pgc all green working and signpost with lettering new colour 2
pgc all green working and signpost with lettering new colour 2
facebook icon twitter icon

Share this article share on facebook share on twitter

new edmonton incineratorAn artist's impression of the huge new incinerator at the heart of the North London Heat & Power Project

Environmental groups have renewed calls for the North London Waste Authority (NLWA) to review its plans to build a huge new waste incinerator in Edmonton. A document sent to councillors in seven boroughs contains detailed "rebuttals" of claims made recently by NLWA board members in defence of the project. Their objections relate both to serious environmental concerns and to the project's value for money, especially in the light of changing circumstances.

"700,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide a year"

In March seven local Extinction Rebellion (XR) groups wrote to all councillors in seven north London boroughs urging them to pause the North London Heat and Power Project (NLHPP). Their letter argued that the new incinerator would burn 150,000 tonnes of fossil fuels per year in the form of plastic and that it is likely to emit 700,000 tonnes of CO2 per year, about half of which would be derived from fossil fuel sources. It argued that there are lower-carbon alternatives to incineration and district heating which would be much cheaper: reducing waste generation; boosting recycling of organics, metals, plastics and other material; and investing in real renewable energy sources.

The XR groups, along with other campaigners, also made the point that the new incinerator would be oversized for the volumes of "residual" waste which will need to be dealt with. Consequently, it risked becoming a "stranded asset" (ie a white elephant) or alternatively the need to "feed" it would be a disincentive to recycling and to progress towards a circular economy.

"Tell the truth"

In May two leading members of the NLWA board, Councillors Loakes from Waltham Forest and Burke from Hackney, responded in a letter and newspaper article, giving reasons for rejecting the call to review the project. In their Rebuttal document the XR groups challenge these responses, which they say include many questionable claims, and call on the NLWA to "tell the truth", setting out detailed rebuttals of each of the arguments made by the two councillors.

The points of contention include:

  • the NLWA says that not building the incinerator risks sending up to 700,000 tonnes of waste to landfill. XR argues that this amount is based on an overestimate of future waste generation, proposes methods of recyling or composting a much higher proportion of waste, and suggests that it might be preferable to bury the small amount of genuinely residual waste because it stores materials for future reclamation rather than transforming them into atmospheric pollution.
  • the NLWA claims that the incinerator would contribute towards reducing carbon emissions. The XR document includes a section setting out a step-by-step argument why the effect of burning 700,000 tonnes of waste would be to add 700,000 tonnes of CO2 to the atmosphere and not 28,000 tonnes, as claimed.
  • the NLWA claims that the project meets the requirement to safeguard communities from health and environmental risks. The campaigners say that, in addition to the environmental damage caused by carbon emissions, it is impossible to filter out ultra-fine particles that are particularly injurious to health.

A comprehensive value-for-money review needed "as a matter of urgency"

imageAnother group opposed to the NLHPP is Stop the Edmonton Incinerator Now, many of whose supporters live in Chingford and Walthamstow, areas downwind from the incinerator when the prevailing westerly winds blow. The group has commissioned a report arguing for a value-for-money review of the project, written by the United Kingdom Without Incineration Network and paid for with help from the Frederick Mulder Foundation.

The report, published last month, concludes that

Given the scale of the Edmonton incinerator rebuild project and the many significant changes that have arisen since the project was first proposed, it would be prudent for a comprehensive Value for Money (VfM) review to be undertaken as a matter of urgency.

It discusses factors that could undermine the economics of the project and should be considered by a value-for-money review, including:

  • the discrepancy between the forecast amounts of residual waste used as the basis for planning the incinerator and much lower actual amounts - despite the increasing population, waste volumes have fallen
  • the risk of incineration overcapacity in and around London
  • the risk of increases in construction costs caused by various factors, including Brexit, exchange rate changes and the coronavirus outbreak
  • the risk that the government might bring in additional taxes on carbon emissions
  • the risk of regulatory changes, eg changes to recycling rules and targets, tougher emission controls, a ban on incinerating recyclables.

