On Saturday 1 February, scores of people in the West Yorkshire town of Sowerby Bridge attended a protest rally against a proposed small waste incinerator plant for commercial use. The proposal was approved by Calderdale Council last November despite the previous application having been overturned via judicial review and the granting of the permit overturned by the High Court.
If the incinerator were to be constructed, it would have myriad detrimental effects upon the immediate community. With Sowerby Bridge situated in the Calder Valley, the proposed stack’s height of 96 metres would mean that pollutants would be emitted at the same level as surrounding communities at higher altitudes and the tree canopy of ancient woodland. And as the incinerator is due to be constructed on the bank of the River Ryburn, the site may fall victim to flooding, as was witnessed by Sowerby Bridge in 2015.
Local residents understand the dangers that the incinerator would pose to their community which is why they came out in force. This is not a partisan issue. In addition to Liberal Democrat councillors (and the former Mayor and Deputy Mayor) Ashley Evans and Sue Holdsworth, the rally was attended by representatives of the Green Party and the National Education Union. Despite approval being given by a Labour-controlled council, Labour figures such as Cllr Simon Ashton of Sowerby Bridge and Halifax MP Kate Dearden spoke out against the proposal.
Nimbyism is often derided as simple obstructionism, motivated by a gainsay resistance to change or a desire not to jeopardise a privileged situation. Prime examples of this would be denying the building of new houses or renewable energy infrastructure to prevent a fall in property values.
However, the cry of ‘not in my backyard’ can easily be made against proposals that would have clearly deleterious impacts upon local communities, as can be argued with the Sowerby Bridge incinerator or fracking or nuclear waste repositories.
We Liberal Democrats believe in strengthening local democracy, whether through the introduction of proportional representation to elect local councils or the transfer of powers away from Westminster and Whitehall so that they can be exercised by local communities for the benefit of local communities. In the face of a project with no support from or benefits for the local community where it is to be situated, organised, peaceful and cogent opposition from the residents can be a check on the seemingly out-of-touch council which waved it through.
Recent opinion polling, commissioned by Channel 4, has indicated that over half of young people aged between 13 and 27 believed that:
“… the UK would be a better place if a strong leader was in charge who does not have to bother with parliament and elections.”
This is a sad indictment of the current state of our politics. An unrepresentative voting system and a top-heavy distribution of power has left many feeling disillusioned by democracy, mostly likely having experienced relative unresponsiveness to their needs.
Those who believe in dictatorship as a more effective and efficient alternative to our imperfect democracy have taken for granted the benefits that our democracy has brought, principally the freedoms of expression, association and participation. Nascent support for a British dictator is dependent on an assumption that they would be like Sulla, a beneficent ruler who would take drastic measures to positively reform his country, improve the lot of his people and ultimately quietly step away from the role in time. Would dictatorship have popular appeal if it was on the assumption if it was intended to imitate myriad destructive, oppressive or corrupt examples from the past?
Under dictatorship, development projects good and bad could be imposed on communities, even wiping them out either by design or consequence in the name of a greater good. Peaceful opposition to them could not be popularly organised without incurring the risk of violent suppression.
As part of our campaign for improving democracy both nationally and locally, we need to stand by the right of local residents to peacefully advocate for what is best for their communities and press the case that our policies will be amplify their voices. If a beneficial proposal meets the same resistance, the onus is on us better educate the public rather than shutting them out of the decision-making process.
* Samuel James Jackson is the Chair of the Policy Committee of the Yorkshire and the Humber Liberal Democrats and had served as the Liberal Democratic candidate in Halifax during the 2024 general election.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The Joy of Six 1339
Kemi Badenoch vs the Conservative Party: how the polling compares - The Week in Polls
F10 is passed overwhelmingly. Now the work begins...
Blackness Road - 1967 #dundeewestend
Torchwood is now a Cardiff Bay institution
Zachary Adam Barker
tom arms
Neil Hickman
Joe Bourke
18 Comments
The defenders of participatory democracy need to address the inequality that underpins it in the form of those likely to participate. Different social groups react differently. Taken at face value, this point might seem obvious – but the consequences of inequalities in democratic participation need to be explored. For instance, is it really the case that a lower rate of participation in democratic institutions means that people on lower incomes lead lives that are altogether less connected to democracy than the rest of society?
“The defenders of participatory democracy need to address the inequality that underpins it in the form of those likely to participate.”
Indeed. By being proactive – going out and talking to people in areas which appear participation is or is suspected to be lower – which could include talking to people reduced to living on the street. And ‘talking’ mustn’t mean telling – it means asking as well.
A further factor to address this inequality is the long-term relationship between council and people wherever they are. Another is supporting their right to campaign even when they are wrong.
My wife and I used to live in Sowerby Bridge (pronounced SAWby for the initiated). However, before they man the barricades, people should consider the following.
Which brings me to the situation where I live now and my rôle in bringing what we prefer to call an ‘Energy from Waste’ facility to my small town of North Hykeham just outside the city of Lincoln. Around 15 years ago, in order, despite the extensive championing of recycling by all the county’s seven District Councils, to reduce the amount of refuse going into landfill sites, an incinerator was planned to be located in the Division that bordered mine which was represented by my fellow Lib Dem County Councillor, the late Reg Shore.
Reg and I surveyed our residents via FOCUS and quite frankly got hardly any negative response. As members of the ruling coalition we gave our full support to the project. The Energy from Waste facility was opened in 2014 by none other than Secretary of State, Sir Vince Cable supported by Reg, who, by then had become the County Portfolio Holder for Waste Disposal. Since then the facility has helped to power nearly 30,000 homes and paid through Section 106 agreements for vital roads infrastructure in the area. It also operates a comprehensive programme of public and schools visits amongst other things. I can see its chimney from my bedroom window and I can honestly say that the amount of smoke emerging from its solitary chimney is negligible.
