Request
22 June 13.03
Hi Cheryl
Apologies but earlier I erroneously left off Cllr Jemma Hemsted, Valley Ward (Waltham Forest).
Re-reading delegation standing orders if it will be as 7 plus speaker, or 7 total.
If it is 7 total, can you please remove Roy for Jemma.
Best wishes
Emma Best (AM)
Conservative Londonwide Member
22 June 08.53
Subject: Re Emma Best Deputation Request/ June 24th 2021
Cheryl
Many apologies, can you please withdraw my last submission and accept the below deputation signed by myself and names listed (emails cc'd)
This deputation is signed and supported by:
Sir Iain Duncan Smith, MP for Chingford & Woodford Green
Cllr Mitchell Goldie, Endlebury Ward (Waltham Forest)
Cllr Kay Isa, Chingford Green Ward (Waltham Forest)
Cllr Roy Berg, Endlebury Ward (Waltham Forest)
Cllr Tim James, Hatch End Ward (Waltham Forest)
Cllr John Moss, Larkswood Ward (Waltham Forest)
Cllr Emma Best AM, Londonwide Assembly Member & Endlebury Ward Councillor (Waltham Forest) (SPEAKER)
I would like to register to address the North London Waste Authority Meeting on Thursday 24th June under Deputations on the Agenda.
I intend to speak to the below points:
We are extremely concerned about the plans to redevelop Edmonton Incinerator and are requesting a pause, and a rethink.
We are requesting a Value for Money (VfM) review of the project with costs having spiralled from original estimates of £650 million to £1.2 billion. We believe it would be irresponsible to proceed without further evaluating this leap in costs and whether there is a more financially expedient solution.
We are also requesting a pause to review the evidence and concerns raised in an open letter by NHS doctors which brings to attention the risk to health this rebuild poses to local residents. You can find their letter here. A study from the British Heart Foundation found that Waltham Forest, downwind from the incinerator, has the second highest PM 2.5 concentration of all boroughs in the country and we are extremely concerned about the threat this poses to all residents and in particular those with existing respiratory conditions. This is even more worrying following the Covid pandemic and it’s respiratory after effects. Furthermore the enormous increase in traffic as waste from a much wider area than originally envisaged will need to be transported to the site will run counter to the overall plans for reduced road congestion abs emissions.
Bearing in mind also, that all local MP’s effected by the effects of the incinerator are opposed to it development and continuation, I urge you to agree to our call to pause and rethink this project.
Best wishes,
Emma Best AM Conservative Londonwide Member
Response
14 July 2021
1b Berol House, 25 Ashley Road Tottenham Hale N17 9LJ
enquiries@nlwa.com
nlwa.gov.uk
Councillor Emma Best Via email
Dear Councillor Best,
Thank you for taking the time to raise your deputation to the North London Waste Authority (NLWA)
meeting on Thursday 24 June 2021.
I appreciate you bringing forward your views in relation to the North London Heat and Power Project
(NLHPP) and setting out the issues you wanted to draw to Members’ attention. The Authority Members
take seriously their responsibility to protect public services, public health, and the environment,
and these matters have been carefully considered in developing the NLHPP.
As promised in the meeting, I would like to take this opportunity to respond in writing and assure
you that all aspects of the NLHPP are thoroughly considered by the Authority and have been tested
and approved through an independent public inquiry process. This letter provides more detailed
inf ormation on the project in relation to the topics you have raised.
In your deputation you asked that NLWA pause and review the NLHPP
The NLHPP is a vital infrastructure project which supports our aim to increase recycling and stop
waste from rotting in landfill. To delay the NLHPP would massively undermine our efforts to tackle
the Climate Emergency and reach Net Zero, both of which are at the forefront of discussions f or
COP26 this year. No other option works at the scale we require, and none offer the same compelling
financial, social and environmental benefits. For these reasons we cannot pause the Project.
In your deputation you claimed that there is growing evidence that energy from waste is no longer
environmentally sustainable.
On the contrary, NLHPP aligns with international, national, regional and local policies on waste management and climate change. The Committee on Climate Change (CCC) recently confirmed in its Sixth Carbon Budget that facilities like our ERF should be the principal disposal route as the UK transitions to Net Zero. In addition, the CCC highlights the importance of
low-carbon district heat networks in achieving Net Zero.
