The four councils involved in a £1bn incinerator plan have issued a single line statement over revelations from a 133 page report accidentally leaked online over the weekend.

Waste giant Viridor was unhappy with the permission it was given and wanted a new permission to run a bigger, noisier site with longer opening hours or it may pull out, according to the report shown to councillors on the south London Waste Partnership (SLWP) last night.

Viridor said yesterday it was not seeking to change any of the permissions and was waiting for the outcome of a Court of Appeal challenge against the incinerator plan.

It said new details of the planning application had recently been "substantially approved" by Sutton Council.

Kingston Council issued its own apology over the "inadvertent publication" of the papers saying they were "clear" it was a "one-off".

From yesterday: Exclusive: £1 billion south London "incinerator" plans in doubt according to secret report published by mistake

Green party campaigner Shasha Khan, a parliamentary candidate in the Croydon North general election, said yesterday: "Sutton Council has spent more than £70,000 of taxpayers’ money defending a planning application that the applicant doesn’t even want".

Members of the public were banned from asking questions to councillors or officers about the revelations at a public SLWP meeting last night.

From yesterday: Public get no answers over 'larger South London incinerator' leak

A SLWP statement today said: "We have a track record of successfully procuring contracts for the four boroughs and are confident we have a contract that will give the best financial and environmental deal to residents across Croydon, Merton, Kingston and Sutton while being a viable option for Viridor."

The confidential SLWP risk register shown to councillors last night reveals that the councils believe that absolute planning failure based on the failure in the judicial review appeal was rated 'likely' with a high impact potentially forcing a potential reprocurement of the contract.

Your Local Guardian:

Viridor released its own statement yesterday afternoon denying it was unhappy with the permission and claiming that since it received its planning permission details it had provided to the SLWP had been "substantially approved".

Your Local Guardian:

Your Local Guardian: Your Local Guardian:

A statement published yesterday afternoon on Viridor's website read: "Viridor has been informed that confidential documents relating to the contractual process were published on the Kingston Council website.

"The published report included information regarding Viridor’s options on how to proceed with the project, should the cost of meeting restrictions placed by planning permissions become prohibitive.

“Unsatisfactory planning” is a contractual mechanism enabling Viridor to review restrictions imposed by the planning conditions.

"Viridor has submitted the details required by the planning conditions to London Borough of Sutton and these have recently been substantially approved.

"Viridor is not seeking amendments to opening hours or noise restrictions. Viridor continues to wait for the outcome of the challenge, currently with the Court of Appeal, regarding the planning permission granted by the London Borough of Sutton.

"Viridor looks forward to implementing the planning permission in the near future in order to provide an essential residual waste solution to the residents of south London."

All of the councils involved in the SLWP published the agenda but only Kingston published the 133 confidential pages.

For more on the history of the incinerator fight see

It said in a statement today: "Kingston Council would like to apologise to its partners for the inadvertent publication of restricted South London Waste Partnership Joint Committee papers on our web site.  We are sorry for any complications this has caused. 

"The problem was rectified as soon as it was spotted and we are investigating how this error occurred.

"We will take steps to ensure there is not a recurrence, but what is already clear is that it was a one-off rather than an inherent problem with any of our systems or processes."