Waste Management Sites

Helen Maguire Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Lorraine Beavers]

I agree. I thank the Environment Agency, which has worked tirelessly despite massive staff shortages and everything else. It has worked with me and my community to resolve this problem.

The passing on of responsibility while communities suffer cannot continue. The regulators point to the limits of their powers; the operators point to the weather; Departments point to the regulators. Meanwhile, residents are told to make another complaint and keep filling in their diary sheets. That is how faith in Government is destroyed, especially when that pattern is so recognisable in other aspects of the way the country is run. A private company is making money from stinking out an entire town, damaging people’s health and livelihoods, and the British state has so far been incapable of stopping it. I have dedicated much of my time as an MP to working out why.

The children of Flakefleet primary school understand the injustice. A year ago, they wrote to the Prime Minister and handed a petition into 10 Downing Street. The smell from Jameson Road dominates their life at school, and those pupils believe that when something is clearly wrong, those in power will listen and act. That is why I invited this Prime Minister to come to Fleetwood, and I will be inviting the next one to do so as well.

My constituents are tired. They feel ignored and forgotten. Many believe this situation would never have been allowed to continue for so long in a wealthy commuter town in Surrey, and I agree with them. Working-class communities should not be expected to tolerate lower standards because they have less political and economic power. Fleetwood’s health, dignity and future cannot be treated as less important than the financial interest of the private waste companies. No community should be treated in this way.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

I will be talking about a waste site in Surrey, where unfortunately we have some very similar issues. I hope the hon. Lady understands that this is a national issue, not one that is confined to certain locations of the United Kingdom.

[Lorraine Beavers]

I apologise for naming Surrey.

The wider enforcement framework must change. Regulators need clear powers to suspend operators quickly, stronger tests of operators’ competence and the ability to consider the cumulative impact of sites on communities. Penalties must change behaviour, rather than become a cost of doing business. The financial consequences must fall on the polluters, and we must make sure that companies cannot take the profits while leaving residents and taxpayers to carry the costs when things go wrong.

We need a system that learns from the crisis in Fleetwood rather than one that waits for the same crisis to unfold elsewhere. A Labour Government should not stand by while private operators profit from the suffering of working-class towns. We were elected to show that government can work and that the state can protect people and stand up to private interests when they cause harm. Jameson Road is a test of that promise. It is also a test of whether we are prepared to fix a national regulatory failure. Reforming the system would show communities across the country that they will not be abandoned when the same failures occur on their doorstep. The next community to face this problem should not have to start from the beginning—keeping diaries, gathering medical evidence and begging regulators to act, while the operators continue to profit. The British state must prove that it is not too broken to stop this.

With that in mind, I have several questions for the Minister. Does she acknowledge that the reality of the situation in Fleetwood is that a private company has made profit through unlawful activity at the expense of the health and wellbeing of an entire town, and that that is unacceptable? Will she commission a full review of the current waste management framework, taking into consideration the following questions. Does the Environment Agency have sufficient powers to take decisive action quickly enough? Is it not fully using the powers it already has? Does the Minister believe that the Environment Agency is adequately resourced, and if not, how will the Government increase its funding to deal with the scale of these challenges? Will she legislate to ensure that new environmental permits must be sought when the ownership of a site changes? How does she plan to address the scrutiny gap, whereby companies do not have to prove their ability to run a site properly before operating it? Fleetwood needs action, communities across Britain need protection and this country needs a regulatory system that puts people before polluters.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers) for securing this very important debate. I must emphasise that this is a nationwide issue: it affects not just working-class constituencies but leafy Surrey, including Epsom and Ewell.

I will set the scene. It is a peaceful early morning in the residential community on the edge of Epsom Downs, a picturesque, 600-acre area of unspoiled chalk downland with panoramic views of London. We are right next to the Chalk Pit, a waste-processing site in Epsom in Surrey. Crash! Bang! Boom! Residents are suddenly awoken. It is 6 o’clock on 20 July. They hear the scraping, clanking and banging of metal, the humming of industrial machinery and the roaring of the trommel. Workmen shout loudly. Car horns honk. Dust chokes the air. Lorries speed up and down the road. It does not end until late in the evening, and this goes on and on all day, every single working day.