"A wall of denial and rebuttals"

The cost of the NLHPP will be borne by the seven councils represented on the NLWA. In theory the NLWA is ultimately answerable to the electors in these boroughs, but campaigners who have contacted their councillors have complained about "vested interests" and say that they have come up against "a wall of denial and rebuttals, no matter who we write to". The same appears to be true for another issue concerning the NLWA - its insistence that Pinkham Wood, a protected nature conservancy site adjacent to the North Circular Road, must continue to be earmarked as a site suitable for a waste processing facility. The north London councils are united in maintaining this stance and resistant to any calls for common sense, even when they come from planning inspectors.

Log in to comment
Karl Brown posted a reply
09 Jun 2020 12:39
Having been presented with these conflicting viewpoints, how did we get to a much-too-large-for-north London incinerator, set to worsen our air quality and produce London borough-scale volumes of CO2 just as we face a (legal) net-zero carbon future?

Start in 2004 and the draft of North London’s Joint Municipal Waste strategy (NLJMWS), completed by north London’s seven boroughs and the waste authority, the NLWA - a public body whose board of trustees is made up of councillors from the seven boroughs. Municipal waste, the type we’re most familiar with as households, makes up about 30% of the total waste arising in north London.

The seven boroughs (only) are separately required to produce a Development Plan Document for waste; that is the North London Waste Plan (NLWP). This was expected to be completed by 2010, ten years ago! The NLWP covers all waste, not simply municipal, and has two main purposes:
• To ensure there is sufficient protected land available for waste management; and
• To set policies relating to that land.

In-between these two dates came an Icelandic banking crisis, a secret financial deal between two public bodies to buy the nature conservation land at Pinkham Way, the start of (still ongoing efforts) to change that areas designation to Industrial land so as to be better suited for waste management, and a continued belief in extremely high waste growth forecasts despite ever increasing evidence to the contrary. The draft NLJMWS also went on to add a fifth waste management option (let’s simply call it “Pinkham Way”), deemed better than all the others, and its sign-off was pushed through the councils as an urgent item in 2008.

Then the NLWP failed at its independent examination.

Then PFI funding for the Pinkham Way approach was removed. (But the NLWA intent nevertheless continued).

Then “Pinkham Way” itself failed.

However the NLWA now owned the land at Pinkham Way, an asset later estimated to cost some £40m to clean up to make good for development yet still valued on its balance sheet at an eight figure sum.

Surely this was a good time to take stock and develop a viable strategy for our municipal waste?
Clearly not: instead the route was to double down and ignore all strategic trends dampening future waste levels, ignore the much lower demands made by the GLA for north London’s share of total waste to manage, and instead create yet more forecasts of waste growing relentlessly and plan for substantial capacity now to meet that far off assumed higher need. And also decide it would be via an incinerator.

The long list of caveats produced by the forecast’s authors contrasts with the NLWA statement that the incinerator supporting waste data is “robust” and highlights the extent to which this organisation has been happy to overwrite facts - this is shown on the attachment.

This browser does not support PDFs. Please download the PDF to view it: Download PDF



Despite being based on what were then even higher forecast waste levels, all the Energy from Waste (EfW) options in the NLJWS proposed capacity substantially below that now being planned. How could it possibly be we now end up looking at something significantly larger than all of those?

The NLWA still holds the land at Pinkham Way, highly valued in its balance sheet, and in the absence of any strategy justifying its use, there followed a need to develop a NLWP supporting a land need to underpin the position. This latest NLWP also failed to pass muster at its public examination late last year. A second attachment outlines one of the several reasons why that situation is very unlikely to change quickly.

This browser does not support PDFs. Please download the PDF to view it: Download PDF



A 15 year plan has so far taken 13 years to get nowhere, a full 10 years after it was first expected to be approved and now appears quite likely to be required to once again start-over.

The NLJMWS expires this year (2020), so we currently have no municipal waste strategy (supporting or otherwise an incinerator) and no NLWP.

The NLJWS will not be rewritten for at least two more years because the waste authority view the future as currently too uncertain to do so; not however too uncertain to pause a two generation term incinerator plan.

It is worth noting that the incinerator supporting waste forecast data, the same data so heavily caveated by its own authors, and which was then also used in the later NLWP, was not accepted at the latter’s public hearing.

