Waste, Energy and the Planning System: Five Lessons from Portland
The Court of Appeal’s decision to uphold planning permission for the £180 million Portland Energy Recovery Facility (ERF) in Dorset, UK marks a decisive moment for waste-to-energy delivery in the UK. After six years of process and challenge, the project can finally proceed.
As part of the professional team involved in the Portland project, tor&co saw first-hand how a sound, well-evidenced scheme can still stall in the gaps between policy, perception and process. The lessons are clear: delivery needs advocates, not just compliance writes Paul Rogers, Technical Director, tor&co.
For the Government, it matches a wider policy drive to accelerate infrastructure, tighten the waste hierarchy, and meet net-zero goals through domestic energy resilience. But this case also exposes the structural hurdles that continue to slow delivery.
As the Planning and Infrastructure Bill moves through Parliament and reforms to judicial review are debated, the Portland judgment offers five lessons that policymakers and promoters cannot ignore.
1. Planning still takes too long to prove the obvious
Even when a proposal’s consistency with policy is clear, the system drags. The Portland ERF was fully consistent with national waste and energy policy, yet consent took six years and survived multiple rounds of litigation. The reforms proposed under the Planning and Infrastructure Bill will streamline parts of the consenting process for major schemes, but unless mirrored in Town and Country Planning Act projects, the gains will be uneven. Such drawn-out timeframes undermine the Government’s ambition for an ‘infrastructure decade.’
2. Public perception remains the biggest unseen constraint
Energy from waste still struggles against outdated perceptions of pollution and health risk. The Portland case saw well-organised local opposition despite Environment Agency oversight and proven emissions controls. The challenge is not just communications; it’s structural. Planning authorities must adjudicate evidence in the face of misinformation, and often with limited resources, and this can be subject to significant local political pressures. If reforms are to restore trust in decision-making, Government must equip local authorities to handle technical scrutiny at speed and with confidence.
3. Spatial strategy must be read as a whole
A critical finding of the Court was that spatial strategies for waste management should be interpreted holistically. The Court confirmed that decision-makers can weigh the waste hierarchy, self-sufficiency and proximity principles together and form a balanced judgment. This clarification is essential. It signals that future waste infrastructure need not meet all principles equally to be policy-compliant, a pragmatic step for regions short on residual waste capacity. For developers and councils, it provides firmer ground to advance modern facilities that close local treatment gaps rather than export waste across borders.
4. Judicial review risk is distorting investment
The judgment also reignites the debate over access to judicial review. While challenges are a democratic safeguard, too many cases are being ‘gamed’ to delay infrastructure with little cost or risk to objectors. The government’s proposal to narrow challenge routes for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects is welcome, but Portland shows why this logic must extend further. A predictable and proportionate challenge system is essential if investors are to keep faith in the UK consenting regime.
5. Delivery culture matters as much as reform
Even best-practice engagement and full technical disclosure did not prevent delay. This underlines that planning reform alone is not enough. The system needs a shared delivery mindset across departments, regulators and local authorities to turn policy ambition into outcomes.
How developers can make reform work for them
With the Portland decision providing legal clarity and Government reform ongoing, developers in the waste-to-energy and wider infrastructure sectors should:
- Audit their pipeline: Identify projects most exposed to procedural delay and challenge risk.
- Use policy language: Demonstrate clear compliance with the waste hierarchy, self-sufficiency and proximity principles, but show balanced reasoning, as endorsed by the Court.
- Invest in early engagement: Build local understanding of emissions control and energy benefit before applications are lodged.
- Monitor reform: Keep close watch on judicial-review and infrastructure-delivery reforms to stay ahead of procedural risk.
The Portland judgment closes one chapter, but the delivery deficit it exposes is far from resolved. If the UK wants to recover energy from waste, it must first recover time, cost, and confidence.