Belvedere incinerator public inquiry: evidence of John Austin MP
Introduction
My name is John Austin. I am the Member of Parliament for Erith and Thamesmead. I live in Sutherland Road, Belvedere just off the southern end of Norman Road. Prior to my election to Parliament I worked in the borough for 21 years, mostly in the Erith, Belvedere and Thamesmead areas with an office in Erith and a project based in Thamesmead.
You will recall that I originally gave oral evidence at this Inquiry in September 2003 citing concerns over health risks, the need for an incinerator at this site, querying whether the proximity principle had been adhered to and whether the application complied with both Government guidance and the Mayor’s draft waste strategy and draft London Plan.
As you are aware the Secretary of State’s statement of February 2005 set out four matters likely to be relevant to his consideration of the application following the reopened inquiry which I have set out below.
1. The extent to which the proposed development is consistent with the Government’s policy as set out in the Statement by the Minister for the Environment (Mr Elliot Morley) of 6 December 2004 (O.R. Cols 74-76) and the emerging changes to Planning Policy Statement 10 and Waste Strategy 2000;
In 2003, I argued that the government's published Waste Strategy 2000 clearly stated that energy recovery through the incineration of waste should be considered only after all options for minimisation and composting have been explored. Since then of course, there has been the Ministerial Statement of 6th December 2004, which made clear the hierarchy of options available and that this explicitly placed recycling and composting above energy recovery, indicating a shift in approach from Waste Strategy 2000.
Furthermore, in the Joint Ministerial Statement dated 21 July 2005, the Ministers reiterated the fundamental principle of moving waste up the waste hierarchy with energy recovery and disposal as last resorts. They indicated the re-formulation of the principles of self sufficiency and proximity and stated that the objectives henceforth would be that communities should take more responsibility for their own waste and that waste should be disposed of in one of the nearest appropriate installations. They also emphasized the necessity for community engagement as being central to the reformed planning system.
This Statement was accompanied by three policy documents. The first of these, Planning Policy Statement 10 set out the following key objectives for strategic planning:
(i) self sufficiency of communities,
(ii) enabling waste to be disposed of at an installation nearest to its source and
(iii) reflecting the concerns and interests of communities, waste authorities and business.
I shall discuss points (i) and (ii) when I refer to the London Plan. With regard to point (iii), I remain of the view that Bexley has one of the best rates of recycling and composting in London and is being asked to deal with the waste of authorities on the other side of London which have some of the worst recycling records.
This cannot be consistent with the proximity principle and building a massive incinerator in Belvedere capable of burning West London's rubbish provides no incentive to those authorities to move up the waste hierarchy. If incineration is necessary to deal with residual waste, then small incinerators close to the source of waste generation may provide encouragement to recycle and compost, through encouraging local responsibility.
I would therefore argue that my constituents interests and concerns should be once again taken fully into account. They remain of the view that large-scale incineration to deal with West London’s waste is unnecessary and that if an incinerator is required that it should be on a small scale to deal with local residue waste.
As you are aware, I have previously argued this, citing the fact that Bexley gave planning permission in the 1990's for a small incinerator to deal with its own waste and in policy terms has stated that it would be happy for a small incinerator to be built to deal with Bexley's and 1 or 2 neighboring boroughs waste.
I understand that with regard to proposals being dealt with prior to development plans being updated, planning authorities are urged to ensure that those proposals are consistent with PPS10 and that applicants should be able to demonstrate that the proposal will not prejudice movement up through the waste hierarchy. I have previously argued that an incinerator of this size will require waste to feed it and act as a discouragement to further recycling and composting. I believe that this application goes against the commitment for self sufficiency of communities and enabling waste to be disposed of at an installation nearest to its source as set out in PPS10.
The Second policy document referred to was The Guidance on Municipal Waste Management Strategies. This emphasized the key objectives mentioned in PPS10 and also emphasized that waste is a resource and should be put to good use through technologies, with energy recovery being the least favored use within the waste hierarchy and that decisions should be taken which seek to deliver the key objectives. It therefore appears to me, that the application does not comply with this policy guidance as it allows large scale energy recovery to the detriment of other technologies which are higher up the waste hierarchy.
