My statement against the proposed incinerator in Canford

Here's my statement from the appeal hearing on June 4th 2026. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak today.

I have been the Member of Parliament for this site since 2024 but I have been engaging with the proposals for this site since before this time, dating back to the community consultation by MVV in January 2023.

I live approximately 3.6 km from the site and so I both know the location very well but I also have an interest as a local resident.

On attending the consultation I shared my deep concern about the environmental impact, traffic and in particular the need to 'feed the monster' as this development will require waste to be brought from further and further afield over time as we recycle more materials.

I was offered the opportunity to visit a similar plant in Plymouth but I have not done so. However I have seen this site when travelling through the city by train and note that the facility is sited in an industrial area quite different from the Canford Magna setting.

Once the application had been submitted I continued to engage with the developer to raise my concerns and also raised the issue with Government Minister through Parliamentary questions and a formal letter regarding my concerns that the construction of additional incinerators conflict with the aims of a circular economy and potentially breaches the Govt's own proposals to only build new facilities where there is a lack of capacity.

Their own guidance issued in December 2024 confirmed that using its own projections the UK will have enough energy from incinerators to deal with 18.8 million tonnes of residual waste by 2035. The government believes that the UK will only need to manage 17.6 million tonnes by 2042.

This suggests that in order to fulfil the capacity of the plants, there is a risk that waste may need to come in from Wales, Scotland or even abroad – especially if these plants are contractually obliged to provide energy for homes or businesses.

Evidence from the last couple of years shows a year-on-year reduction in residual waste per person, and this is BEFORE the changes this year requiring all local authorities to provide food waste collections and changes coming in 2027 around flexible plastic recycling and the deposit return scheme.

Government statistics showed that in BCP and Dorset, the total amount of waste (including commercial waste) that is NOT recycled is 178,680 tonnes. (103,700 BCP/74,980 DC)

Around 20,000 tonnes is currently sent to landfill. This leaves around 150,000 tonnes that in theory would be eligible for incineration and is in fact being sent to incineration elsewhere. I accept that incineration more locally has a reduced environmental impact

than sending it long distances, but given the legally binding commitment to reduce the waste sent to incineration by 50% by 2042, even with population growth there remains insufficient need for this plant.

Regrettably, an energy from waste incinerator was approved in Portland by the secretary of state, and this has received an environmental permit. It was recently confirmed that a contractor is in place to start construction later this year, and that the plant will be ready for operations in 2030.

The Portland plant will be able to take 200,000 tonnes each year.

Therefore any actual or perceived need for the facility at Canford can no longer be demonstrated and that the plant will have to take waste from a wider geographical area from the start to be economically viable, and if the energy is being used by local businesses or homes (which is surely the intention), the plant will need to operate at full capacity round the clock in order to satisfy the demand for energy.

Given that waste will need to be brought from beyond the conurbation the issues relating to congestion and environmental impact are paramount and the traffic assessments provided, which suggest that the vehicle movements will be relatively insignificant due to the current use of the site, are misleading.

This is material to the application, and in my representations to BCP Council I asked the that the applicant be required to supply new traffic modelling to reflect this.

1) Congestion and Impact on community

Highway safety and impact on the road network are both Material Planning Considerations.

The roads around the Canford Waste site are already congested and you will note that the A31, Gravel Hill, Magna Road and most of Ringwood Road are single carriageway. This is a residential area with only very small pockets of light commercial use. Whilst the site is used as a transfer station and recycling plant for the local waste, the scale of this proposal would increase considerably the vehicle movements impacting on roads.

There is considerable residential development in the area already under construction or included within the adopted Poole local plan within 1 mile of this site which will lead to increased domestic and service traffic using these roads. With no secondary school in the area, and limited bus network there is an assumption that local people will use private cars and the cycle lanes to move between their communities.

The developer claims that because the site is already used for the local council's recycling, there will be no increase in vehicle movements claiming that rather than refuse trucks coming in full of recycling and other vehicles exiting to take waste elsewhere, the vehicles will have their waste processed on site and there will be no need for vehicles to travel onwards.

As I have already established, the Portland Incinerator is due to come onstream by 2030 and so local authorities are likely to be utilising that facility. As the outcome of that application was not known at the time of MVV’s application, it is likely that their modelling made the assumption that it would be the sole energy from waste plant.

However since this time the Eco EfW in Hurn has been approved which is focused on green and compostable waste as well as Portland and there is no evidence that MVV provided revised usage assumptions to take account of the revised position.

The Canford facility has been designed to process 260,000 tonnes of waste each year, so even without Portland it is likely that HGVs will be arriving at the site from outside of the wider Dorse area, with around 100,000 tonnes per year. With Portland in operation, even if waste is split between the two sites, the level of external, imported residual waste could be much higher. Whilst ‘competition’ is not a recognised material planning consideration, a demonstrable need for the type of development is and on this ground this application does not demonstrate a need by the time construction commences, or in the future.

Over time, as recycling rates increase, the Government introduced deposit return schemes and emission trading laws increase taxes and polluter pays, access to local waste will reduce. I use the term feeding the monster because this is not just an incinerator but is being designed to use the energy in linked facilities like businesses and homes. Therefore there will be a strong imperative to run at capacity creating high levels of road movements from counties across the South and potentially beyond. In addition, the developer has confirmed that 'bottom ash' will also need to be removed from site under separate transit for processing elsewhere.

