Sutton’s Lib Dem Council has been accused of ‘showing contempt for democracy’ after it shut down debate over a contentious local incinerator plant during a council meeting this week. This comes following a week when it was revealed that burning rubbish was the UK’s dirtiest power source.
Councillors from the Hackbridge and Beddington areas of Sutton have said the council’s refusal to discuss the incinerator demonstrates an unwillingness to listen to the needs of residents. The incident occurred during the dying minutes of a marathon council meeting on Monday (October 21). This was the council’s first full meeting since May, and the packed agenda reflected the need to address some of the most pressing issues affecting the borough.
The agenda included a motion calling for the council to discuss the Beddington incinerator, officially known as the Energy Recovery Facility, and how they can reduce dependency on it. The incinerator, run by Viridor, can burn over 300,000 tonnes of non-recyclable waste every year.
The motion item, put forward by Hackbridge Labour councillor Dave Tchill, also called for a ‘comprehensive environmental and health assessment’ and improved waste management. The motion also called for the introduction of air quality monitors and an early warning system for imminent pollution incidents as well as better community engagement from the council and Viridor.
This motion, which followed other motions regarding local government funding and the fate of St Helier Hospital, was particularly timely given recent events. Last week a BBC report revealed that burning rubbish, like the kind practiced in Beddington, is now the UK’s dirtiest form of power.
This results from the UK’s move away from coal, and according to BBC analysis, ‘energy produced from waste is five times more polluting than the average UK unit of electricity’. This led Dr Ian Williams, professor of applied environmental science at the University of Southampton, to say: “The current practice of the burning of waste for energy and building more and more incinerators for this purpose is at odds with our desire to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”
Around the same time, news broke that the incinerator recorded three additional licence breaches in September, marking four consecutive months of exceeding emissions limits. Viridor has recorded 60 breaches of Environmental Agency (EA) terms since the incinerator became operational in 2019.
According to Cllr Tchill, who spoke to the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS) this week, this motion was intended to address these issues, which he says are continually raised by people in his area. Furthermore, the motion was supported by fellow opposition members the Sutton Conservatives and the Independent group.
Cllr Tchill’s motion was delivered around 10pm and followed three hours of lengthy discussion and debate. As a result, the council decided to consider a vote to lengthen the meeting so the motion could be heard.
Newly appointed Council Leader Barry Lewis said his party would agree to this, but only if the motion was introduced and immediately moved onto the council vote, bypassing the intervening debate.
Cllr Tchill accepted this begrudgingly and delivered his motion and an accompanying assessment of the incinerator issue. He told the chamber: “I’m tired of being ignored and talked down to by members of the administration. The council has a strange relationship with incineration. It’s a blend of complacency and absurdity and a little subservience to the industry.”
However, Lewis’ call, backed by Civic Mayor Colin Stears and Chief Executive Helen Bailey, effectively denied the council a chance to debate what they just heard. Both Ms Bailey and Cllr Stears announced to the chamber that this move was in fact permitted in the council’s constitution.
Despite this, the decision was met with cries of ‘shame’ from the opposition and saw Independent Councillor Nick Mattey leave the chamber in protest after the council voted the motion down. Cllr Tchill believes the decision denied councillors the right to scrutinise the council on an issue that has been raised for many years, but has not, to Cllr Tchill’s mind, been dealt with in a meaningful way. He also told the LDRS of the numerous messages he received from Hackbridge residents who were shocked to see the council ‘ignore’ the incinerator question.
He said: “Closing down debate on a crucial public health and environmental issue shows a lack of empathy to residents and complete contempt for democracy. My proposals were reasonable and productive, I exposed the cosy relationship between Sutton Council and Viridor and the impact of the regular exceedances.”
The Lib Dem council has long been accused of not holding Viridor to account for the frequent outages that have occurred over the years. While Viridor has since made some improvements to its monitoring systems, Cllr Tchill told the council of a previous incident where he was the first person to alert the EA of a particularly distressing incident in June of this year, rather than Viridor.
Following the meeting, it transpired that people associated with Viridor had been watching the proceedings online. Hackbridge’s Independent Councillor Tim Foster received an email from an individual who had done PR for Viridor, the email read: “Top viewing.”
Along with Hackbridge’s two Labour councillors, Beddington’s three independent councillors have been leading the opposition to the incinerator from the start. They fear that residents in their area are being made to suffer by a facility which provides energy to much of the surrounding area via the South London Waste Partnership.
Speaking to the LDRS, Cllr Foster said: “The Liberal Democrats and the administration do not want to discuss anything to do with Viridor or their misplaced strategy on incineration. They may have had the failure to connect the Sutton Decentralised Energy Network (SDEN) heating system to Viridor or the SDEN programme’s strange financial arrangements, the consistent failure of monitoring, exceedances on pollution, and lines having to shut down.
“The great pity is that the unwillingness of the administration to accept the shortcomings and gain support from Viridor to properly invest in community safety is damaging this and future generations.”
Opposition councillors now fear that they will have to wait until the next full council meeting in January 2025 before they can debate it again. When approached for comment, Council Leader Cllr Lewis said: “The council meeting started at 7pm and finished around 10.30pm. It is not uncommon for a motion to end the meeting to be moved after 10pm. Going later than 10.30pm is unreasonable for councillors of all parties who work or are parents or carers. This is why we made the offer to defer to allow a full debate.
“Issues around the ERF have been frequently raised and debated at council and other committee meetings over the years. There will be further opportunities in the future too.”
A spokesperson for Viridor said: “Recovering energy from waste (such as at the Beddington ERF) is recognised within the UK Government’s waste hierarchy as a more environmentally sustainable and better option for residual waste when compared to landfill. Viridor works with its partners to promote the recycling and reduction of waste but recognises there is still material that is thrown away.
“The ERF has enabled Viridor to divert residual black bag waste produced by c. 1m Londoners away from landfill, transforming it into enough energy to power c. 60,000 homes. The Environmental Permit issued by the Environment Agency stipulates stringent operating conditions for the ERF. Should the facility exceed permitted levels this is communicated to the Environment Agency in line with the permit requirements and a detailed investigation is carried out to prevent a reoccurrence.”
