Tories oppose Teesworks incinerator: 'Why should we breathe Geordie waste?'
Plus: Hazardous incinerator waste disposed of incorrectly for four years, Amazon announce drone trial
As I started to write this, the 27th edition of The Teesside Lead, I thought stories may have been a little light on the ground so early in the week. As it turns out, I couldn’t be more wrong.
Another edition full to the brim of stories from Teesside for you. There’s increasing pressure on the Teesworks waste incinerator project, another Teesside incinerator was disposing of its hazardous ash in non-hazardous landfill, Amazon want to deliver to Darlo by drone, and Teesside’s last freelance court reporter has retired.
Thanks as always to paid subs. If you’d like to join them, it’s only £4.99 a month, or £49 for an annual subscription.
Paying subs keep the lights on, but it’s free to add your email to the list or share The Teesside Lead - it’s a huge support either way, and it keeps independent investigative journalism and political analysis in the Tees Valley region going!
Political pressure is mounting against a proposed incinerator project at Teesworks, as Redcar Council’s Conservative group confirm their opposition to the scheme.
The Tees Valley Energy Recovery Facility (TVERF) plans to burn waste from seven local council areas across the north east - 450,000 tonnes each year - to avoid sending it to landfill. The proposed scheme has seen increasing criticism in recent months, including a protest led by healthcare workers outside Newcastle Civic Centre in September, and local MP Anna Turley voicing her opposition at the beginning of this month.
Now local Conservative councillors have confirmed their opposition to the scheme.
Talking to The Teesside Lead, councillor Curt Pugh said “it’s an issue of principle.”
“Why should Teessiders, and specifically the residents of South Bank and Grangetown, have to breathe in the fumes of Geordie waste?”, he asked.
“Newcastle City Council have said that they have ‘no viable alternative’ to the TVERF. This is because they've decided against building one locally.
“Essentially, they're saying ‘we're too good to breathe in the fumes of our own rubbish, we'll let the Teessiders do that’. It's patronising. Teesside shouldn't be the nation’s dumping ground. We're far more aspirational than that.”
Council leader Alec Brown, of Labour, said permission was granted before his administration came to power, and criticised the council’s Conservatives for not opposing the scheme in 2020.
However, Conservative councillor Dave Taylor says there’s been a “lack of transparency in the planning process.”
He told me: “It seems decisions have been made in a stealthy manner, with minimal consultation and little effort to engage or inform residents across Grangetown, TS6, and the wider borough.
“For a project with such far-reaching implications,” he said, “this approach is unacceptable.”
Viridor are the only bidder left in the process to build the incinerator. In a public consultation they held from 2 September to 14 October last year, which is available on the Environment Agency’s website, only two responses from the public were received.
One of the responses calls the proposed scheme a “cancer wish for every child in Teesside”, and pleads: “Please don’t do it to my children.”
The TVERF project disputes any negative health effects, saying it will “employ a range of industry-standard flue-gas treatment technologies to remove pollutants and particulate matter from the gases produced during the combustion process, before they are dispersed through the stack.”
It also points to a study by Imperial College London from 2019, which it says “found that modern, well-run, energy recovery facilities are not a significant risk to public health.”
However, this study only analysed the impact of waste incinerators on infant deaths and foetal growth, rather than the wider impact on respiratory health of adults in the area. The Imperial study found living closer to incinerators “is associated with a very small increase in the risk of some birth defects, compared to the general population.”
“Teesside has long struggled with the consequences of heavy industry,” Cllr Taylor tells me, “particularly poor air quality.”
He adds, “In recent years, through significant efforts, air quality across the area has improved considerably, offering residents a healthier and more sustainable environment. The proposed incinerator threatens to undo this progress, jeopardizing the health and wellbeing of residents and the positive momentum we have worked so hard to achieve.”
It was revealed last week that one of the bidders for the project - Green Recovery Projects Ltd - had dropped out of the process and is suing Hartlepool Council, who are leading the project on behalf of the other local authorities, for an alleged breach of procurement law.
Viridor remains the only bidder left, and the final stage of their proposal will be presented to councils involved in the scheme in the coming months for their approval.
However, Cllr Brown suggests the horse has already bolted in terms of action that could be taken by councils to stop the project now.
“If it had been within the timeframe of my administration the [Labour] group would have opposed the project,” he tells me. His personal view is that it’s “too close to residential dwellings”, and that he would have voted against it, if he had been given a vote.
“I think it’s important to inform the public that even if Redcar Council pulled out it would still go ahead, and we wouldn’t be able to use it,” he adds.
This view is not shared by Tees Valley mayor, Conservative Ben Houchen, who told a meeting a few weeks ago, “if a council pulled out I suspect it would collapse the whole project.”
Last month, I revealed Hartlepool Council had legally secured the land for the incinerator, although the final tenancy agreement is yet to be signed. The incinerator, if it goes ahead, is expected to be operational from 2029 for at least 29 years.
Cllr Brown says: “I will be writing to Angela Rayner in the coming weeks inviting her to the borough to consider any alternatives for our waste.”
However, there are “positives”, he says, citing 700 possible construction jobs, and 450,000 tonnes of waste not being sent to landfill.
Cllr Pugh isn’t convinced, though. “I just think there’s better use for the site,” he says.
“Teesworks is a fantastic project. We know there's huge business interest. Surely we can find an investor who'll use this plot, and create more than the 40 jobs that are currently proposed from this scheme.”
Cllr Taylor adds: “We urge planners and decision-makers to reconsider this proposal and instead pursue waste management solutions that reflect the innovative, sustainable vision we are striving toward. Together, we can protect the progress we’ve made and ensure a healthier, brighter future for Grangetown, TS6, and the entire borough of Redcar and Cleveland.”
