One of London’s largest incinerators has come under fire after it emerged that it breached emissions limits nearly 1,000 times over an 18-month period.
The failure to properly monitor emissions at Beddington Energy Recovery Facility, also known as Beddington Incinerator, was blamed on “human error”, prompting anger and calls for Sutton Council to carry out enforcement.
While regulators claim the emissions pose no health risks to the public, the recent findings follow years of previous breaches at the site and strong opposition to the incinerator, which locals say is harming the neighbouring areas of Hackbridge and Beddington.
The Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS) takes a look at the implications of the breaches and the next steps.
What actually happened?
Between September 2022 and March 2024, the incinerator exceeded permitted levels of nitrogen oxides (NOx) 916 times. NOx gases are linked to poor air quality and can contribute to respiratory problems if they accumulate at high levels. Nitrogen oxides refers to nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2), both of which are mainly formed during the combustion of fossil fuels.
The issue was discovered in March 2024 when Viridor, the incinerator operator, identified a problem with the system that controls emissions. The accredited third-party contractor responsible for monitoring, Element, had programmed incorrect functions into the system, causing emissions to be under-reported. The contractor blamed “human error” for the blunder.
Viridor says it self-reported the problem to the Environment Agency (EA), the regulatory body, which commissioned an independent investigation, and has since implemented new oversight and training measures.
Viridor confirmed to the LDRS it is still using Element as its preferred contractor for monitoring emissions.
What are the potential health implications?
The EA and the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) concluded that although the facility breached its permit, the NOx emissions did not exceed legal air quality standards and were “unlikely” to have harmed health or the environment.
However, some Sutton councillors have raised concerns about long-term impacts. Hackbridge’s Labour councillor Dave Tchil noted that official assessments focus on immediate exposure and that cumulative or long-term effects have not been fully measured.
He told the LDRS: “We have a multi-million pound industry within our borders that is managing mixed fuel of an unknown type. The very fact that it measures all of these toxic emissions means it must know that it has to keep within the boundaries of what is safe to be a safe dose.
“It matters because we know that poor quality air kills people, or decreases their life span. Why should Sutton care? Because it is affecting the lives of infants and children in that area and adding excess climate-changing chemicals into the area itself.”
He also noted that these emissions account for breaches of just one element, being NOx, and do not take into account other potentially harmful elements.
Criticism of Sutton Council
Opposition councillors have criticised Sutton Council for its handling of the incinerator, arguing that the authority has been slow to respond despite past issues. Since opening in 2019, the facility has served four boroughs as part of the South West London Waste Partnership: Croydon, Sutton, Merton, and Kingston.
The incinerator has experienced several previous high-level outages since it began operation. In October 2024, black, acrid-smelling smoke was seen coming from the chimney stacks, prompting local schools to take precautions.
Cllr Tchil said that while he had raised concerns over emissions and site management for several years, the council only recently publicly expressed serious concerns.
He told the LDRS: “They have also been steadfast in their support of the safety of the plant, but over that whole three-year period that I was raising the issue, they said the incinerator was reaching its emissions limits.
“It puts a mockery of all their defence, and they know what they have defended is indefensible.”
The independent councillor for Beddington, Tim Foster, also questioned the council’s approach, highlighting that last October a procedural motion blocked a debate on the incinerator’s operation. He described the leadership’s approach as amounting to “breath-taking duplicity”, saying the council previously supported the facility even while issues persisted.
What does the council say about this?
In response, Councillor Christopher Woolmer, Sutton’s Lead Member for the Environment, told the LDRS: “While some councillors may not like the current system, the fact is that the EA is legally responsible for monitoring the Beddington site. They are the only body that can issue the licence for Viridor to operate.
“We have raised concerns previously about outages, performance and site management with them but also with Viridor and the government. Now that the EA’s own report has exposed these major issues both in Viridor and the regulators’ approach to monitoring, we have written to the Secretary of State (Steve Reed MP).”
On the issue of air quality, he noted: “There are many reasons for poor air quality in London. This is not about the air quality being poorer due to the [Beddington Incinerator], this is about the requirement for independent monitoring, the reassurance that the breaches that stopped in March 2024 did not harm residents’ health, and for better transparency to ensure they never happen again.”
Sutton Council opposes incinerator expansion
In response to the recent compliance failures, Sutton Council has written to Viridor and Steve Reed MP, reaffirming its opposition to the company’s application to increase the amount of waste processed at the incinerator.
In its letter to the EA, Sutton Council told the agency’s CEO Philip Duffy the council was “astonished that the EA is still even considering” the application, adding: “This is unequivocally the wrong decision.”
Cllr Woolmer said the council’s letters emphasise concerns about transparency, safe site management, and restoring public trust. The council has also called for the EA to reassure residents that there is no public health risk and that strong enforcement action will be taken against Viridor.
What’s next?
The EA is now reviewing Viridor’s compliance rating, which could be downgraded from A to E. This higher rating could result in Viridor facing increased annual permit fees. The EA has also told the LDRS it is considering enforcement action as part of a live investigation, adding that it takes “permit breaches and their potential impact on the environment very seriously”.
Councillors say they will continue to monitor the site closely, particularly given Viridor’s previous commitments, such as the planned redevelopment of the neighbouring Beddington Farmlands.
When approval was given for the incinerator, the creation of the farmlands reserve was a requirement. In the years since, the project has seen revisions and a change of owner from Viridor, which owns the incinerator, to Valencia Waste Management.
Viridor’s response
A spokesperson for the waste firm said: “Viridor takes its environmental responsibility seriously and strives for a zero-breach policy across the different emissions categories that fall within its environmental permit.
“As soon as Viridor identified the issue of historic under-reported emissions, it self-reported to the EA, formally notified them of the breaches and conducted its own independent investigation into the incident, hiring a specialist environmental consultant.
“Viridor also wrote to the accredited specialist technical contractor to request its own independent investigation into the matter. Following Viridor’s notification, the EA independently looked into the incident to supplement Viridor’s independent investigation.
“Viridor has cooperated with the regulator at every stage of the process. This took the form of what is referred to by the regulator as a ‘Compliance Assessment Report’, which assesses Energy from Waste operators’ compliance with their environmental permits.
“The EA has acknowledged the breaches at Beddington resulted from human error on the part of the third-party contractor, corroborating the independent environmental consultant’s investigation.
“Viridor has reviewed the EA’s analysis, accepts its findings and will incorporate the recommendations. Viridor has acted decisively, implementing new training and oversight measures to do its best to ensure strengthened oversight of emissions monitoring from third-party contractors on the EA’s list of UKAS-accredited contractors.”
Viridor said it also acknowledges the “newly strengthened guidance” the EA introduced in July, setting out updated expectations for the industry operating Energy from Waste facilities when it wrote to the Environmental Services Association.
Expectations have been updated for operators of these facilities, like Viridor, to keep tabs on their contractors that manage emissions on their behalf. Viridor says it “is committed to sharing its experience with the sector if that is a helpful lesson learned experience”.
The operator added that it has “taken this entire process extremely seriously from the outset and done as much as it possibly could to resolve the issues that have regrettably arisen as a result of a third-party accredited contractor’s error”.
Don’t miss out on the biggest South London news. Sign up to our MySouthLondon newsletter HERE for all the latest daily news and more.
If you have a story which you believe we should know about, there are lots of ways you can get in touch with us:
