£40m hazardous waste treatment plant intended for Teesside narrowly refused planning permission
A new processing plant to treat hazardous waste on Teesside has been narrowly denied planning permission.
The incinerator was proposed for land at Boundary Road West on the Wilton International complex near to Grangetown and would burn the likes of paint sludge, resins/varnishes, detergents, pharmaceutical items, laboratory chemicals, pesticides, clinical waste and heavy fuel oil, creating energy from the combustion process.
But despite a recommendation for approval from planning officers, members of Redcar and Cleveland Council’s regulatory committee voted by five to four to refuse the application.
READ MORE: DWP explains rules around £430 benefit as campaigners seek answers
READ MORE: Plans lodged for eight bed HMO on top floor of town centre property
Applicant CSG, which already has a presence on the site, said it was an investment worth more than £40m with 20 new high quality jobs also being created. The facility was to take 24,000 tonnes of waste a year which would be delivered by heavy goods vehicles, although deliveries were restricted to daytime hours, 6am to 5.30pm.
Tom Casey, from the campaign group Stop Incineration North East, said “greenwashing terms” were being used to describe such developments and also complained about inadequate public consultation. Another representative from the group, Ray Casey, said Grangetown was “surrounded” by incinerators and he was concerned about where the waste was coming from and how it would be stored.
Councillor Tristan Learoyd, another objector who registered to speak at the meeting, said: “I urge the committee to reject this proposal to protect our community, environment, and planning integrity.”
He said the proposal conflicted with local and national planning policies and an environmental assessment was outdated.
Cllr Learoyd said stricter standards for waste incineration, announced by the Government last month, required energy from waste facilities to be carbon capture ready, something that was lacking, and the energy generation and heat transfer details included with the application were “vague and insufficient”.
He took issue with modelling carried out on behalf of the applicant which assessed the impact of emissions and how far they would travel, having completed his own analysis, and also claimed particulate matter levels would also be “dangerously high”.
Stephen Longstaff, a director of ELG Planning, the consultants on the project, said “thermal combustion” was the only available solution for hazardous organic waste and the UK already sent 64,000 tonnes abroad, which was “inherently unsustainable”.
He said: “A considerable benefit to the proposals is that the plant will generate excess energy, mainly in the form of electricity, which could be exported to the National Grid.”
Once plugged in, the offtake electricity could power 1,500 homes. Mr Longstaff said an environmental permit required from the Environment Agency to operate would set out strict controls on processes and emissions.
Jen Cartmell, a director of waste treatment at CSG, said it was an established employer in the area, employing more than 50 staff. She said: “The waste streams we are proposing to process are predominantly combustible organic waste with a high calorific value for which this is the only available technique. Teesside and the North-East is a highly industrialised area attracting investment in manufacturing and engineering, and a secure waste management system is needed to manage the industrial waste streams these facilities produce.”
The director said the investment in the facility would amount to £42m and be the largest project it had commissioned “demonstrating our commitment to the area and the people”.
She said it would use the best available technology and it was also felt the Wilton site was the most appropriate location. Waste water produced from the process would be transported from the area to a facility the company operates in Manchester.
Councillor Lynn Pallister, who represents the Grangetown ward and is a member of the committee, said there was a “mass” of incinerators in the area and she was very concerned about the potential impact on residents’ health. She said: “In my opinion CSG should look at another site. There has to be a stop to how many there are in one area.”
Another committee member, Councillor Ian Hart said he had reservations about the height of the stack from which flue glasses would be emitted, which would extend to about 36 metres high, and could not support the application as it stood.
Councillor Philip Thomson said he was “regrettably” supporting the plans, but urged improvements generally in the monitoring and enforcement of air quality standards. The planning refusal was met with a round of applause from some members of the public in attendance.
‘Extremely disappointed’
In a statement issued after the meeting, Ms Cartmell said the firm was “extremely disappointed” with the decision. She said: "The application was recommended for approval by the planning authority and it is unclear to us how the committee’s decision to refuse followed the guidance of either the Local Plan or the National Planning Policy Framework.
“We remain convinced of the overwhelming benefits of this project, which seeks to bring the UK’s first hazardous waste-to-energy processing plant to Teesside. Pre-application studies showed both air quality effects and odour emissions would be negligible. Furthermore, there were no objections from local residents, or the Environment Agency.
“We will seek advice and consider options for our next course of action, once the formal decision documents have been received.”
But also speaking afterwards, Cllr Learoyd said it was a “significant victory” for clean air campaigners and local residents. He said Grangetown was already battling some of the UK’s worst health outcomes.
Cllr Learoyd claimed “crucial parameters” were missing from air quality data presented in support of the incinerator and the proposed stack height was the “bare minimum, raising significant concerns about air pollution dispersion”.
He added: “”This would have been the fourth incinerator approved in the Grangetown area, if we include biomass, further burdening a community already struggling with poor air quality and health outcomes. Redcar and Middlesbrough are not the UK’s dumping ground and residents deserve better.”
For the latest Redcar and Cleveland news direct to your inbox, go here to sign up to our free newsletter