09 April 2010
We have just been sent the following email
Dear All
Introduction
On Friday a meeting was convened at County Hall, Lewes with Councillor Matthew Lock Lead member of Transport and Environment, Mark Romain representing Waste, Minerals and Ores and Michael Oates Team Manager, Road Safety Engineering Transport and Environment. The meeting lasted approximately 2 hours and 15 Minutes.
The meeting was convened to address Waste Minerals and Ores consultation process only (Not Waste Disposal Ideas) and the publics perception of the poor communication process and finally the 30 MPH speed limit in Halland, the latter became a priority due to a head on collision last week which resulted in the perpetrator losing a leg and the oncoming vehicle loosing its back wheels as the motorist tried to nose avoid collision pointing the car nose into a hedge. Astonishing really in a 30 MPH zone?
Consultation Process
The first discussion was on “Waste and Minerals Core Strategy consultation process” I pointed out that earlier it was described as “the Preferred Strategy” (Almost like deal done) in the consultation document; Councillor Lock emphasised that in fact it’s not “the preferred strategy” because no decisions have been taken on anything. ESCC have on instructions from the Government been told to prepare a strategy, reconnoitre, test and earmark possible sites for waste disposal (Known to us as “Land Raise”). Councillor Lock however hastens to add that Land Raise may not necessarily be the preferred option. So the plan has not been completed yet, therefore there are no decisions yet.
Household / Domestic Waste
ESCC contractor Veolia currently collects household waste which represents a mere 20% of the County’s waste, this waste is taken to recycling and transfer stations in Maresfield, Pebsham near Hastings and St Leonard’s (once a landfill now a transfer station) and to a number of other locations. Newhaven incinerator with be “waste to energy” or as they say “energy from waste” Beddingham landfill is no longer used for household domestic waste.
Commercial & Industrial Waste
The sting is this “The Waste and Minerals Core Strategy” is about providing for commercial and industrial waste, which represents a staggering 80% of the County’s waste. Obviously there will be a need for “Land Raise or Landfill” to provide for waste that cannot be recycled, sold, transferred etc, but along side this will be “stone crushing” and “metal sawing and grinding” and other delightful noises to blend in with the natural country surroundings. In a nut shell “your waste is not the problem, you’re all the good guys”.
Consultation Completion & What Next
Once the consultation period is completed ESCC move to the development stage. Companies interested in developing ESCC Waste and Minerals strategy will be invited to tender for the development of this programme and no doubt those tendering will comment on the suitability of sites, the number of sites they need to deliver their service and they will have the opportunity to recommend their preferred and cost effective system, namely Land Raise. I cannot see how Land Raise can be avoided considering the nature of commercial waste, so this probably remains a concern and therefore worth fighting against.
Shadow Minister (Commons) Energy
Charles Hendry MP recently” increased our expectation” as he mentioned that after a discussion with Veolia they had made it absolutely clear they were not interested in the business of developing and operating ought associated with Land Raise. So we all took a sigh of relief thinking “That’s it then battle won” – No Land Raise. Wrong!!!
It would appear that Charles Hendry inadvertently didn’t tell you that Veolia are only responsible for the household / domestic waste collections, recycling and transfer stations. Therefore commercial and industrial Waste disposal, recycling is not their responsibility. So I am afraid that Land Raise remains an option and one that would be developed by competitors of Veolia. Charles Hendry with all his best intentions was badly briefed before making the state that “Raised our Expectations”
In Summary
ESCC are now assessing the 3,000 communications received from the public, they will complete their report eventually but will continue to take objections and ideas.; At the moment no questions can be answered on the future strategy because they our required by law to complete this behind closed door, apparently they cannot comment until after the public consultation has finished; if they did communicate, they could be debarred from taking part in the subsequent decisions. Suffice to say the plan isn’t concrete yet, no decisions have been taken yet and therefore Land Raise may not be a developers’ preferred service option.
Once the plan is complete and the locations selected, then at this point we will have another opportunity to object, so essentially we need to save ourselves for “Round Two of Jousting” but we should continue sending in “broad sides” to ensure they know we are still active.
ESCC haven’t accepted that their PR was “Less than helpful and informative” but I could see in their eyes that they agreed, because they are investigating reasons why the announcement of the consultation process didn’t have a wider circulation. They mentioned the County Magazine and libraries was their choice of announcement, well the magazine announcement wasn’t clear and concise and appeared to hood wink big time and who goes to libraries these days. ESCC will now discuss the points we’ve raised with the Head of ESCC Peter Jones and other colleagues, the perception as you can see in my questions below clearly shows that their handling of this matter has been unsatisfactory. I told them many in the community were spending vast sums of money, wasting personal time, collecting money from Jumble sales and events, engaging consultants because of the poor communications emanating from ESCC. They sat “Opened mouthed at that point”
During the meeting Councillor Lock kept referring to Halland, because I come from Halland, so there was a need to remind him that the majority of Parish Councils and Independent groups and Independent individuals were all fighting the same cause “No Land Raise” there is no more Halland fighting at the top of the hill and Laughton at the bottom of the hill as was the case the 1999. (That’s for the next stage – did I say that?)
Correcting Communications
The meeting nodded agreement in respect of its PR and I recommended that it might be in their interests to prepare a paper that would alleviate the publics perception that the consultation process has been flaw and the publics perception that ESCC are incompetent in Environmental and Energy issues.
