This is an important issue because there are concerns that these waste contracts with ESCC contain 'secret' clauses that could affect the outcome of the land raise proposals

Incinerator Scandal (Lib Dems) - '.. What we do know about the contract is that it guarantees Veolia a minimum stream of waste. If that stream falls below 300,000 tonnes a year (including waste not for burning), East Sussex has to pay Veolia a ‘diversion compensation payment’ – in other words, if the five districts increase their recycling levels, tax payers will end up paying more through ESCC’s compensation scheme! ..'

'.. Although the contract for the incinerator doesn’t have to be put to public consultation, the amount of detail East Sussex County Council has refused to divulge has led to deep suspicions about what is in it. This has done nothing to allay suspicions that the council has been trumped by the contractors (originally Onyx, now Veolia) who have got a better deal for themselves than the council has for the public ..'

References:

• FoE - Waste firm in court batle to keep disposal contract secret from residents

• FoE - Archived press release

'.. Veolia Environmental Services today lost its High Court bid to keep details of its £850 million waste management contract with Nottinghamshire County Council secret from local residents. This is the third time that information about the French-owned company’s activities has been forcibly made public. The judgment sets an important precedent for local authorities with immediate impacts for other councils around the country ..'

Friends of the Earth's Executive Director Andy Atkins said:

'.. The law gives the public explicit rights to see this type of information precisely so that they can hold authorities to account on major issues such as waste disposal.  Companies must realise that members of the public have a right to know how enormous sums of their money is being spent ..'

The salient points would seem to be:

• A member of the public has the right to ask for the information under the Audit Commission Act 1998. 

• That law provides members of the public with legal rights of access to all contracts, books, bills, and accounts of a public authority for a 20 working day period each year so that they can participate in the local audit process.

ESCC Freedom of Information Request - Decision Notice 14 November 2007

ESCC Integrated Waste Management Services Contract and Schedules

Now here is an interesting document Incinerator Scandal that poses a few questions - well worth a read if only to undertand doubts existed about ESCC handling of the situation and it does have a bearing on the current land raise proposals

The contract with Veolia

'.. Although the contract for the incinerator doesn’t have to be put to public consultation, the amount of detail East Sussex County Council has refused to divulge has led to deep suspicions about what is in it. This has done nothing to allay suspicions that the council has been trumped by the contractors (originally Onyx, now Veolia) who have got a better deal for themselves than the council has for the public ..'

'.. What we do know about the contract is that it guarantees Veolia a minimum stream of waste. If that stream falls below 300,000 tonnes a year (including waste not for burning), East Sussex has to pay Veolia a ‘diversion compensation payment’ – in other words, if the five districts increase their recycling levels, tax payers will end up paying more through ESCC’s compensation scheme! ..'

But it actually gets even better

'.. The only way of avoiding this would appear to be if Veolia were allowed to ‘import’ waste from outside the county. This was supposed to be unnecessary when the incinerator was first proposed, and there is no current permission for this). Might a provision for importing waste be among the clauses the county council doesn’t want the public to see? If it is, would it replace the compensation payment from ESCC, or would Veolia cash in twice: once from the county and once from other bodies with waste to get rid of? Until the full contract is made public, no-one can be sure. ..'

Resulting in ESCC 'capping' recycling for the 5 District Councils

'.. ESCC’s chief executive Cheryl Miller wrote an email to them on 4 October 2007 in which she said: ‘If we were to pay recycling credits above the agreed thresholds, then the residents of East Sussex would, in effect, be paying twice for every tonne as we are now paying Veolia to develop the infrastructure to manage this waste.’ In other words, the contract with Veolia includes payments by the county council for services which duplicate the recycling activity in the five districts ..'

Therefore despite denials about 'capping' at the Hailsham meeting (23 January 2010) by ESCC's Tony Cook we now have proof from ESCC Chief Executive that it was occuring - evidently a 'terminological inexactitude' by Mr Cook

'.. There cannot be any commercial sensitivity over the financial terms of a contract aimed at being valid for 25 or 30 years, so why was the county council withholding this information? ..'