In this context, I would refer the Inspector to the recent opening of the most technologically advanced Materials Recycling Facility in the UK in Thamesmead. This MRF will handle 75,000 tonnes per annum of mixed dry recyclables(MDR) and is the first in the UK to be able to handle glass which makes up 9% of the municipal waste stream. The ability to accept glass into a single co-mingled kerbside collection of MDR significantly increases recycling potential and lower costs for local authorities and will lead to a reduction in the need for incineration.
This local MRF partnership between Cleanaway and Greenwich Council will have a significant impact not only on recycling rates for Greenwich and neighbouring boroughs such as Bexley but on the entire capital. The facility was part funded by a grant from the London Recycling Fund – the first time this body has invested in a MRF.
The third policy document, Changes to Waste Management Decision Making Principles in Waste Strategy 2000 similarly emphasizes the key objectives and principles set out above and therefore supports my argument further.
2. The extent to which the proposed development is consistent with the London Plan;
My understanding is that central government has responsibility for setting the policy and legislative framework, but that local government and regional planning bodies devise strategies to deliver services on the ground. My view is that within London, the GLA in partnership with local authorities should determine what facilities are needed to achieve set targets.
In 2003, I argued that the proximity principle suggests that waste should be dealt with as close as possible to its source and that communities should be encouraged to take responsibility for their own waste, forming a key part of the process of sustainable waste management. At that time I stated that the Mayor's Draft Municipal Waste Strategy said that where possible waste should be dealt with within a borough boundary or waste disposal area boundary, or, where this is not possible, a site as reasonably close as possible.
In 2003, I stated that The Mayor's Draft London Plan (June 2002) and the Mayor's Draft Municipal Waste Strategy (September 2002) promote an intensive recycling-led strategy. At that time, the Mayor’s strategy had pointed out that there is already twice the national average of waste incineration in London. The Mayor had set out that he wanted to encourage an increase in waste minimisation and recycling, the development of new and emerging advanced conversion technologies for non-recyclable residual waste and new treatment methods such as Mechanical Biological Treatment.
The Mayor had argued that this will be done through a hierarchical mechanism by which the revision to the London Plan will set London wide targets for waste management which will then be adopted through the sub regional strategies as the basis for detailed policies within Local Development Frameworks. The level of detail will increase at each stage in the process.
In 2003, you will recall that I therefore supported the views of the Mayor and the London Borough of Bexley who had argued against any additional mass burn incineration capacity in London until other means of treatment have had time to develop.
As you are aware, The London Plan was formally adopted in February 2004.
I understand that the plan seeks to promote the development of recycling, composting and new energy recovery technologies ahead of mass burn incineration. I support its aim that existing incineration capacity would increasingly over time become orientated towards the treatment of non-recyclable residual wastes.
The plan sets out guidance to London Boroughs to assist them in determining the appropriate scale and location of facilities and proposes an early alteration to the plan to provide further strategic guidance. My understanding is that this guidance will evaluate the adequacy of existing strategically important waste management and disposal facilities to meet London’s future needs, both for municipal and other waste streams, and identify the number and type of new or enhanced facilities required to meet those needs and the opportunities for the broad location of such facilities. It is thereby intended to inform the preparation of Sub Regional Development Frameworks.
Through the advice on the preparation of sub-regional strategies, it advises that each sub-region within London should aim to deal with its own waste. This reinforces changes to PPS10 and Waste Strategy 2000 that give effect to more local consideration of self-sufficiency in line with the social responsibility component of the proximity principle. I accept that the single exception to this is the Central London sub region which is required to plan for waste facilities as far as possible in line with the principle of self sufficiency but recognising that the other four sub-regions will need to make limited provision to meet part of Central London’s needs.
I accept that the London Plan does not contain a presumption against mass burn incineration. I have however already acknowledged that energy from waste incineration can form part of a sustainable strategy for the management of waste subject to more detailed consideration against the key principles of proximity, local self sufficiency and the waste hierarchy. The policies of the London Plan therefore consider the need for further incineration in the context of these principles and determine that additional capacity is not required.
I understand that the Mayor has given evidence citing his objection to this application as it fails to comply with the London Plan.
The Mayor has argued that the London Plan includes a consideration of the extent to which the more sustainable waste management options that it seeks to promote and that lie towards the top of the waste hierarchy are capable of being delivered. This will define the amount of waste that can accurately be classified as “residual” and that requires treatment by technologies such as mass burn incineration which now lie towards the bottom of the waste hierarchy.
