Dear Sir,
In the last edition of Newton News and on Aycliffe Radio (3/8/25), Ian Jones of Fornax gave interesting accounts of the Newton Aycliffe incinerator in an effort to win people round to his claim that the incinerator will be safe and Fornax will be a “good neighbour”. By way of balance, I would ask people to bear the following in mind.
Since the planning application stage, Fornax has been inconsistent about what they intend to burn. As part of the public consultation (incidentally, brought about only after pressure from residents) on 14/6/21 and 15/6/21 Fornax attended two meetings online with local councillors, MP Paul Howell and local residents. These meetings were recorded and transcripts are included in the DCC planning portal Ref DM/21/01500.
In answer to the question about what they intended to burn, Mark Roberts of Fornax said- “… the waste codes that we’re actually applying for through the EA permit will mainly be what’s called the 18s which is for waste from … healthcare and or related research, so basically it’s there really for us to support the NHS, support hospitals, support health centres and local industry ….. I can pretty much guarantee for everybody listening tonight, so it’s mainly going to be looking after the clinical waste which is prefix 18. We don’t treat any municipal waste.”
This was confirmed in Fornax’s other publicity – letters to local businesses said “The facility would provide a valuable, local and cost-effective service to the NHS and other similar facilities such as GP surgeries and dentists in County Durham and the surrounding area.” No mention of Hazardous Waste (HW). Their website gave examples of only health-care sources of waste. The incinerator was promoted as a clinical waste incinerator, and emphasis placed on helping the NHS.
However, when presented by the Residents Group with data indicating that volumes of clinical waste in the northeast could not have sustained this incinerator, Fornax submitted a report to the planning inquiry stating “Healthcare/Clinical waste is not only a small proportion of the waste available for the plant, but also unlikely to form a large proportion of the tonnage to be targeted for incineration.” So now we have the incinerator presented as a largely HW incinerator.
Mr Jones now states, without any explanation of the discrepancies, that 70% of the waste will be clinical. So, either Mr Jones the CEO is mistaken, or they will be taking clinical waste from much further afield than the northeast. Readers will recall that Fornax’s prime justification for siting the incinerator in Aycliffe was that it is central to the clinical waste catchment area of Teesside, Durham, Northumberland and North Yorkshire. Despite frequent questions from the public, Fornax has never denied outright that waste would be coming from Scotland.
In fact, Fornax has applied for their environmental permit to cover a whole host of wastes in addition to clinical, eg agriculture, textiles, chemicals, oils, power stations, packaging, oily rags (specifically excluded, by the way, by Mark Roberts 14/6/21), and many more. Everything but the kitchen sink, in other words …. and maybe that too! On the radio programme, Mr Jones said that he already knows what waste is coming in – and so he should. So why not be open about it? And why be coy about waste from Scotland?
Mr Jones says Fornax wishes to be a good neighbour and build a trusting relationship. Good neighbours are open, honest and transparent in their dealings with others. It seems to me that, throughout the whole process, Fornax has been less than open and transparent about many crucial aspects of this project. They have a long way to go before they can be described as trustworthy.
Yours faithfully,
Eileen Brewis.