(By email)

Dear Mr Foster,

I write on behalf of the Tees Valley Energy Recovery Facility (TV ERF) project partners, represented by the countersigned, in response to your recent correspondence dated 5^th November, which was circulated to various officers and members across the participating councils.  

As you are no doubt aware, the TV ERF project is now in an advanced stage of completion following a lengthy procurement process undertaken by a dedicated team of personnel including independent commercial, legal, technical and financial experts working alongside council officers.

Three tenderers were originally short-listed and invited to enter into detailed discussions regarding the procurement.

They were:

• Green Recovery Projects Ltd
• Suez Recycling and Recovery Ltd
• Viridor Waste Ltd

 

In March 2023, Suez took the decision to withdraw from the procurement.

In July 2025, the project board, representing all seven councils, unanimously appointed Viridor as Preferred Tenderer to deliver and operate the TV ERF and, more recently, all Councils have confirmed their intention to enter into the Project Documents. We are now working with Viridor to draw up contracts prior to anticipated Financial Close early in 2026 – with construction beginning shortly thereafter.

Although this has been a lengthy procurement process, the TV ERF project has not been pursued in a bubble and has maintained full cognisance of any and all material changes to the external policy, environmental and economic landscape throughout.

Determining the requirements of the TV ERF, as with any long-term infrastructure project, is based on assumptions about what will occur in future using all available data, trend-analysis and longer-term targets both locally and nationally. The sensitivity to various scenarios – increased recycling performance for example – is also considered and tested, and has been adjusted throughout the procurement process taking a conservative approach.

We therefore expect local recycling rates to increase over the duration of the TV ERF contract period, supported by national legislative change and other strategies, which include:

• The introduction of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) for packaging (and perhaps other items in time)
• Standardisation and expansion of recycling services to include mandatory food waste collection and greater source-segregation of recyclable materials
• The introduction of deposit return schemes for some packaging items
• Greater uptake of reusable packaging
• Strategies to reduce waste arisings through long-term behaviour change

 

However, while the proportion of material recycled per person may increase and per-capita residual arisings may therefore decrease, the opposing force to this is population and economic growth which will drive up overall waste arisings over time. Another important factor is that end-markets for recycled materials, particularly plastics, are highly constrained and face economic challenges shaped by global market forces. Without yet to be seen international economic and regulatory intervention, this situation is likely to prevail into the long-term thereby restricting the volume of material that can be economically recycled.

Given the decade-long challenge of improving stalled recycling rates nationally; challenged end-markets for recycled materials and the anticipated best-case performance impact of long-delayed national reforms to recycling services, it remains unclear how government’s residual waste target (a 50% reduction to a national average of 287kg per capita by 2042) will be met, and highly optimistic to assume it will be.

Furthermore, it is also unlikely that Government recycling and waste reduction targets will be met uniformly across the country given the substantial variation that exists in recycling performance between authorities and regions today – itself driven by multiple geographic, societal and demographic factors.

Our scenario modelling subsequently allows for significantly increased recycling performance but at no point throughout the contract duration do we estimate the volume of Local Authority Collected Waste (LACW) supplied to the TV ERF will drop below 400,000 tonnes per annum – which is substantially higher than the contractual guaranteed minimum tonnage to Viridor.

In the less likely event, however, that we do meet the Government’s per-capita residual waste target locally by 2042; and that the population and associated waste arisings do not grow as anticipated, and that there is subsequently “spare” capacity in the TV ERF, there will remain a significant volume of household-like residual waste produced by businesses across the region that will also require a safe, sustainable, treatment solution.

It is common practice across the UK that any headroom capacity within local-authority owned residual waste treatment facilities (both landfill and energy recovery) can be accessed commercially by local businesses producing household-like waste, and that the revenues from this service are used to offset the costs of treating LACW. The TV ERF is no different in this respect and, in the event that headroom capacity should become available within the facility at some point over the duration of the contract, this will support the wider waste management needs of our region beyond just the waste under the control of the partner authorities, while also reducing the costs to the TV ERF partner authorities of managing LACW.

The document you circulated with your correspondence entitled “Capacity Demand Analysis: Consideration of the TV ERF within the context of Defra’s Residual Waste Infrastructure Capacity Note” was produced by Shlomo Dowen, the National Coordinator of the anti-incineration lobby group UK Without Incineration Network (UK WIN). As such, this report does not offer an independent and balanced interpretation of Defra policy and should be viewed with this in mind. The contents of the report are, however, somewhat moot since the TV ERF project has all necessary statutory approvals in place; is in an advanced stage, and does not require any further Governmental permission to proceed. 

The capacity considerations raised by objectors to this project frequently fail to take into account, or misrepresent, two fundamental factors; that much of the quoted local Energy-from-Waste capacity exists only on paper and will never be built, and that existing regional capacity remains under the control of a single operator – SUEZ. In contrast, the TV ERF will be under the control of the seven partner authorities.

The regional dominance of a sole supplier, with whom you have corresponded, was one of the driving forces behind the TV ERF project. This procurement process has overcome this monopoly situation by setting out a level playing field (by specifying the development of a new facility on a single site) on which to hold a competition to achieve best value. The TV ERF procurement will provide the Councils with significant residual waste treatment cost savings over the contract term, whilst also providing considerable investment directly back into the the regional economy. This approach also provides long-term clarity and security of costs, which are highly pertinent factors for local authority budgeting. Relying on a single supplier in the absence of a viable alternative is not a prudent approach and exposes local tax-payers to an unacceptable financial risk.

The project has remained true to, and now stands to deliver on, its original intent – which was to secure a safe, reliable, sustainable and affordable waste management solution while also delivering economies of scale through an innovative partnership agreement between the participating authorities.

More information about the project is publicly available at www.tverf.co.uk which will continue to be updated as the project progresses.

Yours sincerely

Denise McGuckin
TV ERF Project Sponsor

Cc (by email):

• Matt Vickers MP
• Chris McDonald MP
• Luke Myer MP
• Andy McDonald MP
• Jonathan Brash MP
• Lola McEvoy MP
• Luke Akehurst MP
• Mary Kelly Foy MP
• Grahame Morris MP
• Sam Rushworth MP
• Alan Strickland MP
• Liz Twist MP
• Chi Onwurah MP
• Catherine McKinnell MP
• Mary Glindon MP
• The Council Leaders and Chief Executive Officers/Managing Directors of Darlington Borough Council, Durham County Council, Hartlepool Borough Council, Middlesbrough Council, Newcastle City Council, Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council, and Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council
• Members of the TV ERF Governance Board