Friday 13 August 2010

SUSSEX EXPRESS - Hailsham - Polegate - Herstmonceux Edition

Landraise threat still on the cards - by CHRIS EYTE

A LANDRAISE scheme could still be set up in the Sussex Express news area - despite a review promised by the new LibCon Government.

East Sussex County Council has been considering five 60-acre potential landraise sites for 25 metre high, 25 hectare rubbish tips including near Golden Cross, Hellingly, and sewerage works at Berwick.

Residents, MPs and councillors have raised objections to the idea. Veolia, allegedly the largest waste management and recycling business in the UK, stated in March it has no interest in the scheme.

The Express asked the county council if the review would be affected by new policies under the new Government.

A county council- spokesman said: "The Government has indicated that planning authorities should continue to prepare their waste plans and we are proceeding to prepare our waste and minerals core strategy.

"The Coalition Agreement identifies that there will be radical reform of the planning system in the longer term but this framework has yet to emerge.

"The Government has also commenced a review of the National Waste Strategy. All these factors will be taken into account in the preparation of the next stages of the Core Strategy."

County is reviewing points raised by many residents and campaign groups during a public consultation which ended in January.

The county spokesman added: "We will, in due course, publish an analysis of the consultation and there is also additional technical work to be undertaken. There will be a further dialogue with the communities and individuals that have previously engaged with us on this matter."

Both MPs Charles Hendry (Wealden) and Norman Baker (Lewes and Polegate) have critisized the proposals.

Charles Hendry remained convinced, as a local MP, that the locations were 'completely inappropriate for landraise facilities' and he was 'absolutely committed' to making sure the council knew the full range of options.

He said: "The coalition Government has made it clear that it wants landfill and landraise only to be used as a last resort for dealing with waste. It has said that it will from front introduce a floor price in the landfill levy so the cost of landfill will be maintained at a high level so there will be even greater incentives to explore other options.

"As Energy Minister, I am committed to seeing joined up thinking on waste management issues, making sure that we see how we can get energy from waste, rather than dumping it in open countryside."

Norman Baker called landraise 'an abomination that has no place in 21st century Britain'. He said the county council should 'recognise this' and not proceed with the proposals.

He told the Express: "The Coalition Agreement rightly endorses modern forms of waste treatment such as anaerobic digestion rather than out-of-date approaches such as incineration, let alone the medieval idea of building mountains of waste on green fields which the county council is apparently happy to countenance. The council's lack of imagination and ambition when it comes to waste matters is really quite depressing."

Wealden District Council has also been concerned about the county council's landraise ideas.

Cllr Roy Galley said: "Many of our residents expressed their concerns to us about the lack of consultation on this important matter and were horrified at the prospect of landraise within a district like Wealden.

"We share our residents' concerns and we particularly welcome the fact that the county council is carefully considering these views and has proposed that there will be a further round of informal consultation."

A depressingly familar story from the past concerning land raise

Sussex Express Series (Lewes, England), May 23, 2002

'.. Villagers who fought a successful campaign against land raise waste disposal sites on their doorstep are gearing up to fight a new threat to their environment.

Parish councils in Chiddingly, Laughton, East Hoathly and Chalvington with Ripe joined to form a campaign group called Clear when four sites at Halland, East Hoathly, Chiddingly and Laughton were suggested for land raise.

They were supported by Selmeston, Firle, Berwick, Alfriston and Ringmer parish councils and the town council of Polegate in the battle which culminated in a large scale demonstration at Lewes. That led to a promise of support from county councillors who later voted to exclude land raise on greenfield sites in Sussex.

But the councils are on their guard again because land raise has slipped into the county's second deposit waste plan.

Sites are not specified, but the document says: 'There shall be a very strong presumption against any land raising provision for non-inert waste on greenfield sites.

'No such provision will be considered until all appropriate previously developed sites have been investigated and eliminated.'

That has triggered Clear's alarm once more because they claim the only area that could be targeted for land raise covers their villages in the Low Weald.

