HC Deb 30 January 1991 vol 184 cc1081-8

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Neil Hamilton.]

1.21 am
Sir Fergus Montgomery (Altrincham and Sale)

I apologise to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment for the fact that it is now 21 minutes past 1 o'clock. I am sorry if I have kept him out of bed, but the issue that I am about to raise is of great interest and concern to my constituents.

A long-running saga has caused and is causing great concern in my constituency. It relates to a proposal for a clinical waste incinerator for Greater Manchester waste disposal authority, which seems to be the only body that wants it. In January 1988, when Trafford was a huge council with a Labour chairman of the planning committee—Councillor Mrs. Merry—outline planning permission was granted. We must remember that point because it is vital. I mention the political complexion of the council at that time, because some people are trying to score political points. They have a very poor case and they would be much better employed in trying not to turn the issue into a political one.

In March 1989, when the Conservatives had regained control of the council, the plans were voted out. In May 1989, the Greater Manchester waste disposal authority lodged an appeal. In November 1989, the planning inspectorate decided to hold a public local inquiry, and, on 1 December 1989, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment decided to determine the appeal himself. The inquiry was due to start on 26 June 1990. That was then changed to 12 February 1991, at the request of Trafford council and the Greater Manchester waste disposal authority, to allow time to consider amended proposals by Greater Manchester waste disposal authority.

However, in December 1990, on legal advice the council reluctantly accepted that it was not feasible to revoke the outline planning permission. Not surprisingly, the possibility of the councillors being surcharged a substantial amount had a sobering effect. It puts all of them under great pressure. The chairman of the health and housing committee stated that he did not have that sort of money in his bank account.

The chairman of the local Labour party, who, I think, will be the candidate for the ward in the local election, went public and said that he believed that there was no danger that councillors would be surcharged. I can only suggest that he puts his money where his mouth is and offers to pay the surcharge that could be imposed on councillors. It is very silly of people to make such statements about a very serious issue.

I appealed by letter to Councillor Dennis Fogg, the chairman of the Greater Manchester waste disposal authority. I asked him to get his authority to look for another site for this incinerator—a site well away from a residential area. I asked him also whether he would come to the area to meet the local residents and hear what they had to say, but the invitation was politely declined. I stressed to Councillor Fogg the anxiety of the people in the area, but he stated that the local concern was misplaced.

Ironically, another Labour councillor—Jane Baugh—takes a contrary view. In a letter to the Sale and Altrincham Messenger, she stated: What the Labour party is saying to concerned residents is 'Do not be deceived. It is propaganda attempting to allay the fears of local people."' We must continue to campaign against the siting of a new clinical waste incinerator for the sake of the future health of the people of Trafford.

Which councillor should we believe? Should we believe the Labour chairman of the Greater Manchester waste disposal authority, who says that there are no health risks, or should we believe Councillor Jane Baugh, who does not believe her socialist colleague? All that I know is that there are great anxieties among my constituents, and that these have not been allayed in any way at all. In fact, a group of them have set up an organisation called BRASH—Broadheath Residents Association for Safety and Health. BRASH sent the councillors who are members of the planning committee a letter dated 2 January 1991. That letter says: We would ask that the following be taken into consideration before a decision is made on the above application. On the issue of clinical waste, it says: No decision should be taken until we have had time to contact HMIP"— Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution— to allow them to justify their reasons for adopting the European Commission Council directive 89/369 EEC of the 8th June 1989 for this incinerator. This is applicable to municipal waste incineration plant ONLY and explicitly excludes incineration plants for medical waste from hospitals. A note in the letter says: We have passed the above details on to the Director of EC Environmental Commission and we await his reply on this matter. On the question of siting, BRASH says: The Council's own 'policy for incinerators' …states that incinerators shall not be sited within 1,000 metres of any main residential areas. The current proposal will be within 600 metres of a highly populated residential area. I suppose that the founders of this organisation include people from all parties and from none, but they care desperately about what is going on in the area. They are not trying to score political points. They have done a great deal of work and research. That shows just how concerned they are about what they believe could be the damaging effects on the health of people in the area in which the Greater Manchester waste disposal authority wants to locate this incinerator.