London is in for a wave of Nymbyism & better late than never. People outside that London may have heard of the resistance to the massive expansion of Heathrow Airport but not the dozens of local campaigns against yet more Skyscrapers. Theres a lot of complaints in The North about the way Wealth & Jobs are funnelled into London but its not good for Londoners either. Theres been a wave of School closures & forced mergers because so few people can afford to live in London & have children.
Everything said about local democracy is valid of course, but there does remain the minor question of what the objectors think should be done with the waste – some of which the residents probably produce themselves. Or will they all pledge to change the way they live to eliminate it which is the ideal solution?
The 250 word limit meant that I had to omit several sentences which would have illustrated other points I would have liked to have made.
Knowing the area well I can see why people might have been concerned about possible ‘pollutants’. Also, Samuel James did not make clear whether the combustion process might have released energy which could be deployed locally.
Incinerators can have a bad reputation but so do council tips and landfill sites. Our experience here in Lincolnshire has, in my opinion, allayed many of the fears associated with burning waste. Being a councillor often means making tough choices. I tend to agree with Tristan Ward in his judgement. Pick your battles carefully.
Hi John Marriot,
I would like to clarify that proposals for the Sowerby Bridge incinerator does not include plans for electricity generation.
@Samuel Jackson
They missed a trick there then. Where are the barricades?!
I fail to understand the basis for Samuel Jackson’s objections.
He clearly believes in local democracy. Calderdale Council is the elected body with responsibility for this decision. It is has decided that building the icinerator is in the best interests of Calderdale Council’s citizens collectively.
So what is he objecting to?
@Mohammed Amin
“I fail to understand the basis for Samuel Jackson’s objections.”
Location?
Round me we have campaigned against many things because of the proposed location. It has given the owner of a site designated as being for a “pub” ie. (adult) community social space separate to the community centre, many headaches as they have repeatedly come up with development schemes which don’t satisfy the intent of the original plans and section 106 agreement, signed some 25+ years back.
A second example: I’m against the redevelopment of our local hospital on its current site (it was one of the ones that was on the Tory list of 30), because the site (originally developed as a hospital in 1897) is not suitable for a hospital of the intended size and access requirements needed to satisfy the much expanded town and environs of 2025. The sad part is that the neighbouring parcel of land (that backs on to the site) would have been ideal, but that’s been sold off for housing…
Despite all the regional plans etc. it does seem that making sensible land usage provisions is not something done well.
“”they have repeatedly come up with development schemes which don’t satisfy the intent of the original plans and section 106 agreement, signed some 25+ years back.”
Interesting conundrum. I started wondering if section 106 agreements should have time limits but then thought that would be an encitement to procrastination by any developers concerned.
I wonder if the rules should be changed so that implementation of a section 106 agreement has to be carried out before or at the same time as the development which the section 106 agreement impacts.
Hi Amin, like you and like Samuel, I am a Lib Dem who believes in liberal democracy and localism. In addition I have been around long enough to know that democratic decisions correctly made can often be bad, partisan or even on a few occasions made with malicious intent or even illegal. As a result when I come across a bad decision, I campaign in my local community in conjunction with fellow Lib Dems to get eth decision changed.
What seems long time ago, I remember a Prime minister supported by some but not all of his party, making a very bad decision which was well within his powers and responsibility regarding entering a war in Iraq. The war resulted in 179 deaths of British forces, over 4,000 US deaths and 149 from other countries including 18 from Ukraine. I wish the campaign I and the party I am proud to be a member of led by Charles Kennedy had been successful, but it wasn’t. However it did expose Tony Blair’s willingness to twist the truth beyond recognition to get his way.
Based on your writings, it is clear you realise the folly of our country’s involvement in that war and possibly opposed it at the time as well. To me, it is clear that sometimes democracy doesn’t work and we need to campaign against those decisions.
Do you not agree?
Oh yes and Apologies. In my drive to come within the 250 word count I forgot to mention the vast numbers of Iraqi citizens who died as well and the catastrophe and chaos left behind. We should never lightly forgive or forget these things.
@ Nonconformistradical Agree it’s a conundrum.
Basically, the plans and thus the houses were sold on the “vision” of all the facilities being in place, plus as I said the development only got the go ahead if the facilities were provided. Plus in this instance the location is the perfect place for a club house/sports facility be cause it fronts the village cricket pitch and playing fields.
Part of the problem is that the developer, cut corners on the playing fields so instead of getting a facility with FA grade pitches etc. we got a “school sports field”, hence no one is interested in situating a sports facility here and thus provide a way for the site to be commercially developed (we would purchase the land, at the price the developer paid not the inflated commercial valuation they have put on the land).
Personally, if the developer can’t deliver within the agreed timeframes, the land and collected monies get transferred to the local (parish) council and residents association.
While not supporting new incinerators, compensating people affected by infrastructure projects is worth considering. This is being considered for those near new pylons where the advantages are nationwide and the disadvantages local. This at least recognises the loss of amenity to those affected. Local ownership might also be considered.
@Peter – “ Local ownership might also be considered.”
That is a good point, whilst I only have superficial information, it does seem the Gloucester incinerator is worth looking at.
Incinerator next to the M5 will generate £19m to fund public services in Gloucestershire this year
I seem to remember some of the monies funded the establishment of Gloucester Services and their operation being for community benefit.
Hi @Mohammed Amin,
In response to your question, the issue is that the approval of the incinerator with little scrutiny following the rejection of an identical scheme proposed by the same advocates for the project, a private skip hire company.