One of the members Mr Nigel Braden said the Downs and High Weald, which are categorised as Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, could not be considered because of that.

'We have been told that land raising will not go on greenfield sites, but the way this is written makes it an open door policy for any contractor coming to lodge a planning application for disposal sites in greenfield areas.

'We will do whatever we need to do to register this point and if it comes to a public inquiry we will vociferously oppose any principle of land raising on greenfield areas.'

Wealden councillor Sylvia Tidy, who represents Chiddingly and East Hoathly, fought at a meeting of the council's executive last week to get Wealden support for opposing land raise in the Low Weald but failed.

She argued that the landscape of the Low Weald was unsuitable for land raise because it was flat and while new hills of refuse could be lost in hilly areas they would stand out in the Low Weald.

But councillors were told the suggestion of land raise could not be excluded from the plan because of a hefty shortfall in provision of waste disposal facilities.

And Cllr Teresa Blaxland, representing Heathfield, said that to suggest Low Weald should be protected at the expense of Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty would be very difficult for the county to sustain at a public inquiry and very difficult for Wealden to argue. Other executive members agreed ..'

01 August 2010

UK may have to import rubbish for incinerators

'.. Environmental groups are demanding an end to the building of new waste incinerators, which they say will undermine recycling. Experts question whether Britain will produce enough household waste to fuel energy-from-waste plants as the country improves its recycling efforts. And they warn that waste will have to be diverted from sustainable recycling schemes or imported from elsewhere to keep a rash of new planned waste incinerators working ..'

This is surely just a natural progression from earlier issues about ESCC capping recycling so that more rubbish can be channelled to the Newhaven incinerator

'.. county council has this week (March 17) disputed claims by Lewes Liberal Democrats that its current recycling credits scheme is limiting the amount of waste that can be recycled in the county in order to ensure enough material for the energy-from-waste facility at Newhaven ..'

ESCC plans overhaul of Waste Collection Authority (WCA) recycling incentives

Let us not forget that the major residue with incineration is ash and this is one of the materials ESCC intends to use in land raise sites

'.. for every four tons of trash burned you get at least one ton of ash: 90% is called bottom ash (that is the ash collected under the furnace) and 10% is the very toxic fly ash. ..'

Although we have already addressed this issue in the past a timely reminder might be in order

ESCC Newhaven Incinerator Dangerous Residues and Emissions

Unfortunately having made a questionnable decision in the first place about building the incinerator (in the face of about 14,000 ignored objections) it now seems as though East Sussex County Council (ESCC) intends to compound the the issue by dumping the highly toxic ash residue on land raise sites in the Low Weald

Don't think that you will not be affected because Newhaven is a few miles away from where you live - ESCC Newhaven Incinerator - Do You Think You Are Safe From Contamination

Just how stupid can ESCC get?

December 2009

The International Solid Waste Association (ISWA) White Paper on Waste and Climate Change puts forth the technologies and mechanisms which can transform the waste sector into a net global reducer of GHG emissions, and making the necessary commitments to assist this change

ISWA White Paper on Waste and Climate Change (PDF - 4Mb)

30 July 2010

The Government’s review of waste policies has been formally launched today

Defra formally launches the waste review, announced by environment secretary Caroline Spelman back in June 2010

'.. The Review will look at all aspects of waste policy and delivery in England. Its main aim will be to ensure that we are taking the right steps towards creating a ‘zero waste’ economy, where resources are fully valued, and nothing of value gets thrown away ..'

At a time when all the worlds acknowledged experts are agreeing to reduce land fill (land raise) over the next 5 years (by 2015) it seems totally unsustainable for East Sussex County Council (ESCC) to be even considering land raise as a means of waste disposal - so the real question is 'does ESCC know what they are doing?'