I am told that over 5,000 residents have signed a petition opposing the plan. People are incensed because they feel that the council has had to change its mind as a result of the threat of surcharge. In other words, they believe that the council has had to change its mind under duress. They are asking that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment call in the application for review. I should be grateful for my hon. Friend's comments on that point. I should be grateful also to hear his thinking about a waste disposal policy guidance note. This is an idea that has been mooted for quite some time.

Waste disposal is a controversial subject. Everyone admits that the waste must go somewhere, somehow, but no one wants it in his back yard. People today are rightly more environmentally conscious. But, if the idea of distributing a planning policy guidance note is realised, it would offer clear guidance to both developers of waste disposal sites and the planning authorities. It would certainly have prevented the tangle that has arisen in my constituency.

The planning policy guidance note would cover all forms of waste disposal, including incineration, landfill and recycling and would clarify the current planning guidance that is to be given for each option. As my hon. Friend the Minister will be aware, the Government have tabled amendments on waste disposal to the Planning and Compensation Bill. Those amendments will ensure that the county planning authorities prepare waste disposal development plans and thus ensure that there is a strategic plan for waste disposal in the county's boundaries. I understand that the Government place increasing emphasis on development plans as the framework within which individual planning applications should be considered. Where development plans provide a clear framework, they can reduce the controversy and delay that planning applications and appeals could face.

Of course, it is essential that the plans take into account the environmental protection waste disposal plans and establish land use policies and proposals for waste disposal which are consistent with the nature, quantity and distribution of waste, as forecast in the environment protection plan. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will give some consideration to a waste disposal planning policy guidance note.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can tell me whether my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment can call in for review the proposal which has caused so much anxiety in my constituency. People simply cannot understand why an incinerator which is wanted only by Greater Manchester waste disposal authority can be foisted upon us because Trafford council made a serious mistake by granting outline planning permission way back in January 1988.

I must admit that I have been deeply disappointed by the attitude of Councillor Fogg, the Labour chairman of the Greater Manchester waste disposal authority. I received a letter from him dated 18 January 1991 in which he stated: I, and my colleagues on the GMWDA, are fully aware of the nature and the extent of the opposition to the clinical waste incinerator proposals. We have already had discussions with local residents, and their elected representatives, on a number of occasions and despite the evidence we have presented, it is regretted that local concern should still run high but in our view, much of that concern is misplaced. Having considered your request, I do not feel that there would be any benefit, for any party, if we arranged or participated in further meetings, at this stage. Your letter raises a number of points on which I would wish to comment. The issue of revocation of planning permission is a well-established legal principle and carries with it compensation provisions and rights in favour of the would-be developer. As the local planning authority, I am sure that Trafford Members are fully aware of these provisions when outline and detailed planning applications are presented to them for determination. As far as criteria for siting incinerators are concerned, Trafford MBC intends to adopt the principle that incinerators should not be sited within 1,000 metres of the Borough's main residential areas. This principle has no technical foundation and has been adopted unilaterally by Trafford although, as the waste disposal authority, we have been invited to comment on the overall policy provisions. The monitoring and operation of the existing incinerator and the findings of the recent scientific investigation of dioxin levels in the vicinity of the plant do not support the justification for a 1,000 metre limit, nor does the evidence we submitted in support of our detailed planning proposals. Later, he said: Our major regret has been the delay in reaching the present stage. The costs of the equipment and the civil and other associated works are likely to have risen by 30 per cent. since the original tenders were invited in 1988". I hope that my hon. Friend can see from that the outlook of someone who feels that he has the whip hand. He has refused to listen to the local people. He has pooh-poohed the criteria that Trafford has adopted for the siting of incinerators. His major regret is that, because of opposition to his scheme, it will be more costly than he envisaged. He should be reminded that the health worries of local residents have not been allayed in any way by his bland assurances.

