Plea to withdraw from incinerator project rejected

The Tees Valley Energy Recovery Facility is scheduled to open in 2029

A request to a council to withdraw from a £2bn waste incinerator project has been rejected.

Darlington Borough Council voted against a Conservative motion to withdraw from the Tees Valley Energy Recovery Facility (TVERF), with councillors told it would pose the "greatest financial risk" to the authority if it abandoned the scheme.

Last month Newcastle City Council also rejected calls to pull out, saying it would be "unconscionable" to leave the deal.

The facility promises to burn 450,000 tonnes of household waste each year to create electricity for the national grid, but activists have concerns over its environmental impact and financial cost, the Local Democracy Reporting Service said.

Jonathan Dulston, local Conservative Party leader, urged authorities to "look at other solutions that will be more cost-effective to the taxpayer".

"We don't believe this fixation that we can only do this. We have an opportunity to be strong and pull out of this process," he said.

Green Party councillors also warned of the huge financial commitment to the council of going ahead with the TVERF agreement.

Its group leader, Matthew Snedker, said: "I strongly believe that the alternative of continuing and improving our current waste processing contract has not been fully investigated.

"The price differential between what we are signing up for has not been fully measured."

Activists have campaigned for years against the building of the TVERF

But Labour councillor Libby McCollom said the financial basis for it "was sound and has been carefully analysed by a third-party financial consultant".

"Staying with this project guarantees that Darlington can continue to discharge our statutory duty to protect our local environment by safely, sustainably and affordably managing the residual waste collected in our area.

"Withdrawing from this project and sitting on our hands, burying our heads, poses the greatest financial and environmental risk to the authority."

The motion was voted down by 25 votes to 15.