References:

Review of Waste Policy

Background information

Review Terms of Reference

From the ESCC web site - ESCC Waste and Minerals Development Framework Consultation

'.. We are currently analysing nearly 3,000 responses received. It will take some time to do this but expect to publish the Council's initial response in late Summer 2010. Anyone who has sent in a representation will automatically be notified when this takes place. Anyone who did not send in a representation but would like to receive notification of key stages of the preparation of the Core Strategy should register with the Council's ..'

Contact the Waste and Minerals Policy Team:

E: wasteandmineralsdf@eastsussex.gov.uk

East Sussex County Council:

Waste and Minerals Planning Policy Team

Planning Service

Transport and Environment

County Hall

St Anne's Crescent

Lewes

East Sussex, BN7 1UE

T: 01273 481846 F: 01273 479040

Brighton & Hove City Council:

Planning Strategy & Projects

Brighton & Hove City Council

Hove Town Hall

Norton Road

Hove, BN3 3ZZ

T: 01273 292505

Finally - it would be very interesting to see figures published concerning the origin of any objections or requests to be kept informed. These figures should be simply split between ESCC and Brighton & Hove and would provide an insight into the concern displayed by both areas - one as exporter of waste and the other as recipient of waste

07 June 2010

Norman Baker commented

'.. It is clear that cuts in public spending have to be made. If cuts are to be made to frontline services, then elected members must share the burden and accept a small reduction in their allowances. I hope that Peter Jones and other senior Members of the Cabinet will recognise that the middle of a recession is hardly an appropriate time to accept raised allowances at the taxpayer's expense, and that all parties must focus on working together in the public interest ..'

'.. senior members of the Council Cabinet have received increases in their special responsibility allowances for the 2010/11 financial year. Mr Jones, for example, will receive £24,087 in his allocated special responsibility allowance as Leader of the Council - an increase of 2% on last year ..'

County Council's cabinet should follow government's lead and cut allowance payments

References

Scheme of Members' allowances 2010/11

Councillors' allowances paid

18 June 2010

On 21 June 2010 East Sussex County Council are holding a meeting titled - Waste and Minerals Core Strategy Preferred Strategy - Petitions

The purpose of the meeting is to consider the petitions to the County Council regarding the Preferred Strategy of the Waste and Minerals Core Strategy

RECOMMENDATION:

'.. The Lead Member is recommended to note the petitions that were received as part of the response to the consultation on the Waste and Minerals Core Strategy Preferred Strategy, request that officers consider the views raised in the petitions, and prepare a response to the petitions as part of the further consultation on the Waste & Minerals Core Strategy. ..'

We understand it is a public meeting with invited speakers - well worth as many as possible attending

Agenda for meeting of 21 June 2010

The agenda is definately worth reading - perhaps the meeting will shed some more light on this fisaco

15 June 2010

A question from ESCC - What will we do with waste in East Sussex

Sent on behalf of Tony Cook, Head of Planning, Transport & Environment, East Sussex County Council and Rob Fraser, Head of Planning Strategy, Development, Planning & Public Protection, Brighton & Hove City Council

Thank you for your comments on East Sussex County Council’s and Brighton & Hove City Council’s Preferred Strategy for how waste will be managed and minerals produced in East Sussex and Brighton & Hove.

The councils have received numerous letters from organisations and residents who were upset at the way the consultation was handled. We are sorry that some people were dissatisfied with our communications about the consultation and that some people found the documents difficult to understand. We will learn from these comments and improve the way we carry out consultations in the future.

The consultation closed in January and we are analysing nearly 3,000 responses and eight petitions that we received. We would like to assure you that we are looking again at the need for the land disposal of waste and all the practical alternatives to this that could be achieved in the county and the surrounding area. It will take some time for us to do this, but in the meantime we expect to publish our initial response in the late summer. Everyone who responded to the consultation will be notified when it is published, and it will be on our website and available to view in libraries and council offices.

Before then we thought it would be helpful to send you the enclosed factsheet which sets out the problem of managing the waste in East Sussex and Brighton & Hove and answers some of the questions we have been asked. If you live within or near the potential areas of search for landraise and landfill that were identified in the strategy you may receive another copy of the factsheet.