I trust that my hon. Friend can say something about how protection can be offered to my constituents whose concern I share. I am anxious to know whether the Department of the Environment has any powers to deal with a case like this. I hope that my hon. Friend can give me some reassurance in his reply.

1.35 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry)

I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising this important issue on the Adjournment. He is, as always, a tireless champion of the interests of his constituents and has, as ever, made his points extremely well, concisely, comprehensively and with considerable clarity. I will do my best to respond to his concerns and to the concerns of his constituents.

Waste is an inevitable product of our society, and how we dispose of it reflects on the quality of society. We may try to minimise the amount of waste that we produce and recycle as much as possible, but a substantial proportion will still remain, and we cannot avoid providing the necessary facilities properly to dispose of it. That applies just as much to clinical waste as to other types of waste. The issue which my hon. Friend has correctly identified is not therefore whether but how and where we should provide disposal facilities. I should like to deal with the "how" before coming on to consider the "where".

The majority of waste in this country is landfilled, and this remains an option for a good deal of clinical waste. However, certain types of clinical waste are not suitable for landfill, and it is not always practicable to separate such wastes from other clinical wastes. It has become normal practice to incinerate all clinical waste from hospitals—frequently on site in one of around 600 hospital incinerators. Most of these are fairly small, and many will have difficulty meeting the new European Community arid Environmental Protection Act 1990 standards when they lose Crown exemption in April. Both the private sector and waste disposal authorities are, therefore, taking a greater interest in the provision of larger centralised facilities to serve a number of hospitals, and incorporating advanced incinerator techniques and standards.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with incineration as a method of waste disposal, provided that operating conditions and flue gas emissions are strictly controlled. Indeed, in many countries incineration is considered more environmentally acceptable than landfill for all types of waste, and is the predominant method of waste disposal.

It is clear that the public here are less favourably disposed towards incineration. They are understandably concerned about such things as possible emissions of dioxins and other pollutants. I am, therefore, glad to have the opportunity of reassuring my hon. Friend and his constituents that the new controls which we have introduced will set the highest and most rigorous standards for the incineration of all types of waste, and will ensure that incinerators—wherever they are located —present no danger to public health or the environment.

In future, the main controls will be applied through the provisions of part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. This applies a new system of integrated pollution control to all incinerators with a capacity of more than one tonne an hour and will come into effect from 1 April this year. Operators of such incinerators will be required to apply to Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution for authorisation before the plant can commence operations, or whenever a substantial change is proposed. Those authorisations will specify the conditions under which plants must operate, including combustion conditions and appropriate techniques for controlling releases to air, water, or land. This integrated approach will ensure that all the environmental effects of a process are considered together. Operators will be required to use the best available techniques not entailing excessive costs to prevent and minimise toxic emissions, and to render harmless those emissions which cannot be prevented. The inspectorate is producing a series of guidance notes on best available techniques not entailing excessive costs, setting out the minimum standards that it expects plants to adopt, and these standards will be reviewed at least every four years.

I can assure my hon. Friend that the standards imposed under those arrangements will be extremely rigorous indeed and will in some cases go beyond the requirements of the new European Community directives on incinerator emissions. Dioxins—which are produced from the uncontrolled burning of plastic materials and which are perhaps the greatest concern—will have to be reduced to below the level at which they can be effectively measured. The Department of the Environment's pollution paper No. 27, "Dioxins in the Environment", published in 1989, pointed out that in well-managed incinerators emissions of dioxins were reduced to negligible levels—in fact, far below the background level in the atmosphere as a result of wood burning, car exhausts and so forth.

However, I fully appreciate that the imposition of high standards does not mean that we can ignore the siting of incinerators. No one wants an industrial plant sited near him, whatever its purpose. That is where the planning system comes in and, of course, no incinerator project can go ahead without planning permission.