Also reference to previous posting ESCC Existing Contract with Veolia

ESCC has provided a Calendar and Plan which could be a very useful tool providing information to the public about progress on the WMDF process - try looking at the calendar in both 'calendar' and 'plan' views

Unfortunately the very instrument ESCC are using to keep the public informed about detail surrounding WMDF only shows historic information for January 2010 and nothing about any future timetable - quite frankly we all know about the past and it is the future timetable that is important

Whilst this is probably not a deliberate attempt to deceive the public it does demonstrate the shear lack of foresight of ESCC in keeping the public informed about the process milestones.

One would think that in the light of the following criticisms about failure to keep the public informed

• Wealden District Council - '..E. Advise the County Council that their approach to this important consultation has led to confusion and low levels of awareness amongst key stakeholders such as Parish Councils ..'

• ESCC Meeting 09 December 2009 - 5.Question by Councillor Freeman to Councillor Lock '.. a) Would the Portfolio Holder explain why the consultation on the Waste and Minerals Core Strategy was so low profile that until very recently many of the Parish Councils and residents affected did not know either it was taking place or appreciate the full consequences of the proposals? ..'

• Comments by Norman Baker at the Hailsham meeting about '.. even the most diligent Parish Councillors being hard pushed to be aware of ESCC propsals ..'

ESCC would now be slightly more aware of potential public distrust and yet they seem to carry on in their old ways oblivious of any public concern!

So regrettably despite being aware of communication issues, ESCC simply does not seem to be learning from their historic mistakes and is doing very little to rectify the situtation

We all need to know the way forward and the next critical benchmarks in this WMDF process so why is ESCC keeping us in the dark when they have the means (this calendar) to show the relevant dates

We are aware of the timetable in ESCC WMDF July 2008 but a more up to date evolving timetable is necessary to keep the public informed

Could ESCC please arrange for their own calendar to be kept up to date

'.. the sites have been identified without any initial geological work, any assessment of local biodiversity issues or even with the consent of the people who own the land. Some sites could be ruled out on a very basic assessment, but nevertheless the anxiety and blight has still been created. It has been completely unacceptable to proceed in this manner and the County Council was left in no doubt about the strength of feeling about this ..'

Charles Hendry Comments on Hailsham Meeting

News from PAAL

Meridian News will be coming to film us at 10.30am on Monday 1st February

We plan to meet at Piltdown pond and then they will decide where they want to film (Shortbridge, Randall's field somewhere?) 

Please let Lorna Holdcroft (lorna at holdcroft67 dot fsnet dot co dot uk) know by Friday if you can make it as the journalist wants an idea of numbers

The new PAAL internet address

a. Could ESCC please disclose the terms of their existing contract with Veolia and whether this contract has had any implications whatsoever in respect of their land raise proposals?

b. Have any discussions already taken place between ESCC and any 3rd party waste contractors in respect of landraise/landfill?

This last question (b) is posed against the following background

Norman Baker - Newhaven Incinerator (Reference)

'.. it is a matter of record that the councils decided to enter into a contract with Onyx to provide an incinerator before this Public Inquiry even began. Whilst I accept that that is not currently illegal, it reinforces the view that the councils had decided what they intended to do, and no external voice would be allowed to alter that ..'

We have tried very hard to remain a-political with this matter; however, in the light of the following information it really does not look as though we cannot divorce ourselves from politics over this issue

There are disturbing reports about Party Group Whips for the ruling Party within ESCC not allowing a free vote and insisting that their Members vote in favour of the Waste Strategy

Bearing in mind the volume of public & other official body objections this would be regarded by all concerned as a gross abuse of their power and contrary to the interests of those whom they 'claim' to represent

Refer to the following:

21. The party whip - ESCC Constitution

A party whip may be imposed, but when considering any matter in respect of which a member of an overview and scrutiny committee is subject to a party whip the member must declare the existence of the whip, and the nature of it, before the commencement of the committee's deliberations on the matter. The declaration, and the detail of the whipping arrangements, shall be recorded in the minutes of the meeting.