I hope this email and the accompanying information are helpful.

Regards

Tony Cook and Rob Fraser

Comments

• It is noted that no reference has been made to analysing any of the historic objections that were raised a number of years ago - the last time ESCC tried to implement land raise suggestions. Why has this issue not been addressed?

• What about land disposal

   

  '.. One of the options we have to consider is whether we will continue to need land disposal ..'

   

  '.. we have therefore identified five areas of search ..'

   

  Surely the first statement (the need for land disposal) is the starting point in any assesssment and until this has been determined one cannot move onto identifying any areas of search?

   

  Presumably ESCC have either ignored the need to determine whether land disposal is required in the first place or taken an 'unpublished' secret decision that it is required - otherwise how can they justify identifying any areas of search if the first criteria has not been met?

• How do we compare with other countries

   

  '.. however a long time was allowed for this legislation to take effect as it was accepted that change could not happen overnight ..'

   

  Questions:

   

  - Why did ESCC & Cheryl Miller not properly address this issue over 10 years ago when it was first raised?

   

  - Surely if ESCC had formulated a constructive approach for 'zero waste' 10 years ago we would now be in the same position as Germany? With this in mind the above statement by ESCC that '.. change could not happen overnight ..' would be superflous - instead of just another excuse by ESCC for failure to deliver in a timely manner

   

  - Are ESCC current and historic failures precisely why we in this position today - yet no doubt everyone involved has been handsomely rewarded for this abject failure?

• Why are we working with brighton and Hove

   

  In any partnership there has to be a contribution by each party which is not simply financial

   

  Nowhere in the Areas of Search is there any mention of a site in Brighton and Hove and all the areas identified are located in the East Sussex Low Weald

   

  Why are no suggested sites in Brighton and Hove? After all space could be found for the Falmer Football Stadium (Falmer Football Stadium Timeline) and to all accounts there were '.. seven other sites in Brighton and Hove to be considered against set criteria ..' so a least one of these site may be suitable for land raise

   

  Despite repeated requests ESCC have failed to supply figures about the source of the C&I waste; broken down between Brighton and Hove and the rest of East Sussex

   

  This partnership with Brighton and Hove seeems to have lost sight of the principle of 'the polluter pays' because to all intents and purposes it looks as though Brighton and Hove contribute towards the waste and yet the East Sussex Low Weald pays the price for the B&H waste - clearly an inequitable situation

   

02 June 2010

In March Councillor Peter Jones was asked a question by a member of the public (about censuring Cheryl Miller over her performance with Land Raise) to which he refused to reply (ESCC Councillor Peter Jones Refuses to Reply to Ratepayer Questions) stating:

'.. I find your message offensive and deserving of no further reply. Peter Jones ..'

Subsequent to Councillor Jones reply a complaint was made to ESCC Standards Committee on the following basis - ESCC Councillor Peter Jones Questions about him under 'Members’ Code of Conduct'

Let us first just remind ourselves of the purpose of the ESCC Standards Committee - What this committee does

'.. Responsible for promoting and maintaining high standards of conduct by councillors, co-opted members as well as church and parent governor representatives ..'

The complaint has been heard by the Standards Committee and we have the following outcome

Decision

'.. In accordance with Section 57A (2) of the Local Government Act 2000, as amended, the Assessment Sub-Committee of the Standards Committee decided that no action should be taken in respect of the allegation ..'

Reasons for the decision

'.. The Sub Committee considered to the General Principles governing the Code of Conduct. However the Members Guide to the Code of Conduct advises that “these principles define the standards that Members should uphold, and serve as a reminder of the purpose of the Code of Conduct.” However, as the principles do not create a statutory obligation for Members, allegations that they have been breached cannot be accepted, and are not subject to sanction in themselves.