Information Agreed
They have agreed to send me
- A timetable broadly outlining the way forward
- The date the scheme will be confirmed by the (I think Government) inspector
- Next stage when we have an opportunity to object
Finally Councillor Matthew Lock gave me all the time I needed, he was helpful, cooperative and unrushed – well all Councillors are like that, they like committees and talking. However he got as much from this meeting as I did, but I have to say my perception was that he has been appointed as spokesman because ESCC had not anticipated the weight of objections on what is after all an emotive subject. They simple got it wrong along with the timing and the emotive effect.
My perception once a gain, I think waste isn’t Councillor Locks discipline and he is getting his answers from those responsible for waste “Classic tail is wagging the dog”. Jolly nice chap though and perfectly genuine. We parted on good terms after a good “banter full” meeting but I assured him we couldn’t guarantee that we would not communicate again before the next stage and that we’d meet for sure at the “Next Joust / stage”.
At the end of the day I hope this piece helps a little and that I have interpreted the meeting accurately. I haven’t a clue what I am doing but “It’s been fun” so the piece above is just cherry picking through the salient points
The traffic report on the 30 MPH sign will follow, but for now I must watch the mother in law cutting the grass and the wife turning the vegetable garden over.
Best wishes – see Q&A below
Stephen O’Halloran
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUESTIONS
1. The 1999 objections and the 2010 objections remain the same, objections against Land Raise. The two are inextricably linked even though disguised in the phrase Waste Minerals Core Strategy. For what possible reason could ESCC refuse to include those objections in this consultation period?
Answer: You are putting me in a position to say yes or no; I cannot accept either, because this will affect the consultation process
SOH: Well it shouldn’t affect the process of consultation because it’s a question of will you use the 1999 objections or not, you state that you will but my interpretation of that is that “the same concerns will be raised in the 2010 objections”. You’re asking me to guess who objected and what they objected about, many of those that did object may be tired and aged now. Your filing system would contain 100% of the objections so yes or no because I am recording this as a no?
Answer; I cannot say yes or no. so its not a No
SOH: Hum feels like a No – Can I have a copy of your minutes to save me writing
Answer: No on both counts
SOH: Hum it’s a No
2. The perception the public had for objecting was that one had to use the web site questionnaire and that petitions and other forms of objecting were not acceptable. The perception was that one could not "just say no" therefore the public had to become waste disposal experts to respond. Charles Hendry's email 6th January confirmed that Councillor Lock's email 7th January had agreed to accept all forms of correspondence. So there was a perception of hood winking. Many were therefore disenfranchised from objecting ie those without a PC
Answer: There will be another chance to object once the sites are selected
3. Information on the consultation period for Waste Minerals Core Strategy started to circulate circa 9th November from Parish councils to Residents all of who were taken by surprise. So the perception was this was being sneaked through clandestinely.
We were told notice of consultation would be found in Libraries, Local Newspapers and County Magazine, clearly as we were all caught with our pants down the notice method didn’t work. The strategy would have had the widest circulation via the election register; do the Council not think that on such an “emotive topic” they should have opted for the widest circulation?
Answer: ESCC are reviewing the matter of communications
4. The closing date for objections was 2nd December 2009 and yet the public did not become aware until circa 9th November 2009 giving business and public insufficient time to object. Then the process was extended to 15th January during this period business and public were mostly full of alcohol enjoying Christmas and New Year. So residential home developers, golf clubs, hotels, Animal sanctuaries, Gliding clubs, industrial works and great landscape wardens didn’t get a chance to object on something that would affect their business “Smell and Noise”, why did ESCC rush this process?
Answer: A cut of date is a cut off date
SOH: That maybe so and now you’re paying the price because you should haven’t anticipated the emotiveness of the subject. For now we’ll wait for the next opportunity to object or contribute ideas for the good and benefit of the County
5. Why was this process not made known to the public before the 2009 Elections, I was told you had discussed it in house but not again made public, you must have known this topic would have effected the way we vote?
Answer: A central Government timing and issue
6. Given that the waste contractor to ESCC has told Charles Hendry that Veolia they have no interest in building a land raise site in East Sussex, is this issue in fact still a threat? Will ESCC be removing all sections relating to finding land raise sites from its Preferred Strategy document at the next stage of the "consultation"?
Answer: No!! Response is above at start of this paper; however Land Raise remains probable because this is for Commercial and Industrial Waste for which Veolia are not responsible.
7. Veolia have stated they are not interested and have no desire to invest in Land Raise, so why did the ESCC not confirm the position with their contractor before starting a consultation process that is really going no where. Is ESCC wasting our time and our money fighting this, is there a dastardly plan B here, “wind us up on Land raise and get everyone to suggest Waste to Energy and then whack up the rates to pay for it.
Answer: There is no plan B and I have explained the Veolia position. We have to continue with the Consultation process and get to the proposed development stage, once there “we will know which sites are selected” Its anticipated that 5 sites wont be needed, so it could be one or it could be two
SOH: Or five
8. Waste and minerals Core Strategy – Preferred Strategy
ESCC presented this consultation solely on “Land Raise & Nought else”. The perception is that ESCC did not consider any other options at all and that you left the public with a feeling that you were incompetent and inexperienced in recommending waste disposal methods suitable for 21st century. Why didn’t you consider other options?
Answer: Responses are above in this paper. However ESCC have quite a few transfer and recycling sites today and Newhaven will provide energy from waste. I think they will now inform is in some way of their successes in this area.
SOH: That sounds encouraging, so now you need to stop land raise anywhere in the County please.