We now look down on a mess of failures, inconsistencies and inaccuracy.

So what is needed? The message is the same as has been conveyed for the last ten years plus: waste is an issue that needs a solution. Our region needs a waste resource strategy based on supportable evidence, where a NLWP and a NLJWS are two sides of the same coin, and where public bodies are transparent and accountable to the public for their actions and for our money that they spend.

The linear waste model, such as where oil was drilled in the middle east, often fought over, shipped to the far east, converted into toys, shipped to the west, popped in as an adjunct to kids food, played with for ten minutes and then thrown out to be buried in the ground or burnt in an incinerator is coming to an end. A circular economy treating waste as a reusable resource will replace it, estimated by consultants for the GLA to reduce end of life waste (for eg incineration) by something like a third over the medium term. That’s where waste thinking needs to be planning, not the toss it away and burn it world of ten years and more ago.

So just why is all this happening to us in the absence of any supporting plan or strategy? Incompetence, ego, some other, you decide for there is no supportable reason for where we find ourselves; perhaps all public views could be aggregated onto a flag that could sit atop our planned “flagship” incinerator, something to look at while we pay for it and the still outstanding bill from Pinkham Way for the next three decades. Locking in necessarily huge levels of waste production as a must-have feedstock item for two generations and all those cries for school books, social care budgets, pothole repairs and more are literally going up in smoke.

More than that, why has north London put itself forward to be London’s and parts of the south east’s waste capital, and why within that is Enfield seeking to be the waste capital of it all?

Someone must know. Time they blew their whistle before it’s too late. What started as a secret deal shouldn’t now end up the same way.

(Municipal Waste levels are roughly 650,000 tonnes per annum and declining. London’s recycling target for this waste type is at least 65%, leaving roughly 225,000 tonnes pa to be disposed of. The incinerator however has a planned capacity of 700,000 tonnes.)
Karl Brown, there seem to be many reasons for concern about the NLWA's approach to the management of waste in North London. Among these, the lack of public scrutiny and accountability should be high on the agenda. In connection with this I noticed only yesterday that NLWA's new website (which popped up in the last couple of weeks) has little to say about the mechanisms of scrutiny available to the public. It is very concerning that campaigners get no reply to requests for information under the Freedom of Information Act. The latest development is that the new website gives access to only the last four annual reports and financial statements, whereas just a few weeks ago anyone visiting the old website could read reports of the last 10 years! Why has NLWA suddenly restricted access to older financial and annual reports? What has it got to hide from the public?
Karl Brown posted a reply
11 Jun 2020 14:53
Commenting on Aurora Yaacov's findings, I can't say why such data has so suddenly been removed from the NLWA web site. What I do know however is that in the last few weeks they received a mail which included the lines:

In the meantime, plans for the NLHPP are scheduled to proceed. However, and as the attached note spells out, that has implications:

• It removes any chance of securing Pinkham Way for waste use; so suggesting
• The c £14m valuation of Pinkham Way in the NLWA accounts is unlikely to stand scrutiny.

Conversely, the c £60m remaining PWLB monies to secure the 50% share of London Energy (Waste), along with the c£50m goodwill which remains on the NLWA balance sheet - despite the contrary statement in the 2009/10 NLWA audited accounts and proper practices in relation to accounts - can be absorbed into NLHPP funding,


This may or may not be relevant to what has just happened but it may be difficult to view the timing as insignificant.

There is no public scrutiny of NLWA and never has been. The organisation refuted attempts to be scrutinised by a Council scrutiny committee.

The Chair apparently once said he (NLWA) was accountable to no one - and the Standing orders would seem to support that - although later comment suggest that line has since been softened and their view is that the NLWA is accountable to Parliament.

Note also NLWA is a legal entity independent of the seven councils and so while sitting the board has responsibility to NLWA alone and no one else, ie their host councils.