The Sub-Committee considered the provisions of the Code of Conduct, and whether any provisions of this, including paragraph 3: ‘You must - 1) treat others with respect’ might potentially be breached. The Sub Committee also had regard to the East Sussex County Council Standards Committee Assessment Criteria, including paragraph 1 (5) (e) which provides that ‘The Assessment Sub Committee may decide to take no further action where the complaint is believed not sufficiently serious to warrant further action’. Councillor Jones had responded to the email, all be it briefly.

The Sub Committee decided, taking into account the above considerations and the documents before them, the alleged conduct was not sufficiently serious to warrant further action ..'

Questions for the Standards Committee

• Is this yet another all too familar whitewash we have come to expect from regulatory committees?

• what is the purpose of having 'General Principles governing the Code of Conduct' if they cannot be enforced and clearly there is no will to adhere to them by Councillor Jones. Surely it a waste of everyones time and effort even producing a code of conduct which is meaningless?

• '.. the alleged conduct was not sufficiently serious to warrant further action ..'. How serious does the action of a Councillor have to be in order for the Standards Committee to react and not brush it under the carpet? Does it have to reach the level of the MP's recent expenses scandal before any action is taken? (i.e. Tory MP gets £100,000 for 'second' home)

• It is noticable that the Standards Committee still refer to matter as the '.. the alleged conduct ..' so it would seem as though they cannot even decide whether Councillor Jones was actually responsible for his actions in the first place, despite the committee having all the relevant documentation available. Councillor Jones actions are a matter of fact and no interpretation is required, so why is the matter still regarded 'alleged' when they have incontrovertible proof in front of them? 

   

  Could it be that the Standards Committee do not want to commit themselves to passing judgement on one of 'their own'?

• At the very least we need a statement from the ESCC Standards Committee on whether they regard Councillor Jones as innocent or guilty of the complaint. Whether they then choose to do anything about it is another matter entirely

• Based upon the current decision, how can the Standards Committee claim to be adhereing to its mandate '.. Responsible for promoting and maintaining high standards of conduct by councillors ..'.

   

  Which '.. high standards ..' are they referring to because obviously we have a different understanding of this phrase and Councillor Jones seems to have been exempted from the rules anyway. Clearly the committee is doing no such thing as monitoring standards and exists purely as a 'sop' to the public by 'conning' them into believing any standards exist at all

• The Standards Committee would seem to be an all to cosy arrangement for providing a facade of respectability whereas as has just been demonstrated they are infact really a rather toothless committee that panders to the existing councillors. After all they are all really in the same boat, and judging ones peers is always difficult because it may be your own turn next time and naturally you would want the same leniency extended to yourself

One has to ask how removed from reality this committee is for them to say '.. Councillor Jones had responded to the email, all be it briefly ..' when essentially Councillor Jones stated the following '.. I find your message offensive and deserving of no further reply. Peter Jones ..'.

It would seem that in the eyes of the Standards Committee this was an acceptable response for someone holding the position of Leader of the Council and deemed to be accountable to the public. So the natural conclusion must be that Councillors are completely unaccountable and can get away with anything provided the are being scrutinised by the ESCC Standards Committee - is this really the right message to be sending out in these times when the public does not really have much faith in their representatives anyway after the MP's expenses scandal

If the judgement of those on the committee was so awry in this matter we have to ask whether they really fit to form part of a Standards Committee in the first place

Once again we have a disappointing demonstration by those in office looking after their own - even to the extent that despite all the evidence they still regard the matter as 'alleged'. If this is the best that the ESCC Standards Committee can do then perhaps they would be better disbanded because no doubt the resources could be better used elsewhere

Frankly the members of this ESCC Standards Committee should be ashamed of the themselves

The real crux of the matter is that we now know that no ESCC County Councillor is obliged to answer ANY questions on Land Raise - is NO ACCOUNTABILITY on land raise a serious issue? We believe it is a major problem!

Other References:

Councillor Peter Jones and his Wife MP Jacqui Lait