Could the Minister, and all those in the Chamber today, live with that constant noise, dust and disruption? Would the Minister be willing to accept this lack of action and change? My residents have no choice. Their homes are here. Their lives are here. This site was never meant to become what it is now when it went to planning 10 years ago, moving from a waste transfer site to a waste processing site. The management of this site is unacceptable, and my constituents—the residents—have long deserved better. Action must be taken, and it must be taken now.

There are four systemic failures: planning by Surrey county council; enforcement by Epsom and Ewell borough council; the environment, whether dust, noise or the potential contamination of water, which is the responsibility of the Environment Agency; and accountability, because there is no single lead on this and one agency passes the buck to another. This has disrupted my residents’ lives for more than 10 years.

On excessive dust, the atmosphere average is 10 micrograms per cubic metre; the Chalk Pit has an average concentration of 40 micrograms. On multiple occasions, it has exceeded the quality standard of 50, but let us remember that 10 is normal. There has been persistent noise, as well as breaches of permitted operating hours, with lorries leaving the site as early as 5.40 am when the operational hours should be 7 am until 6 pm. Then there is the impact of heavy vehicles: lorries regularly exceed the speed limit of 30 mph on roads that are simply not designed for them.

Tests cannot fully capture the human impact and the unintended disruption to daily lives, for years. A constituent said to me:

“Hoped for a peaceful afternoon in the garden—no chance with the Chalk Pit at full throttle”.

Another wrote:

“So much for a quiet relaxing Saturday morning. My day off ruined.”

One constituent said that it feels

“like the trommel is at work in my living room”,

And another said:

“Our garden table, covered in dust—no chance of going outside.”

When there has been monitoring, I have been told that operators are informed in advance when it will occur, so we can guess what happens: there is suddenly no noise or dust and the site does not operate. How is that effective monitoring or true accountability?

There have been planning conditions, environmental permits, monitoring equipment for noise and dust, thousands of complaints, multiple inspection reports, and statutory guidance, yet the same problems continue. The issue is not a lack of legislation; it is the repeated failure of enforcement, of leadership—there is none—and of accountability. Why are my residents forced to continually fight this? Why are the authorities not taking action? There are three agencies responsible for the issue: Surrey county council, Epsom and Ewell borough council and the Environment Agency. The unending buck-passing must stop; someone must take the lead and act now.

The governance is completely divided, with Surrey county council responsible as the waste planning authority, the Environment Agency responsible for dust and noise and for making sure water is safe to drink, and Epsom and Ewell borough council responsible for enforcement. The result? We have no single authority taking the lead, no organisation accountable for resolving the overall problem, separate investigations instead of co-ordinated action, and residents forced to navigate multiple regulators. It is a planning system that rewards non-compliance. Lack of enforcement leads to retrospective planning applications, which encourages operators to build first and apply later. That leaves planners mitigating impacts rather than deciding whether a development should occur in the first place, and creates the perception that compliance is optional. How can compliance be optional when it impacts my residents daily?

In the case of planning, economic growth is often given greater weight than things such as residential amenity, environmental impact, long-term public costs and community wellbeing. Local views and the experience of my residents have been overridden since the site changed its use over 10 years ago. Residents and local councils have objected. Planning officers have raised concerns. Elected representatives have opposed proposals. And the Environment Agency described the site as

“wildly out of character in a residential area”.

Despite that, permissions continue to be granted, undermining confidence that local views and feedback carry any meaningful weight at all.

Let us talk about enforcement. There are many planning conditions that could have been regulated, such as the operating hours. However, as we have heard, my residents are continually woken up at 6.06 am or even earlier, even though the operator is not meant to start before 7 am. There is continual noise nuisance, with the operator flouting the abatement notice. There is dust on a regular basis, which residents see on their tables and chairs outside or on their washing out hanging on the washing line. There are regular vehicle movements before 7 o’clock, and the number of lorries going in and out sometimes exceeds the permitted amount.

