operate?!
Comment by Michael Ryan posted on
I should be grateful if Ms Creagh would comment on the fact that both Dr Harry Burns, Chief Medical Officer for Scotland and also Dr Robert Maynard, of the Health Protection Agency separately downplayed the clear and consistent link between incinerator emissions and elevated rates of infant mortality in electoral wards exposed to such emissions, as reported in the Inside Croydon article “Health agencies ignored public’s concerns on incinerator (15 October 2024).
https://insidecroydon.com/2024/10/15/health-agencies-ignored-publics-concerns-on-incinerator/
Comment by Frances Nolan posted on
Against Waste Incineration
The climate changes we are seeing, more dense overcast clouds this will hold toxic plume of smoke in the atmosphere for longer this will then be poisoning the people who live near and under waste incinerator. All the leftover toxic ash would still need to be buried in landfill so it makes more sense to do more recycling than more burning of valuable materials. Which in the future valubale materials will not be available as we try to have a more sustainable way of living within our own boundaries.
Comment by Annette Dalby posted on
How does this affect incinerators which have the necessary permissions but have not yet started the build process?
Comment by John w. Baxter posted on
No more reading the Yorkshire Post recycled in the U.K. on some Phillipines waste dump then……will we all be bathed in the super scrubbed waste emissions we were promised by our government watchdogs who are going to see all this recoverable energy converted into reusable energy……can only hope they are not the Cal Mac engineers!…….cynical I know, but come on …..the British public is getting fed up of one failure after another!.