Hope that helps
Bill Linton posted a reply
15 Jun 2020 12:16
Given that the board members of the NLWA are appointed by the seven councils, it is hard to believe that they do not have any responsibility to those who appointed them. Even if they really do not, it is surely possible for any council unhappy with the views put forward by its representatives to recall them and replace them with others whose views are more in line with council policy.
However, waste is not a 'sexy' subject and few councillors will have any interest in it (probably including most of the cabinet). Faced with factually-conflicting statements from the NLWA and from a bunch of protesters many will assume that the NLWA knows its own business and seek to pass on rapidly to their own next business - even when the protesters' statement is meticulously cross-referenced and the NLWA's is just a blanket denial.
There are cracks in the wall, however: two Enfield councillors - Vicki Pite and Yasemin Brett - have come out against the NLWA. Hopefully that may make some of their colleagues wonder whether they ought not to take another look at the evidence, and it also makes it easier for any that do to break ranks as well - being first is always hardest. On the other hand, the current administration seems to be as little inclined to listen to other views as the NLWA is.
Karl Brown posted a reply
17 Jun 2020 10:29
Bill’s observation on the sexiness of waste surely is true and he also raises a hopeful point of a debate finally opening up between elected councillors, but on two of his other points it’s worth bearing in mind:
(Technically at least) Appointments to the NLWA are made by the NLWA not the 7 councils - they could say no; and
There is no evidence the councils themselves have a desired approach that is any different to that of the NLWA.
For us here in Enfield this latter point is perhaps the real killer (possibly literally) for why is the borough supporting the hosting of an incinerator three times as large as data / forecasts suggest is needed and which will be capable of pumping out the equivalent of two full years’ worth of all the CO2 produced in London over its expected lifetime just as we face - and announce - a climate emergency? I honestly have not the slightest idea. Let's just hope someone does.
Bill Linton posted a reply
18 Jun 2020 17:34
Enfield Council are indeed quite happy to plough ahead with building this white elephant with money they don't have. My own approach to Cllr Ian Barnes on behalf of Extinction Rebellion was dismissed rather rudely without any attempt to engage with the arguments I put forward. As Ian has never been known to disagree with Cllr Caliskan, and what she says goes, we may assume that only a rapid (but improbable) return of democracy to Enfield offers any hope.
Ian Barnes posted a reply
21 Jun 2020 11:57
Bill
My reply to you suggested you contact the North London Waste Authority which has statutory jurisdiction over the new North London Heat and Power Project. Just because it's not the answer you want doesn't mean that it is rude.
And as for your final comment, which is frankly beneath you, the option assessment that the NLHPP scheme was the preferred option was made during the 2014-2018 administration.
Ian
Karl Brown posted a reply
24 Jun 2020 08:45
Extinction Rebellion Enfield have sent the following message:

We at XR Enfield have become aware that the following individuals and groups have submitted today deputations requests to the forthcoming North London Waste Authority’s board meeting:
  1. Enfield councillors: Vicki Pite, Yasemin Brett, Charith Gunawardena, Husseyin Akpinar, Saray Karakus, Ann Brown, Ayfer Orhan
  2. Haringey councillors: Bob Hare, Liz Morris, Tammy Palmer, Scott Emery
  3. Camden councillor: Simon Pearson
  4. London Assembly Member: Caroline Russell
  5. Kate Osamor, MP for Edmonton
  6. Iain Duncan Smith, MP for Chingford and Woodford Green
  7. Group of doctors
  8. Pinkham Way Alliance
  9. Individual campaigner: Malcolm Stow

We understand that the common thread to these deputations is that they all seek to pause and review the plans for the new Edmonton incinerator. The NLWA meeting is scheduled on Thursday 25 June at 2.30 pm.

The board meeting will be streamed live on the Camden Council website:

COUNCILMEETINGS.CAMDEN.GOV.UK

www.nlwa.gov.uk/sites/default/files/inline-files/Agenda%2025.06.2020.pdf

Perusal of the agenda above will reveal that the board is proposing to exclude the public from the crucial parts of the agenda - that is to say, the items where the board intends to approve the start of preparations for construction of the new incinerator and the expenditure of large amounts of money coming from the budgets of the seven north London boroughs.
Richard Thompson posted a reply
24 Jun 2020 15:20
It really is vital that as many messages as possible reach potential decision-makers or decision-influencers as soon as possible. From an Enfield perspective, that means the Enfield Council leadership and the two Enfield delegates to the NLWA, Cllrs Ergin Erbil and Chris Bond, as well as our three MPs.