In addition I believe that he has argued that the application fails to treat waste locally in accordance with the proximity principle; conflicts with the objectives of borough and/or sub-regional self sufficiency is contrary to the objectives of the waste hierarchy given that there are now mechanisms available through adopted or emerging policy or through the control and specification of new waste management contracts that will facilitate the delivery of a more sustainable waste strategy that better accords with the fundamental principles of national and regional guidance; and
that recent data on waste arisings and the current destination of waste management contracts casts significant doubt over the potential of the RRRL proposal to crowd out recycling, particularly given the stronger emphasis on recycling and composting within PPS10.
In addition as I have already set out, new Guidance from Central Government has clarified and emphasized certain aspects of the Mayor’s case and I support his view that the Secretary of State should take this into account when reaching a decision.
I understand that the Mayor has now published a Study which reviews and assesses waste management in London to 2020 and fully agree with his view that the findings support his contention that a new mass burn facility is unnecessary to deal with waste arisings in London either now or before 2020.
As you are aware the Mayor has brought forward Alterations to the London Plan which emphasise:
(i) the proximity principle in relation to communities;
(ii) that each borough should aim for the maximum degree of self-sufficiency so as to contribute to sub-regional self-sufficiency;
(iii) that London can, with its existing and future facilities (which do not include mass-burn) manage 85% of its own waste arisings by 2020.
I support the Mayor’s view in that he considers that these new developments support the case he put forward to the Inspector in 2003 and: -
(i)That the proposal is contrary to the provisions of the London Plan and the Municipal Waste Management Strategy.
(ii)that the proposed facility damages the proximity principle;
(iii)that the proposed facility damages the principle of self-sufficiency;
(iv)that the principle of community engagement is damaged;
(v) that the fundamental principle of driving the management of waste up the waste hierarchy is damaged by this proposal;
(vi) that preferable waste management options are likely to be crowded out by this proposal;
(vii) that the proposal is prejudicial to the use of waste as a resource;
(viii) that the facility is unnecessary as a provision for the management of waste in the foreseeable future; and
(ix) the proposal fails to take account of the recent technological advances in waste recovery and recycling.
I understand that the Mayor considers that the fine balance recognised by the Inspector in his first Report has moved decisively in favour of rejection of the proposal and therefore respectfully ask that the Inspector refuses the proposal, through its failure to comply with the London Plan.
3. The implications of the proposed development in relation to:
(a) road transport including the safety of pedestrians and cyclists using Norman Road, and
(b) water transport including the safety of users of the River Thames;
in the context of the proposed Crossrail link construction;
I have noted that concerns have continued to be expressed throughout the Inquiry regarding traffic capacity within Norman Road particularly given the proposed Crossrail scheme. As you are aware large parts of my constituency have traditionally suffered from deprivation levels in excess of the national average. The opening of a Crossrail station at Abbey Wood would help to significantly improve the ability of my constituents to access other parts of London and in the long term significantly reduce deprivation levels.
I would therefore urge that if Norman Road is required as a way of removing spoil for the Crossrail scheme that this take precedence over all other schemes in the Norman Road area, in order to comply with the aims of the London Plan and Government Guidance to help regenerate the East London.
4. any other relevant matter reflecting changes in circumstances since the close of the Inquiry in October 2003.
In 2003, many local residents expressed their concerns regarding the failure of existing incineration capacity in the area. As I believe you are aware, problems have persisted from the Crossness incinerator in the interim, which has led to increase levels of disenchantment locally that incineration cannot be relied upon. My constituents have continued to suffer continued disturbance as a result of the difficulties at Crossness and query how residue waste would be treated if there were to be similar technical problems at this site.
Conclusions
There is a democracy issue here too. The proposal is contrary to recent government guidance. The proposal is contrary to the Mayor’s London Plan and is opposed by the Mayor, elected by the people of London to serve their interests. It is opposed by the elected Greater London Authority and the elected local planning authority.
It is opposed by the local community and frankly, my constituents have had it up to here. We already have to cope with the whole of south London's sewage, we see no reason why we should have to put up with west London's rubbish as well, particularly as there have been sites available in that area and local solutions to west London’s waste generation and disposal. Let west London deal with its own waste as we are dealing with ours. We are fed up being London's dust-bin.
