In 1956, Egypt’s government “nationalised” the SUEZ Canal prompting the UK, France and Israel to instigate a military intervention but a lack of support from the US and others led to a humiliating withdrawal and the beginning of the end of the UK as a colonial power and the end of the then Prime Minister, Anthony Eden.
Thanks to their obsession with allowing Sutton to become London’s waste capital, the Liberal Democrats are heading for their own SUEZ crisis over their support for an anaerobic digester on Beddington Lane
On April 2nd this year, the Planning Committee voted to reject the planning application for French waste conglomerate, SUEZ, to build an anaerobic digester to take 100,000 tonnes of food waste from all over London and turn it into methane gas. That rejection was in spite of the support of three Liberal Democrat members of the committee including the Chair and Deputy Chair and the endorsement of the plan by the Council’s Planning Department.
SUEZ have appealed against the decision and the matter is going before the Planning Inspectorate so let’s compare SUEZ’s consultative position with reality.
1. Tokenistic Consultation
- SUEZ report that they leafleted 1,583 properties and hosted two drop-in sessions, but only 25 people attended and just six responses were received in total.
- In contrast, there are around 12,000 homes within a two-mile radius of the proposed plant. The consultation “zone” deliberately excluded the majority of residents likely to be affected.
- This selective targeting ensured the response rate appeared minimal, allowing SUEZ to claim a lack of opposition. In reality, it was a deliberately shrunken consultation catchment.
2. Real Community Engagement Told a Different Story
- When Independent councillors themselves circulated 4,000 leaflets spelling out the dangers of the digester, there were 360 objections lodged, including six from local doctors concerned about health impacts.
- That is a 60-fold increase in objections compared with SUEZ’s entire consultation process, demonstrating that when the public were given factual information, they reacted strongly against the plan.
- This shows SUEZ’s consultation was not about informing the public, but withholding critical facts to dampen opposition.
3. Minimisation of Concerns
- Residents who did engage raised consistent issues: odour, traffic, air pollution, site safety, and the fairness of Beddington being used for other areas’ waste.
- SUEZ dismissed the risk of explosion even with a similar plant near Oxford being hit by lightning in 2023 in rural isolation, when this plant would be located close to houses and two schools
- SUEZ dismissed or downplayed each concern with generic technical assurances (e.g., odour will “disperse quickly”; traffic will only increase by “less than 3%”).
- This kind of response treats objections as a problem to be managed, not evidence to guide decision-making.
4. Financial Incentives Driving the Process
- The plant would generate an estimated £1 million a year in business rates for Sutton Council.
- SUEZ made early, detailed presentations to council officers before residents were approached, suggesting the priority was winning council support rather than genuine community dialogue.
- For a council under acute financial pressure, the rates income looms far larger than residents’ health or environmental concerns.
5. Consultation as Public Relations
- SUEZ arranged media placements in Local Guardian and trade journals, reinforcing that this was primarily a PR exercise to build a positive narrative, not a neutral consultation.
- Their “Statement of Community Involvement” repeatedly describes engagement as “meaningful,” yet the facts — a tiny official response rate versus hundreds of objections when residents organised independently — expose it as window-dressing for the planning application.
Conclusion
The SUEZ consultation process was a sham exercise designed to appear compliant with planning requirements, while in practice excluding the majority of affected households and downplaying the risks.
The real test of opinion came only when residents distributed their own information: 4,000 leaflets produced 360 objections (including medical professionals), compared to SUEZ’s six responses.
Taken together, this shows:
- Residents are ignored and under-informed.
- The Council is financially motivated by the £1m annual business rates and a flawed South London Waste Plan
- The whole SUEZ consultation process was crafted to manage perception, not to listen yet was enthusiastically endorsed by the Liberal Democrats.
In spite of initially endorsing the project, the Council’s Planning Department will defend the decision – it will be interesting to see how democratic the Liberal Democrat Councillors and MP’s prove to be in their choice between public health and corporate greed.
Beddington’s Independent Councillors will keep you informed and where you can voice your opinions to the Planning Inspectorate.