On behalf of Fox Lane & District Residents Association (FLDRA) I have written to all sixteen of our local councillors, plus the Enfield reps on the NLWA Cllrs Bond and Ergin Erbil, with a copy of the letter we sent to Clyde Loakes, the Waltham Forest councillor who chairs the NWLA - and has done for many years. The letter is on our foxlane.net website.

It would be really shocking, and a statement of opposition to any serious attempts to respond to the climate emergency and save lives in the future, if NWLA ploughed ahead with the project on the watch of these particular politicians. They would fail even the greenwash test.
PGC Webmaster posted a reply
25 Jun 2020 13:23
Eight local branches of Extinction Rebellion (XR) today issued the following press release

Doctors to ask councillors to review incinerator plans to reduce death, disease: "You will save more lives than we will in our entire careers"

LONDON, 25 JUNE 2020—Today doctors, MPs, councillors, and campaigners will be asking the North London Waste Authority (NLWA) to reconsider plans to build a large incinerator in Edmonton, statements released in advance of an NLWA board meeting show. MPs Kate Osamor and Iain Duncan Smith are among today’s speakers, who are expected to highlight various issues of concern, such as the risks a new incinerator would pose to people’s health, social justice, the environment, and financial stability—amid fears of a deep post-Covid recession.

‘We are asking the North London Waste Authority to pause and review their plans to build a new incinerator in Edmonton as air pollution and the climate emergency are preventable causes of disease and death,’ Dr Rebecca Redwood, a GP in Waltham Forest, is to tell the 14 board members of the waste authority, who have the power to draw up plans that are more in line with climate emergency declarations, commitments to ‘build back better’ following the pandemic, and North London’s actual waste management needs.

Dr Redwood will be speaking on behalf of a group of doctors who, in a signed statement to the NLWA, underscore that ‘air pollution causes around 40,000 deaths per year in the UK’ and costs taxpayers ‘more than £20 billion every year’. They also refer to ‘evidence that increased air pollution allows pathogens such as coronavirus to spread further’ and that the incinerator ‘will release ultra-fine particulate matter (PM1 and PM0.1) that cannot be filtered’ and for which there is ‘no safe threshold below which no damage to health is observed’.

In recognition of the NLWA’s plans to ship waste into North London to ensure the 700,000-tonne incinerator works at capacity, Dr Redwood is expected to warn the board members that ‘moving the waste into North London will produce additional carbon emissions and road congestion with its own negative effects on health’. She is to note that ‘over the next 50 years, the proposed facility would produce as much CO2 as all of London does in two full years’.

The GP’s closing remarks: ‘As doctors we work daily to save lives. By making a decision to pause and review this incinerator you will save more lives than we will in our entire careers. It’s easy to clap for the NHS. We are asking you to actually support the NHS by pausing the incinerator and so reducing rates of preventable death and disease.’

Osamor, the MP for Edmonton, is expected to focus on health and social justice concerns among her constituents, who live in wards that are among the most deprived in the country and suffer from Covid death rates that are nearly twice as high as the average for England and Wales. She is to speak about the dangerously high levels of air pollution in Enfield, recent calls on the government to review its air quality strategy, the correlation between poor air quality, social and economic deprivation, and racial inequality, and the need for clarity regarding emissions.

In addition to speaking about the NLWA’s failure to meet recycling targets, Duncan Smith is expected to argue that the incinerator would produce energy inefficiently and that the NLWA conducted inadequate public consultations, during which it failed to inform residents that waste would be imported from outside North London.

Other presentations to the board will be made by London Assembly member Caroline Russell, councillors from Camden, Enfield, and Haringey, the Pinkham Way Alliance, and a North London resident. The meeting will begin at 2:30 pm today and will be streamed live on YouTube at councilmeetings.camden.gov.uk. Statements submitted in advance of the meeting are available at www.nlwa.gov.uk/sites/default/files/inline-files/Supplementary%20Agenda%2025.06.2020.pdf .
PGC Webmaster posted a reply
25 Jun 2020 13:37
You can watch the meeting live on YouTube:


Clicky