A spokesperson for the TVERF project told The Teesside Lead: “All of the partner authorities, including Newcastle City Council, committed to the procurement of the TVERF in 2019 and are represented on its governance board.
“To abandon the project at this very late stage would not only expose the councils to significant abortive costs in the short term, but will also leave the councils hostage to fortune with respect to service costs and meeting their statutory waste management obligations in future.”
Hazardous burned waste incorrectly identified as “non-hazardous” for four years
In other news of potential harm to the environment on Teesside, it was revealed this week that Sembcorp has volunteered to pay £290,000 to Tees Valley Wildlife Trust after it was found to have breached its Environmental Permit.
The Environment Agency’s press release puts a positive spin on the news, with the headline: Woodland restoration boost after Teesside company civil sanction.
However, the story is of Sembcorp incorrectly identifying hazardous ash from an incinerator at its Wilton biomass power plant as “non-hazardous”.
The Environment Agency conducted an audit in September 2019 into Sembcorp’s disposal of Incinerator Bottom Ash (IBA), the ash which is left after incineration.
Sembcorp had classified all IBA as “non-hazardous” and disposed of it at non-hazardous landfill, however data showed the ash contained concentrations of lead, copper, zinc and nickel, meaning it should have been classified as hazardous.
The company was only able to provide data going back to 2015, showing the misclassification had been happening for that entire time.
Sembcorp conducted an independent report which the Environment Agency says showed “no significant risk to human health or the environment as a result of the wrong disposal,” a conclusion the EA agreed with.
Since then, all IBA from Sembcorp has been disposed of at hazardous landfill facilities.
It submitted an Enforcement Undertaking to the Environment Agency, which is a voluntary offer companies or individuals can make to make amends for offending, which usually includes a payment to an environmental charity.
Their proposal included a donation of £290,000 to Tees Valley Wildlife Trust.
Tom Harman, Chief Executive of Tees Valley Wildlife Trust, said: “It’s vital to see funds like this being reinvested into protecting our landscapes for people and wildlife.
“Lazenby Bank Woodland and Coatham Marsh are incredible nature assets for our communities in the Tees Valley. The project will help restore nationally important habitats for priority species and secure improvements for public access.”
Teesside stories you may have missed…
🏡 Cries of ‘Shame!’ were heard after councillors approved a housing scheme at Normanby Hall
👮🏻 Cleveland has the highest rates of stalking offences in England and Wales
🕰️ Yarm’s town clock winder retires after 32 years
Amazon announce Darlington drone delivery trial
Global behemoth Amazon has announced it will aim to trial deliveries by drone from its Darlington warehouse, pending approval from the local council and the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA).
Tees Valley mayor Ben Houchen called it “a UK first”, which is true if you ignore the trial in Cambridge which saw the online retailer deliver a bag of popcorn and a TV streaming stick to a customer in 2016.
One of the main regulatory obstacles to overcome is that current drone rules mean a pilot must maintain “line of sight” with the device they’re controlling at all times. Amazon’s drones are piloted entirely remotely. The company says it’s been working with the CAA, which is the regulator for all non-military air traffic in the UK, to find a way to make the project work.
“In Teesside, we say yes when others say it’s too difficult,” wrote Lord Houchen on social media. “We’re ambitious, we deliver, and we lead from the front. If you’re not first, you’re last!”
The announcement of the Darlington scheme comes a little more than a week after it was reported Amazon had suspended its pilot schemes in the US, where they were operating in Oregon and Arizona. That news came after two drones crashed in rainy weather.
A TV news report from Arizona from earlier in December shows the enormous size of the drones being used in the project, and the fact that after dropping a customer’s delivery from a height, the downdraft from the rotors blows the parcel at great speed in unexpected directions.
With same-day deliveries already offered by retailers like Argos, and even Amazon in the UK, one has to ask what problem delivery by drone proposes to solve for customers.
Councillors ‘verbally assaulted’ after MP’s social media posts
Female Labour councillors in Stockton have been “verbally assaulted” and three have been targeted at home by angry protestors after social media posts by Conservative MP Matt Vickers which singled them out.
“Stunned to hear Labour councillors from across Stockton have voted against a National Inquiry into grooming gangs,” he wrote last week. “Was yours one of them?”, he added, with a list of councillors’ names.
They had voted against a motion for a national inquiry, but had tried to support a motion for a different sort of inquiry. A statement released by the Labour councillors said: “As we supported the overall call for real action over grooming gangs, we proposed an amendment to ensure the motion was accurate and focused, but unfortunately it failed.”
North East Bylines has the story in full.
Teesside’s last freelance court reporter retires
In a story which really highlights the state of local journalism, Middlesbrough’s last freelance court reporter has retired after 69 years in the industry.
This week Peter Holbert will be covering his last case, at the age of 84. Both The Northern Echo and Teesside Gazette no longer have budgets for freelance contributors, and his last remaining client, ITV, stopped using his services at the end of 2024.
He said: “There isn’t a living for another Teesside Crown Court freelance to succeed me.
“I could only afford to operate because I have two pensions, no mortgage, school fees or take big holidays.
“But I loved my work and made some great friends in the job and in the law.”
Peter first started working at Teesside Crown Court in 1968.
He points to police press releases as being one of the contributing factors to the decline of court reporting, criticising the practice of news outlets copying them verbatim.
“They don’t report any words that have been spoken in court, they are just having their own background in – quite often missing important things which I would regard as a form of censorship.
“But their stuff is free and in many cases newspapers would rather have their free stuff than pay for a report.”
“All the fun has gone out of it,” he said, “and all the money too.”
That’s it for another edition.
As always, I’m more than happy to receive feedback or story tips. Get in touch at teesside@thelead.uk or via BlueSky.
Enjoy the rest of your week!
Leigh