The impacts of not building the NLHPP would be detrimental to north London residents and also in
our efforts to tackle the Climate Emergency. It would deny north London’s residents state of the
art recycling facilities. It would deny residents a safe, clean and low-carbon solution for
managing their waste in the Climate Emergency. It would deny hundreds of life changing
apprenticeship and training opportunities for local people. And it would deny local homes and
businesses the chance to benefit from low-carbon heating and hot water.
The Project has already been thoroughly reviewed and all the considerations raised by deputations
have been carefully considered over many years. The decision to proceed with the Project followed
several years of comprehensive environmental analysis, as well as an extensive two-stage public
consultation, and careful consideration of the alternative options. As part of the DCO process,
NLWA undertook a full Environmental Statement for the project, which entailed 2,000 pages of
careful analysis of a range of environmental, social and technological factors. This Statement was
subject to an Examination in Public and recommended for approval by the Planning Inspectorate.
You also suggested that the NLHPP is not financially viable. I would like to clarify that the NLHPP
is the most cost-effective solution for treating north London’s waste in the future. The Authority
keeps under review the successful and cost-effective delivery of the project. The comparator – if the
project did not proceed – is against disposal of waste through third party capacity. Waste disposal
rates in the market are higher than for a facility which would be funded and owned by the Authority
and operated by LondonEnergy Ltd. In addition, transporting waste out of the north London area
would impose a transport cost and would mean abdicating responsibility for being self-sufficient in
terms of waste management.
Not building the NLHPP could result in north London’s residual waste going to landfill, which has
been costed at an additional £15 million to £26 million per annum from 2027. This would be an
unacceptable cost increase for our residents and undermine our efforts to tackle the Climate
Emergency.
Alongside the delivery of the NLHPP, NLWA continues to deliver it’s award-winning waste prevention
programme including ground-breaking initiatives and activities. We have just announced significant
investment in a new trial to recycle north London’s old mattresses which is expected to extract 700
mattresses from the waste stream each week, and are trialling at a new facility in Wembley an
innovative picking line to extract even more material from waste, which would otherwise be sent to
landfill.
As a result of our efforts to encourage residents to recycle more, we’re helping shape the process
for reuse and recycling of plastics not only in north London, but across the rest of the UK. The
volume of plastic recycling we collect has enabled our recycling partner Biffa to invest in
world-leading recycling technology, which the rest of the country is now benefitting from. We have
ensured that 100% of the plastic, steel and aluminium which is recycled gets processed in the UK,
supporting UK jobs. Biffa’s new County Durham plant uses the world’s most advanced technology to
recycle the equivalent of 1.3bn plastic bottles a year.
In your deputation you suggested that the Mayor of London is opposed to the Project.
Our Project is included in the Mayor of London’s Environmental Strategy and was consented by the Rt
Honourable Greg Clark MP who was the Secretary of State in 2017 following a rigorous Development
Consent Order process.
The Mayor of London’s Environment Strategy states, on page 284, that:
“Modelling suggests that if London achieves the reduction and recycling targets set out in this
strategy, it will have sufficient EfW [energy from waste] capacity to manage London’s
non-recyclable municipal waste, once the new Edmonton and Beddington Lane facilities are
operational”.
You may also be aware that, in 2020, a number of prominent MPs in the All-Party Parliamentary
Sustainable Resources Group signed a report ‘No Time To Waste’, concluding that ERFs with heat
offtake, like the NLHPP, are the most advanced and sustainable solution for managing
non-recyclable waste as the UK transitions to a Net Zero economy.
The Committee for Climate Change (CCC) which advises UK Government on policy making is clear in its
Sixth Carbon Budget that facilities like our ERF should be the principal disposal route as the UK
transitions to Net Zero. In addition, the CCC highlights the importance of low-carbon district heat
networks in achieving Net Zero. The NLHPP will deliver one of the largest district heat networks in
London, providing low carbon heating and hot water to 10,000 local homes.
In your deputation you claimed that residents are unaware of the project and that inadequate
consultation was carried out.
