The Chronicle

Fired-up Greens angry about £2bn incinerato­r deal

BUT COUNCIL DEFENDS PLAN

- By DANIEL HOLLAND Local democracy reporter daniel.holland@ncjmedia.co.uk

PLANS for a £2bn incinerato­r to burn rubbish from across the North East have been slammed by green activists.

A 40-year project to burn waste from Newcastle, Durham, Darlington, Hartlepool, Middlesbro­ugh, Stockton and Redcar and Cleveland was announced last week with a promise that it was “better for the environmen­t” than sending rubbish to landfill.

But opponents have condemned the decision, which will see 450,000 tonnes of waste a year being burned, as an environmen­tal failure.

The Newcastle Green Party’s Andrew Gray said the council’s involvemen­t was evidence it had “given up on a sustainabl­e waste strategy” and failed to learn from the Byker ash scandal.

Newcastle City Council was prosecuted in 2000 after 2,000 tonnes of ash from the Byker incinerato­r, which had been spread on more than 20 allotments, was found to contain potentiall­y cancer-causing dioxins.

Mr Gray said: “It has failed to follow its own Newcastle Waste Commission recommenda­tion for a reuse mall, it has failed to have any ambition to reduce waste levels, it has failed to learn from the Byker Incinerato­r scandal of 20 years ago.”

The council said it was “ridiculous” to compare the new facility to the old Byker incinerato­r and “utter codswallop” to think all waste will be recycled or reused in the near future.

The Greens have argued that being tied to a

Andrew Gray decades-long incinerati­on deal will make it harder to pursue other efforts to reduce, reuse, and recycle rubbish.

Mr Gray also criticised the labelling of the incinerato­r – which will be based at the South Tees Developmen­t Corporatio­n area, in Redcar – as an “energy recovery facility”.

He added: “20 years ago, councils began to call their waste incinerato­rs ‘energy from waste’ plants because it sounded better. Now that the public has seen through that euphemism, they have adopted another one, ‘energy recovery facility.’”

Newcastle’s Liberal Democrat opposition have also questioned how the incinerato­r will help the council achieve its goal of recycling 50% of household waste this year.

Coun Gareth Kane, the opposition’s environmen­t spokesman, said: “It’s not clear how this announceme­nt fits within the context of the council’s Waste Strategy.

“The problem with building a new facility is that it will lock the city into sending waste for incinerati­on for decades, making it difficult to exploit greener opportunit­ies as they emerge.”

Coun John-Paul Stephenson, the Labour council’s cabinet member for environmen­t and regulatory services, said the authority was increasing the amount of waste reused, recycled or composted and that the facility “does not affect the scope” of such plans.

He said: “Of course in a perfect world we would recycle or reuse 100% of the waste we produce but to think that is actually achievable in the near future, or we can reach our environmen­tal aims through community engagement alone, is utter codswallop.”

Coun Stephenson added: “To compare a new, modern, £300m energy recovery facility with the much less efficient energy from waste plants of the recent past, let alone something from 40 years ago, is ridiculous.

“The Tees Valley Energy Recovery Facility project in no way encourages us to maintain or increase our residual waste – though as the city’s population grows it will inevitably go up, even if the amount per household hopefully goes down.”

 ??  ?? The South Tees Developmen­t Corporatio­n area, where the Tees Valley Energy Recovery Facility will be built
The South Tees Developmen­t Corporatio­n area, where the Tees Valley Energy Recovery Facility will be built
 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United Kingdom