In Grangetown, Teesside, a community where the average male healthy life expectancy is just 51.5 years, it’s time to ask why. A legacy of heavy industry and hazardous infrastructure – from coke and steel works to airports and incinerators – has left a lasting mark on public health. Now, a new development threatens to extend that legacy: a 29-year commitment to burn waste.
TVERF: a costly, secretive commitment
The proposed Tees Valley Energy Recovery Facility (TVERF), a large-scale incinerator project backed by a consortium of seven councils led by Hartlepool Council, would lock residents into a multi-decade waste-burning contract. Key details – such as the minimum waste tonnage each council must provide and the associated financial risks – remain hidden under the veil of commercial confidentiality.
TVERF is designed to burn black bin waste, including film plastics, releasing particulates, nitrogen dioxide, and heavy metals – pollutants known to harm human health. While the UK Health Security Agency maintains that incinerators pose no significant threat, evidence suggests otherwise. Dioxins from incinerators have been detected in breast milk and chicken eggs. Ultrafine particulates, which current monitoring systems often overlook, are particularly dangerous due to their ability to enter the bloodstream.
Moreover, regulatory oversight is inadequate. The Environment Agency only monitors what is emitted directly from the chimney – not the cumulative pollution experienced by surrounding communities. Measurements for heavy metals are taken just twice a year, and radioactive emissions are not screened. Emissions during start-up and shut-down – often the dirtiest period – are exempt from limits and reporting rules.
Local opposition gains ground in Teesside
Grangetown residents won’t just deal with the pollution from their own waste – they’ll breathe in the consequences of other councils’ rubbish too. That’s because the incinerator is being built with excess capacity to accept waste from commercial ‘third parties’.
This approach is at odds with current government policy. The shift toward a circular economy and the introduction of simpler recycling legislation will reduce black bag waste and require separate food waste collection. By the time the incinerator is fully operational, demand for its services will likely fall short of capacity. Yet the contract could run for up to 40 years, including an 11-year extension option.
There is staunch opposition to the project. The grassroots campaign Stop Incineration North East (SINE) has been joined by healthcare advocacy group MedAct and several opposition councillors (nearly all the councils are Labour-run). It is also supported by experts from UK Without Incineration Network (UKWIN). Two weeks ago, Redcar and Cleveland Council voted – almost unanimously – to bring political oversight back to the project, stripping officers of sole decision-making power. It was the first serious political challenge to the incinerator.
A warning from North Yorkshire
In response, Green Party councillors in North Yorkshire felt compelled to share their own cautionary tale. In a letter to the seven councils involved in TVERF, they warned of the long-term consequences of a similar incinerator project: the Allerton Waste Recovery Park.
Allerton was granted planning permission in 2011 and began operation in 2019 under a contract lasting until 2043. Initially championed as a solution, it has become a millstone.
When simpler recycling rules were introduced, most councils prepared to adapt. But Allerton’s rigid contract structure means North Yorkshire – and even York, which only holds a 20% share – could not comply without financial penalties. The Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs had to grant them a special exemption, potentially making them the last in the UK to roll out food waste collections. They also missed out on an estimated £5mn in government transition funding.
The environmental and financial costs
In 2024 alone, Allerton’s operator, Thalia, filed 69 non-compliance reports with the Environment Agency – many related to excessive carbon monoxide emissions caused by poor waste segregation. Some 1.2 tonnes of CO2 were released for every tonne of waste burned. From 2028, incinerators will need to pay for their carbon emissions under the UK Emissions Trading Scheme. North Yorkshire has already earmarked £6mn annually for these costs, but the actual amount could rise significantly depending on carbon market prices.
Ironically, the best way to reduce these emissions – cutting down on plastics – is discouraged by the contract’s financial model, which rewards higher waste volumes. Meanwhile, North Yorkshire is still operating under a waste strategy written in 2006.
Politics vs transparency
The need for transparency is critical. But politics gets in the way. In North Yorkshire, the Conservatives – who approved the Allerton contract – are unlikely to publicise its shortcomings, even though the national Conservative stance is shifting against incineration. Labour’s stance remains muted, caught between local and national ambiguity. Reform UK Ltd are pro-pollution. That leaves it to the remaining opposition parties to speak out.
Long-term contracts like these trap councils in outdated models, making it nearly impossible to pivot to more sustainable waste strategies. They undermine the flexibility needed to respond to evolving environmental goals and technological advances.
You can’t just close your eyes and hope for the best, citing commercial sensitivity. All the details of the contract should be out in the open – especially the guaranteed minimum tonnages and the council-by-council commitments. Even a small obligation can stifle progress and derail the move toward a circular economy. Is this the legacy you want?