However, enforcements work only if they are actually enforced. To help with that, residents have provided complaints, photographs, videos and witness evidence. Authorities have gathered noise monitoring data, CCTV, site inspections and monitoring reports, yet residents continue to report the same again and again. Breaches happen again and again, over and over, but the repeated breaches do not lead to action. Understandably, residents believe that breaches do not lead to consequences. All their efforts are just in vain. They feel like giving up. Why should they continue if there is no action?

There are repeated findings without resolution. Those who are meant to regulate have repeatedly identified concerns—dust, noise, operating hours, site management and residential impacts. Instead of action, the response has included more inspections, more monitoring, more meetings, revised management plans, additional planning conditions and permit reviews—and still nothing changes. The same complaints continue. How many complaints are needed to trigger change? How many reports need to be conducted? How many dust tests and noise tests do we need? The lives of my residents are affected every single day, and all the authorities keep showing them is their unwillingness to improve their lives.

A regulatory system should not simply document non-compliance; it should enforce compliance. Success must be measured by improvements in people’s quality of life. Effective performance is not the number of meetings held, reports produced or warnings issued. A high number of ongoing complaints highlights the need for urgent action. The true measure of successful site management is whether conditions and outcomes are actually improved for the people affected.

Residents rightly expect and deserve that their elected representatives will help resolve persistent problems. In practice, councillors have limited to no influence. MPs cannot direct regulators, and residents cannot demand action; that creates a democratic gap. Those making enforcement decisions are not directly accountable to the communities affected by them, so there is understandably a loss of public confidence. Over time, residents question whether planning conditions have real value, whether environmental permits provide meaningful protection, whether complaints make any difference at all and whether regulators are measuring activity rather than results. Residents become exhausted and stop reporting incidents, yet the reduced number of complaints is sometimes treated as evidence that the problem has been sorted; it has not—residents are just exhausted and fed up of dealing with this issue day in, day out.

The Liberal Democrats believe that community engagement in waste management is an essential part of the journey towards a more sustainable and circular economy. That means ensuring that local councils can operate waste management sites effectively, without unnecessarily impacting the lives of nearby residents. Residents should not experience excessive environmental effects, health impacts or disruption. We also believe that local communities must have a genuine stake in planning decisions that affect them. Proper consultation and community engagement must be at the heart of proposals for new waste management sites. Full consideration must be given to the environmental health impacts of waste management sites on local residents.

We must go further, as the best waste management system is one that generates less waste in the first place. That is why we support embedding circular economy principles across the UK’s industrial strategy and product design, reducing the amount of waste that communities and councils need to manage.

Effective regulation of waste management sites also requires a properly resourced oversight body, ensuring that our environment is protected and health risks are mitigated. That is why we support increased funding to the EA to ensure that it can enforce environmental standards and hold operators to account where sites cause harm to local communities, as in Epsom. The Government must also commit to an independent review into the entire waste crime system.

In conclusion, the Chalk Pit in Epsom exposes wider weaknesses within the planning and environmental regulatory system: fragmented governance, no single accountable authority, poor co-ordination between regulators, retrospective planning reducing the consequences of unauthorised development, appeals that weaken local decision making, enforcement powers that are not consistently exercised, and residents whose concerns are not listened to.

This is not just an issue of the absence of legislation; it is an issue of leadership, accountability and enforcement. Without effective enforcement, planning conditions and environmental permits become protections that exist only on paper, not in practice. The EA, Surrey county council and Epsom and Ewell borough council can conduct their site visits and tests and go home, and the contractors can clock in, do a day’s work and then clock out and go home, but my residents do not have that privilege. Their lives and their homes are there. They are entitled to a higher quality of life in their community. I urge the Minister to listen to the contributions made by myself and others today and to take action to end the suffering of my constituents in Epsom.