Local campaigners have calculated that 1xHGV will be dispatched from the site every 73 seconds. I called on the council to undertake an urgent review of the traffic movements as those provided in the application seem unlikely to be accurate and the impact on congestion and traffic pollution is likely to be much higher than indicated.

Furthermore, I am concerned that the highway modelling do not take into account the current or consented households, and instead appear to base impact on the households at the time of their initial application. A development of 700 homes and a care home are being constructed in Bearwood and a further 550 plus care home are being built in Merley.

A new application for 1,200 homes has been submitted virtually opposite this site on Magna Road. Additional developments are being built in Wimborne and Colehill with thousands more proposed in the local plan. It is expected that 1000+ homes will have been built before this project is constructed, having a major impact on highways.

2) Impact on local waste strategy and net zero

BCP council has committed to net zero and accepting this facility will undermine the ability of the organisation to achieve this, locking it into carbon intensive, high emission activity for decades to come. This plant creates a demand for combustible materials and this undermines the work being undertaken to increase recycling by households and businesses. The site currently undertakes mechanical sorting on site but the developer has confirmed there is no intention to undertake detailed pre-sorting as this would increase costs and use space. A failure to do this would mean that materials that could otherwise be reused or recycled would be burnt, including plastics and potentially batteries and highly toxic materials.

3) Pollution.

Initially the developer MVV told residents that the only thing coming from the chimney would be water vapour. They have later confirmed that as well as nitrogen, water vapour and oxygen there would be small amounts of pollutants and toxins but they would fit within environmental limits. The developer claims they will provide space for Carbon Capture and Storage on site but that this will not be guaranteed to be installed on operation because it is not yet 'commercially or technically possible'. The local community have no guarantees that they will be protected from pollutants in the interim and with virtually no active CCS plants there is a risk that this will never be added.

Without CCS from day one, this plant will have a negative impact on air pollution in an area of high sensitivity, alongside Canford Heath and close to Dunyeats Heath, Upton Heath and Turbary Common all of which are Sites of Special Scientific Interest.

Dorset Heathlands are home to all six species of UK native reptile, ground nesting birds and numerous species of insect and plants. Atmospheric nitrogen pollution enriches these poor heathland soils with far more nutrients than they would ever have available naturally. This allows for other opportunistic species like grasses to grow rapidly, outcompeting the slower-growing, specialised species and potentially stifling out entire rare ecosystems.

Energy from waste plants release nitrogen based pollutants and being released so close to protected heathland, a landscape that is rarer than the amazon rainforest, presents a real risk to the ecosystem.

Nitrogen related pollutants from vehicles are being addressed through the Dorset Heathland Air Quality Strategy and, as we move to electric vehicles the pollution levels are improving, but HGVs and the incinerator will reverse this.

The environmental impact assessment from MVV noted that they had agreed to lower ammonia levels in view of the sensitive area but in a report issued just two weeks ago following air pollution testing by the two councils it was found that ammonia levels exceeded thresholds known to harm lichens and mosses at every site monitored.

If this site is allowed to operate, pollution levels will be significantly increased.

Whilst I have read different papers which give different perspectives on the impact on human health suggesting that negative impacts are limited to those already at higher risk of respiratory or cardiovascular ill-health the evidence about the impact on the environment is considerable. Placing such a facility on the edge of protected heathland is deeply concerning.

4) Impact on Bournemouth Airport

Since the planning application was considered I have met with the management of Bournemouth Airport about their proposals to reduce the impact from their site on the community by reducing noise and air pollution. There are serious concerns that the proposed height of the chimney for this EfW plant will force aircraft to follow a steeper descent into the airport reducing safety and potentially increasing pollution on the ground and in the air. Increased pollution will impact the same heathland corridor.

I have been in contact with the airlines that operate out of Bournemouth Airport and they have shared their intent to reduce their environmental impact and noise pollution for local residents.

Traditional descents involve stepped levels, where the aircraft flies horizontally between descents. These level segments require extra engine thrust and so more fuel burn. Continuous Descent Approach avoids this by Descending continuously at near-idle thrust Using the aircraft’s natural glide. Reports suggest that this also significantly reduces noise exposure by several decibels for communities near airports.

As airlines look to reduce their impact on the environment they are moving to such approaches and the height and positioning of this chimney would, in the opinion of Bournemouth Airport limit the potential to do this.

Bournemouth Airport is an important contributor to the local economy, generating £24 million every year. The airport has made a good recovery since the pandemic and has plans to increase passenger numbers over the coming years – which has already been approved and licenced – which reduces the need for local people to travel to more distant airports and potentially bringing tourism into Dorset. The airport also supports around 900 FTE jobs.

The impact on existing, high quality businesses and the wider economy should be a material factor in the decision making around this site.

The chimney is already raising concerns due to its height creating visual impact from locations in Merley, Canford Magna, Bearwood, Broadstone, Wimborne and Colehill and whilst it is accepted to be a narrow chimney, the skyline in this part of Poole is uninterrupted and so the chimney will be more visible than in a location with other industrial activity or tall buildings.

The training hub of AFCB was apparently not going to be visible, but it comes across as a huge white bubble as you look across and down from Wimborne – it is inconceivable that this chimney will not be a blot on the otherwise natural skyline.

In conclusion, I firmly believe that the harm from this development outweighs the benefit and that the appeal should be dismissed.