Plans for the Tees Valley Energy Recovery Facility (TVERF), often dubbed the “monster incinerator” by opponents, are advancing rapidly, sparking renewed concerns about health, pollution, and the region’s commitment to a green future.
Despite strong local and environmental opposition, the project recently secured a crucial environmental permit from the Environment Agency (EA) in mid-July 2025. This move, hailed as an “important milestone” by its proponents, signals that the controversial incinerator is moving closer to construction, with commercial operations anticipated to begin in late 2029.
What’s Happening on Teesside?
The TVERF, located at the Teesworks site near Grangetown, is designed to burn a staggering 450,000 tonnes of residual household waste annually. This waste won’t just be from Teesside; it’s slated to come from a consortium of seven North East councils, including Newcastle, Durham, Darlington, Hartlepool, Middlesbrough, Stockton, and Redcar and Cleveland.
The project is a collaborative effort by these local authorities, who are seeking a long-term waste management solution as their existing contracts expire. Waste management firm Viridor Tees Valley Ltd has been granted the environmental permit and is in line to design, build, and finance the facility under what could be a 30-40 year contract, with councils paying for the service over its lifetime. The next critical steps involve the project board confirming Viridor as the ‘preferred tenderer’ (expected by end of July 2025) and then reaching ‘financial close’ later this year.
The Alarming Concerns: Health, Climate, and Recycling
The opposition to the Teesside incinerator is vocal and multifaceted, backed by growing evidence and expert analysis:
- Health and Air Pollution Fears: For a region with a history of industrial activity, the prospect of a new, large-scale incinerator raises serious health anxieties. Opponents fear the continuous release of emissions could exacerbate existing health issues and worsen air quality, despite developer assurances and the EA’s insistence on modern filters and strict legal limits. While the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) states that modern, well-regulated incinerators pose “no significant risk to public health,” critics like SINE and Medact North East highlight that incinerators release particulates, nitrogen dioxide, and heavy metals – known to harm human health. Concerns are heightened by the cumulative impact on already industrialised areas. Furthermore, challenges exist in monitoring for ultrafine particulates, which are difficult to track, and emissions during start-up and shut-down periods (often the dirtiest) can be exempt from limits. Monitoring for heavy metals is sometimes only conducted twice a year, and the Environment Agency frequently focuses solely on direct chimney emissions, rather than the broader pollution affecting communities.
- A Net Zero Contradiction: Burning hundreds of thousands of tonnes of waste, even for “energy recovery,” inevitably generates greenhouse gas emissions. This directly clashes with the UK’s legally binding Net Zero targets and the urgent need to decarbonise. While the facility was designed with potential future Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) in mind, it missed out on initial government CCS funding, leaving its immediate “green” credentials in question. A comprehensive BBC analysis revealed that waste incineration is now the most polluting form of power generation in the UK, producing the same amount of greenhouse gases per unit of energy as coal. Energy produced from waste is reportedly five times more polluting than the average UK unit of electricity. The UK’s independent Climate Change Committee (CCC) has warned that incineration will constitute an increasing part of emissions from electricity generation and has recommended no more plants be built without efforts to capture all their carbon emissions. Currently, only a handful of the UK’s 58 incinerators have approved plans for CCS, and pilot projects capture only a tiny fraction of total emissions. The UK Without Incineration Network (UKWIN) estimates that waste incinerators release, on average, around 1 tonne of CO2 for every tonne of waste incinerated.
- Undermining Recycling Efforts: A long-term commitment to such a massive incineration capacity risks creating a disincentive for councils and residents to increase recycling rates. Critics argue that this locks in a linear “burn” approach rather than prioritising the more sustainable “reduce, reuse, recycle” principles of a circular economy. There are also claims that Teesside already has sufficient incinerator capacity. The UK’s household recycling rates have largely stagnated, standing at around 44% in 2023 (England’s provisional figure), falling short of targets. Data from Defra, as highlighted by UKWIN, shows a clear correlation between higher rates of incineration by councils and lower recycling rates. Many councils have informed the government that their low recycling rates are directly linked to incineration-based waste contracts, which can include “put-or-pay” clauses or minimum tonnage requirements that financially penalise them for sending less waste to the incinerator due to increased recycling. Studies indicate that a significant proportion of what is currently incinerated could have been readily recycled or composted – for instance, a 2020 Defra report stated that an estimated 53% of household residual waste in England in 2017 could be categorised as “readily recyclable.”