Thank you for speaking about public consultation in your deputation. NLWA is committed to public
consultation, and this was a crucial part of developing our plans for the NLHPP. An extensive two-
stage consultation process was held across all seven north London boroughs, as part of developing
the rigorous application for a Development Consent Order (DCO). The Secretary of State would not
have given consent for the Project to go ahead, had NLWA not passed stringent measures to evidence
that the local community had been involved in the process.
Local residents, community groups and other stakeholders across all seven north London boroughs
were invited to give their feedback on the project. This included 15 events, several meetings with
community and statutory stakeholders, a series of newsletters to 28,000 properties, adverts in the
north London press, leaflets in every council building and 80 libraries across north London, as
well as a dedicated website, email and phone line.
The feedback we received during the consultation materially shaped and informed our final
proposals. This includes the design of EcoPark House, the size of the viewing platform, and the
decision to bring forward one chimney stack instead of two.
The DCO was submitted to the Planning Inspectorate in October 2015 and following a public enquiry
the Project was given consent by the Secretary of State for Business Energy and Industrial
Strategy, The Rt Hon Greg Clark, in February 2017. The full consultation report and appendices are
available on the NLHPP website here.
We continue to engage with our stakeholders through a number of channels to update them and
increase awareness. We issue newsletters to up to 28,000 homes and businesses with community
updates and provide construction update newsletters to 19,000 homes and business regularly. Prior
to the COVID-19 pandemic we held roadshow events in local community hubs to share information about
the Project and answer any questions that local people had. We also have a dedicated website with
the latest news and information about the project including a section for Frequently Ask Questions.
In your deputation you raised concerns over ‘spiralling’ costs from £600m to £1.2bn.
I would like to reassure you that the Project costs have not ‘spiralled’.
NLWA has always been clear that details of the final cost would be determined between 2017 and
2020, after the public consultation for the Development Consent Order has finished and the final
designs were decided.
A root and branch cost review was carried out for the Project in 2019, in line with best practice
on major infrastructure projects.
Leading experts in engineering, architecture and waste modelling established a robust and
comprehensive cost estimate of £1.2bn in 2019 prices, which provides a solid basis on which
boroughs and NLWA can finance this vital project for the residents of north London. The Authority
used an indicative cost for the project through the consenting process of £650m, however the 2019
comprehensive cost estimate now includes the Energy Recovery Facility, as well as the Resource
Recovery Facility, EcoPark House, utility diversions, risk contingencies, project management and
technical support.
We are committed to delivering the Project at the lowest cost for our residents. Last year the
Project earned favourable borrowing rates from the Government, as a result of a competitive bid to
borrow £100m at reduced interest rates. This achievement was based on a rigorous value for money exercise, following HM Treasury guidelines, which validated the project’s extensive environmental and financial benefits for north London’s residents. This assessment demonstrated that the project will achieve major greenhouse gas savings compared to sending north London’s waste to landfill or
third- party energy from waste facilities.
In your deputation you stated that there is no evidence that the current facility needs replacing.
The case for replacing the NLHPP is set out at length in the Development Consent Order (DCO)
documentation which was approved by the Secretary of State in 2017.
The existing facility is the oldest of its type in London and has served north London for nearly 50
years. Whilst it has diverted more than 21 million tonnes of waste during this time, it is reaching
the end of its operational life. Therefore, the NLHPP will safeguard a sustainable future for
north London.
Our facility is fully aligned with tackling the Climate Emergency declared by the seven north
London boroughs. The new facility will generate combined heat and power, enabling one of the
largest district heat networks in London, providing low carbon heating and hot water to 10,000
local homes. The Committee for Climate Change (CCC) has confirmed in its Sixth Carbon Budget the
importance of low-carbon district heat networks in achieving Net Zero.
If you have any further questions about the Project or require any clarifications, I would be happy
to answer them. You may also find useful the extensive Frequently Asked Questions on our project
website, which cover the themes you raised in your deputation. I would like to thank you again for
your interest in the NLHPP and for submitting your deputation last month.
Yours sincerely,
Cllr Clyde Loakes
Chair, North London Waste Authority