Could we please have an immediate declaration on whether there is or will be '.. the existance of a whip ..' over this matter

Here is a breakdown of the Parties within East Sussex County Council - as can be seen a 'Whip' by the dominant party would clearly out vote the the other parties combined. This must NOT BE ALLOWED to happen over the Waste Strategy 

Following the last local elections (June 2009) the political make-up of East Sussex County Council is:

• 29 Conservative

• 13 Liberal Democrats

• 4 Labour

• 3 Independent

The Leader of the Council is - Cllr Peter Jones

The Deputy Leader of the Council is - Cllr Tony Reid

References:

Here are some pointers for those of you who were ignorant of local Government politics until now. In this context Officer = ESCC Employee and Member = Party Political Elected Person

A–Z of councillors and electoral divisions within East Sussex

Senior Council Members

The Role and Function of the Chairman

Protocol on Member/Officer Relations

If these reports are correct we believe the whole consultation process has been nothing but a sham engineered by ESCC and the Political Party concerned; with absolutely no intention of heeding any objections

Has the electorate been (once again) betrayed over this entire consultation process (per Matthew Lock's comments at the Hailsham Meeting about the Newhaven Consultation where 14,000 objections were ignored)?

The message to any councillor is very simple - You were elected to serve the wishes of the people and NOT YOUR OWN AGENDA - if you are not prepared to do this then STAND DOWN

This should be a FREE VOTE and NOT one along party lines

Councillor Nick Bennett assures us that there is NO SUBSTANCE to these rumours

Closing Comment

CPRE believes that the Areas of Search for Landraise are so flawed that ESCC’s best approach will be to minimise further delay by rethinking its strategy from scratch, rather than risking the delay resulting from a flawed strategy being rejected at Examination in Public.

CPRE Response (PDF)

Another damning response to East Sussex & Brighton and Hove Waste & Minerals Strategy. Everyone apart from ESCC now seems to be in tune about scrapping the existing flawed strategy and starting again.

Frankly ESCC have made such a almighty 'hash' of the whole Waste Strategy that on their current track record they are NOT FIT TO REPRESENT EAST SUSSEX and need a good internal shake up from top to bottom

Final Comment

Sussex Wildlife Trust would like to see greater commitment to reducing waste and moving up the waste hierarchy with respect to its management. This will need more detail as to implementation and monitoring.

When identifying areas for land disposal and other infrastructure, we need more confidence of evidence based decisions, using local data.

The plan should be driven by sustainability in waste levels and management, minerals extraction and recycling and all associated transport and infrastructure.

Recognition of the importance of habitats and species in a landscape context is needed to ensure adaptation to climate change is achievable alongside mitigation measures. This is needed to comply with PPS9, the NERC Act and to deliver towards BAP targets.

The Sussex Wildlife Trust Response to Consultation

DEFRA - Guidance for Local Authorities on Implementing the Biodiversity Duty

Yet another respected objection indicating that the East Sussex & Brighton and Hove Waste Strategy is a complete shambles - running contrary to almost every guideline possible.  This just reinforces everyones belief that the whole ESCC process has been a complete disaster and we need a 'new broom' to sort out this mess

Conclusion

'.. Whilst recognising that this Waste & Minerals Core Strategy has to address a number of difficult issues for the area, we believe that at the moment the preferred strategy is weak, lacks ambition and will fail to deliver the environmental benefits such a strategy urgently needs to ..'

Response from the Green Group of Councillors, Brighton & Hove City Council

Jason Kitcat is a Green city councillor in Brighton & Hove

Response 02 December 2009

'.. I want to make clear that we do oppose the proposed introduction of land raise sites for waste disposal - especially in sensitive parts of our countryside as implied by the report ..'

References

Dealing with green waste: Brighton & Hove vs the world

Benn outlines plans to make UK a "zero waste nation"

The future of waste and recycling in Brighton & Hove