Greater Manchester waste disposal authority's proposal for a clinical waste incinerator at Altrincham has gone through that process, and Trafford borough council has, as my hon. Friend mentioned, recently given planning permission for it to go ahead. Therefore, there is no locus for the Secretary of State to be involved. Planning permission has been granted and that is where the matter stands. I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to comment on that. Nevertheless, I understand that the proposed incinerator will have a capacity of more than 1 tonne per hour, so it follows that it will require authorisation from HMIP under the integrated pollution control arrangements before it can start operation.

To deal with individual planning applications for such facilities does present problems for local authorities, if they cannot be set into an overall strategy for dealing with waste in the area. That is why the Control of Pollution Act 1974 requires waste disposal authorities to draw up waste disposal plans to consider the amounts and types of waste arising in the area and the ways in which they will be disposed of. This enables authorities to assess the need for new facilities and the type of provision that should be made. Those powers have been strengthened under the Environmental Protection Act. However, the actual siting of facilities needs also to be considered in a planning framework. People will have more confidence that the right decisions have been taken if they can see that the options have been thoroughly investigated and the views of all the different interests have been fully taken into account.

We are making provision for that planning framework to be put in place. Only yesterday we moved amendments to the Planning and Compensation Bill in another place to require county councils in England, and district councils in Wales, to draw up planning policies for waste management and disposal. Those new waste local plans will set out authorities' detailed land use policies for the disposal and treatment of waste within the broad strategic framework provided by the county structure plan. They will ensure that planning authorities consider the land use implications of their waste policies from a strategic point of view rather than deciding applications in isolation. This will help authorites in deciding planning applications for new waste disposal facilities. And when applications go to appeal, or are called in by the Secretary of State, then the plans will provide better guidelines for the inspector. I believe that this will be of real benefit to the waste disposal industry. The planning process will be speeded up, and the industry will have guidance on the type and location of waste facilities that are likely to be acceptable in planning terms.

The new development plans will consider the need for sites and facilities in particular areas and the types of locations that are likely to be appropriate, as well as the planning criteria that would be expected to apply to such developments. Obviously the new waste disposal development plans will need to be consistent with the plans which authorities are already required to draw up under the Control of Pollution Act and Environmental Protection Act. We consulted interested parties on our proposals for waste development plans during the autumn, and I am pleased to say that there was a general welcome for them, both from the relevant planning authorities, and from the waste disposal industry.

My hon. Friend sensibly also suggested that there is a need for planning policy guidance on waste disposal facilities. We accept that there is a need for such guidance; and we made clear in the environment White Paper our intention to prepare new guidance on planning, pollution control and waste management. One of the issues that we shall certainly consider in the new guidance is the role of the new waste development plans and their relationship to pollution control in the light of the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act.

Work has started on the drafting of the planning policy guidance within my Department and our intention is to publish a draft for public consultation later this year. We shall want to hear the views of all interested parties before preparing a final version of the guidance note.

I hope that I have managed to cover both the hows and wheres of waste incineration, and clinical waste incineration in particular. I hope that I have made clear to my hon. Friend that there is no scope for my Department to be involved in this matter, planning permission having been granted. Given the nature of the incinerator, however, the operators will be required to apply to HMIP for authorisation before the plant can commence operations. This authorisation will specify the conditions in which the plant must operate, including a host of conditions relating to appropriate techniques for controlling releases into the air, and so on. HMIP will want to consult on that. There is no reason why my hon. Friend should not approach HMIP to ensure that it is aware of his concerns and that those of his constituents are made clear.

I hope that I have also explained that there will be rapid changes in the legislative controls applied to waste management in the next few years. I hope that those changes will lead people to accept that incineration is a safe and viable option for waste disposal, and that the planning process will ensure that decisions are taken on a sensible strategic basis.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes to Two o'clock.