For campaigners fighting the controversial Portland waste incinerator, the latest announcement from the Environment Agency has landed as another devastating setback. After years of opposition from local residents, environmental groups and Dorset Council itself, the regulator has confirmed it is “minded to approve” a variation to the environmental permit that would allow the proposed facility to burn an even wider range of waste materials.
The decision has intensified fears that the project is moving ever closer to becoming a reality, with the incinerator expected to become operational by around 2030 if the remaining regulatory hurdles are cleared.
Yet despite the gloomy outlook, campaigners have not entirely abandoned hope. Increasingly, some are looking beyond Dorset and towards national politics, believing that a future government led by Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham, who has previously expressed scepticism about large-scale waste incineration, could fundamentally change the landscape.
Whether that hope proves realistic remains uncertain, but for many opponents it represents one of the few remaining political avenues left.
A Project That Refuses to Go Away
The Portland incinerator has become one of Dorset’s most fiercely contested developments.
Originally rejected by Dorset Council after significant public opposition, the project nevertheless received approval from central government on appeal. Many residents regarded the decision as a blow to local democracy, arguing that local concerns had been overridden despite years of consultation.
The proposed facility would stand close to residential areas and within sight of the Jurassic Coast, one of Britain’s most celebrated natural landscapes.
Its most striking feature would be an 80-metre chimney dominating Portland’s skyline.
Supporters argue that modern energy-from-waste facilities reduce landfill, generate electricity and operate within strict environmental limits.
Opponents argue that the wrong facility is being built in entirely the wrong location.
Burning More Than Household Waste
The Environment Agency’s latest draft permit has heightened those concerns.
Rather than simply authorising the burning of unrecyclable household waste, the variation would permit a further 67 categories of waste.
According to campaigners, these include:
- End-of-life vehicles
- Electrical waste
- Waste from contaminated construction sites
- Upholstery containing PFAS (“forever chemicals”)
- Various industrial waste streams
These additional waste types have raised concerns because some may contain heavy metals or persistent chemical compounds.
The Environment Agency says any emissions would still have to remain within legally enforceable limits designed to protect human health and the environment.
However, campaigners question whether legal limits necessarily eliminate long-term health risks.
What Could Be Released?
The draft permit acknowledges that the incinerator would emit numerous substances during normal operation, including:
- Carbon monoxide
- Nitrogen oxides
- Sulphur dioxide
- Hydrogen chloride
- Particulate matter
- Carbon compounds
- Ammonia
- Mercury
Modern incinerators across Europe routinely emit these substances under tightly regulated conditions.
The Environment Agency says it will only issue the permit if it is satisfied that the plant can operate without causing unacceptable harm to people or the environment.
It also notes that strict monitoring systems would detect any excessive emissions and require operators to report them.
Nevertheless, critics argue that the existence of emergency procedures demonstrates that problems remain possible.
Dorset Doesn’t Produce Enough Waste
One of the campaign’s strongest arguments centres on simple arithmetic.
Dorset consistently records some of England’s highest recycling rates.
Campaigners argue that this success means there simply is not enough refuse-derived fuel (RDF) generated within the county to keep such a large incinerator operating efficiently.
They estimate that more than 100,000 tonnes of waste each year would need to be transported into Dorset from elsewhere.
That raises several further concerns.
First, it appears inconsistent with wider environmental ambitions to reduce transport emissions.
Secondly, Portland sits at the extreme southern end of Dorset, meaning imported waste would have to travel almost the entire length of the county before reaching the site.
Residents fear this would place additional pressure on already congested roads leading to Portland.
Dorset Council Wants Nothing To Do With It
Adding another layer of irony, Dorset Council has repeatedly stated that it has no intention of sending its own waste to the proposed incinerator.
Instead, the authority plans to continue using the established energy-from-waste facility at Bridgwater in Somerset.
For campaigners, this raises an obvious question.
If Dorset’s own council believes another facility better serves local waste needs, why build another one in Portland at all?
They argue that the project increasingly resembles a regional waste import hub rather than infrastructure designed primarily to serve Dorset residents.
Stop Portland Incinerator Campaign Responds
The Stop Portland Incinerator Campaign (SPIC) has described the Environment Agency’s draft decision as deeply disappointing.
Campaign representatives argue that expanding the list of approved waste streams fundamentally changes the nature of the proposal originally presented to the public.
They also note that almost 700 consultation responses were submitted during earlier permitting stages, demonstrating sustained public engagement.
Campaigners say this level of opposition should not simply be dismissed as a vocal minority.
Olympic rowing champion Etienne Stott, who has become one of the campaign’s most prominent supporters, criticised the regulator’s position in particularly strong terms.
He questioned how an agency tasked with environmental protection could conclude that emissions from what opponents regard as a toxic industrial development would have no meaningful impact on nearby communities.
Is Andy Burnham Really the Last Hope?
Some campaigners increasingly point towards Andy Burnham as someone who could alter national waste policy if he were ever to become Prime Minister.
Burnham has previously spoken about moving towards a more circular economy that prioritises waste reduction, reuse and recycling over disposal.
He has also questioned reliance on incineration as a long-term waste strategy.
Whether a future government could reverse projects already granted planning permission would depend upon legal, contractual and regulatory considerations.
Cancelling approved developments is rarely straightforward and could potentially expose governments to compensation claims.
Nevertheless, campaigners believe that changes to national planning policy or waste strategy could make future expansion of incineration far less likely.
For some, Burnham represents not simply one politician but a broader shift towards policies placing greater emphasis on recycling and resource recovery rather than burning waste.
The Fight Continues
Despite the draft approval, the process is not yet complete.
The Environment Agency is still consulting on the permit variation, meaning members of the public can continue submitting comments before the deadline.
Meanwhile, SPIC is organising a large family-friendly protest and parade on 1 August, beginning at 10am at Weymouth’s Jubilee Clock.
Campaigners hope another strong public turnout will demonstrate that opposition has not diminished despite years of setbacks.
Whether those objections ultimately change the regulator’s final decision remains to be seen.
What is certain is that the Portland incinerator has become far more than a planning dispute. It has evolved into a wider debate about environmental priorities, local democracy, public health, waste policy and the future direction of Britain’s circular economy.
For many residents, the battle is entering its final and most critical chapter. Whether political change can still alter the outcome is unknown, but for campaigners determined to stop the project, hope has not yet been extinguished.