- Financial Risks for Councils: Concerns also extend to the financial implications, with local authorities signing decades-long contracts. The potential impact of future carbon taxes (like the Emissions Trading Scheme, due 2028) could see costs passed directly back to taxpayers. Incinerator projects often involve extremely high costs, frequently totalling around £1 billion each, with central government previously distributing billions in subsidies (e.g., £3.5 billion in PFI credits to around 28 projects). Long-term contracts, typically 25-30 years, mean councils bear the risk of increased recycling or future environmental legislation leading to unused capacity or higher costs. The UK Emissions Trading Scheme (UK ETS) will include waste incinerators from 2028, requiring operators to pay for fossil-derived CO2 emissions (largely from plastics). These costs are expected to be passed on to local authorities. Estimates suggest the direct expansion of the UK ETS to local authorities could add gross additional costs of between £367 million and £747 million annually, potentially rising to £1.1 billion by 2036, with a total cumulative cost over this period as high as £6.5 billion. This creates significant uncertainty for council budgets already under pressure.
The Proponents’ Stance: Essential Infrastructure?
Those backing the TVERF, including the consortium of councils and Viridor, argue it’s a “critical and essential piece of infrastructure” for the North East. They highlight its role in reducing reliance on landfill – a significant environmental improvement – and ensuring a stable, sustainable way to manage the region’s residual waste. They also point to the electricity generated (enough for approximately 60,000 homes) as a benefit.
Local Voices Against the Incinerator: The Campaigners
A dedicated network of local campaigns and groups are at the forefront of the opposition, tirelessly working to raise awareness, lobby decision-makers, and advocate for alternative waste solutions.
- Stop Incineration North East (SINE): This grassroots group is a leading voice against the TVERF, actively organising protests, issuing open letters to councils, and tirelessly raising public awareness about the project’s health, environmental, and financial implications. They are often featured in local media coverage.
- Medact North East: Comprising campaigning medical professionals, Medact North East brings a crucial health perspective to the debate. They highlight the incinerator’s potential to exacerbate health inequalities and environmental injustices in an already industrialised area, drafting open letters and participating in demonstrations to urge councils to withdraw support.
- Concerned Local Councillors & Politicians: While the consortium of councils backs the project, individual local councillors, such as Councillor Tristan Learoyd (Redcar and Cleveland), have consistently spoken out. They’ve tabled motions to formally question council support, warning of the “environmental, financial and health outcome disaster” the incinerator could represent.
- 38 Degrees: This national campaigning platform hosts a prominent petition titled “STOP the Tees Valley, County Durham and Newcastle incinerator at Redcar.” This petition allows a broader public to add their voice, echoing concerns about pollution, emissions, and the impact on recycling.
- UK Without Incineration Network (UKWIN): A national network, UKWIN provides invaluable support and resources to local anti-incinerator campaigns like SINE. They advocate for a moratorium on new incineration capacity and a broader shift towards a circular economy, offering expert analysis and policy arguments against such projects.
These groups often collaborate, combining their efforts to present a unified front against the Teesside incinerator plans.
The Battle Continues
Despite the granting of the environmental permit, the fight isn’t over. Some local politicians are openly unhappy and have sought to regain democratic control over the decision-making process. Environmental groups continue to scrutinise these projects, advocating for alternative, more sustainable waste management solutions.
The Teesside incinerator plans are a stark reminder of the ongoing tension between traditional waste disposal methods and the urgent demands of climate action and public health. As the project progresses towards financial close and potential construction, the debate over its true cost – environmental, health, and financial – is set to intensify.