Your newspapers and websites have repeatedly published letters and articles criticising the proposed energy from waste incinerator plant to be located in Beddinton.

I am a chartered engineer and fully understand the details of the scheme.

I have been appalled at the unfounded criticisms made by people who either do not understand the plan or choose to criticise it for political reasons.

I consider that the time has come for you to put the record straight.

Extensive consultation took place. I personally attended three presentations, studied in detail the proposals and visited an operating plant located near Heathrow.

I therefore consider that I am in a position to comment on the plan with some authority:

The Need for a Waste Plan

For generations, local authorities have relied on being able to bury waste. This was seen as a simple, cost-effective and hygienic solution to the challenge however the reliance on landfill must finally come to an end. There are environmental reasons. Decaying organic matter produces greenhouse gasses. In addition there are significant financial and legislative incentives to reduce landfill as various national and European policies combine to make landfill an increasingly costly option for council tax payers.

The plan

The four boroughs (Croydon, Kingston Upon Thames, Merton and Sutton) combined to study the problem and come up with a solution.

After extensive study and consultation they developed a plan which was approved by the boroughs and the secretary of state. Key elements of the plan are as follows.

A total 1.2m tons of waste must be accommodated in 2011 rising to 1.4 m by 2020. The technologies proposed are Materials Recovery (MRF), Composting, Anaerobic Digestion and Thermal treatment (Incineration).

This uses high temperatures to break down waste and produce energy in the form of heat and power.

Currently approximately 30 per cent of waste is treated by materials recovery (Green Bins) or composting (Garden and food waste). This proportion is expected to rise significantly during the period of the plan. Anaerobic Digestion and Thermal treatment will be required to deal with the balance.

Considerations

For any major scheme such as this there are considerations for and against.

There will be concern as regards emissions from the flue. Although there is no evidence of harmful effects the local community must be convinced. There will be a continuation of the heavy vehicle traffic that will be necessary to bring the waste from the four boroughs to the land fill site.

On the other hand

The existing landfill site will eventually be turned into a green park area. Financially the project will show a very satisfactory return on investment by eliminating land fill tax and selling power to the grid.

The authorities must cease sending material to landfill within the next decade .In addition they face an ever increasing land fill tax.

This means that some action is imperative. This type of scheme has been demonstrated throughout Europe as the best solution and is the answer to the waste problems faced by the four boroughs. 

Conclusion

Tenders to execute the scheme were submitted by appropriate contractors. After detailed review and analysis by a specialist team the favored scheme was put before the development committee in mid 2013 and was eventually given the green light.

It was subsequently also approved by the London Assembly.

For this reason it can be hoped that this much needed scheme can go ahead in 2014.

Significant effort and thought has been put into bringing the project fruition.

The team should be congratulated and given the backing to execute the project However the local objectors are now seeking to further delay the scheme by calling for a judicial enquiry.

They have repeatedly come up with the same unfounded critisicm and have failed to put forward any viable alternative. They must be called to account for causing further delay and expense.

Martin Jenner, Charted Engineer