When consultee misgivings are well-founded. The burning issue of waste incineration.

This is Blog no 89

About twelve years ago, the then LibDem Mayor of Bedford, Dave Hodgson, paid us a visit at the Consultation Institute.

He was keen to explain why Bedford Borough Council opposed the controversial plan to build an energy-from-waste plant just outside the town. By using the consultation to make his case, he hoped to persuade the Government that it was a mistake, and that it would simply increase fossil fuel emissions whilst discouraging the better policy of higher recycling.

Over the years, the arguments continued, and at one stage the project appeared to have been abandoned. But back it came, and the Covanta (US) plant opened in 2022.

Hindsight is great, but the Government’s announcement on 30^th December suggests that Mayor Dave was right all along. According to the Government’s Residual waste infrastructure capacity note, the very projects that proved so contentious and which aroused such local opposition “should be seen as the last resort to prevent waste being disposed of in landfill …”

As always, there is complexity. No one will demolish the 50 waste incinerators already operational, and there are 12 more in the pipeline. A further 35 have already, in principle, been given consent. In some parts of the country, to achieve a balanced range of waste disposal options, there will be a need for more. However, few will now receive the go-ahead and those that do will have to be built for eventual adaptation to carbon capture technologies.

So today, my thoughts go to scientists and campaign groups who spent years arguing against these plants, responding to consultations, going on protest marches, championing their cause in the media, appealing to the Planning inspectors or to the wider public. Back in 2018, in The Politics of Consultation, Elizabeth Gammell and I recount the (still unfinished) saga of the proposed King’s Lynn incinerator – though now it has moved to Wisbech.  

“The conservative-led district council called a referendum on the issue, using little-known powers given to councils some years earlier and largely unused since. The question it asked was whether local people were in favour of the proposed facility. So intense was the public interest that an impressive 61% of the population cast their vote, and of those, 92% were against the proposal.” 

(at page 82...)

Consultation, of course, is not a vote, but politicians are susceptible to such strong views by the public. In this case, Norfolk CC lost 20 Council seats to UKIP and the Council Leader resigned. More delays followed, the site was changed, and moved across the border to the low recycling County of Cambridgeshire. The Wisbech incinerator now has its consent, but will it ever be built?  Campaigns can delay projects and sometimes they never happen.

But, looking back, consultees have a legitimate grievance. In almost all the cases, consultations made it difficult for project opponents to argue with the technology. Public engagement consultants were given a brief that effectively said, “Ask stakeholders about the siting of a plant in their particular area … but tell them that the technology has already been given the green light, and is not up for debate.”  That ‘green light’ would have been via the relevant National Policy Statements (NPSs) introduced by the 2008 Planning Act, and which should have been subject to an extensive consultation. Trouble is – many of these NPSs were barely noticed. The media paid no interest; politicians avoided any of the ‘wicked issues’ and any debate was dominated by vested commercial interests who were usually happy with the results. Only when proposals for specific sites were announced did communities wake up – and all hell broke loose. By then, it was too late. The technology argument was barely available. Those decisions seemed sacrosanct.

So here is the conundrum.

Technology options and economics change over time. Governments are persuaded of a particular conventional wisdom, and determine to build infrastructure or enact policy based on that current understanding. Yet we have all seen examples where scientific opinion can change. Remember during the pandemic, when we were told that, by following the science, face masks were unnecessary. It then changed. Remember when we all switched from petrol to diesel cars because they were the more environmentally friendly. Until 2015, when the world changed its mind. Or the dozens of medical treatments, once thought to be safe now used with more caution.

Science moves at amazing speed, with technology leapfrogging in unpredictable ways. If we urged that no Government should proceed to build or legislate until it is sure that nothing will change, it would be a recipe for doing nothing. Imagine; no electric vehicles, in case it is seen to be a worse option than their hydrogen-powered successors, if and when they arrive. No online-harms legislation in case the social media platforms can develop a better hi-tech solution in Musk-time or later. In a democracy, public demand for action must oblige political leaders to act NOW and do it on the basis of the best understood science of the time.

But this is where consultation can – and must help.

• Ministers must abandon their aversion to wide-angle consultations – where consultees are allowed to question underlying technology assumptions.
• Consultancies appointed to organise public consultations must not be briefed to stifle debate about those assumptions.
• Technical issues raised by consultees and informed stakeholders should be ‘conscientiously considered’ by qualified independent bodies or individuals and not just by consultors with a financial incentive to dismiss challenges to their chosen options.

As I write this I read of another Governmental embarrassment, this time in Scotland, where the BBC reports on claims that a new ‘green’ ferry will, in fact have higher emissions than planned. Oh dear! Pity the politicians who carry the can for listening to advice and then find it undermined by new information.

Yet, we can help by making them more alive to the possibility that this could happen. Good consultation responses from stakeholders with technical knowledge might prevent Ministers and civil servants from boxing themselves in – and fearful of being accused of ‘U-turns’ if the situation changes.

There is – right now – a close parallel to the twenty-year saga of unpopular waste incinerators. As National Grid pursues its policy of planning a parade of pylons through hundreds of miles of British countryside, I hear echoes of the kind of arguments heard on waste management. Indeed, there is every possibility that affected communities will feel similarly disenfranchised by the consultative processes.

Special Note

For transparency, Consultation GuRU is currently retained to undertake an independent review of the extent to which National Grid's consultation on the Norwich-Tilbury Transmission project meets best practice.

These are difficult issues; there are no simple solutions, and Governments have no choice but to select an adopt effective working assumptions even at the price of alienating some people.

But the best Governments will also listen, They should use consultation to test their assumptions and be open to re-investigate and re-think when necessary. This week’s news on waste incinerators is a reminder that sticking steadfastly to what becomes the wrong choice … is also bad policy ... and bad politics.

Rhion H  Jones LL.B

For more like this, and to receive ther monthly Consultation Catch-up, click here