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

   

 

09 February - ESCC Meeting

 

The following written question from a member of the public was submitted at the meeting:

 

Question

 

In view of the overriding need to conserve energy, reduce fuel bills, work within the European Union Landfill Directive, and struggle to help the UK meet its Kyoto requirements what calculations have been made of the annual or other periodic cost of transporting waste from the waste arisings in both Brighton and the Eastbourne/Bexhill/Hastings area to land raise sites in the Low Weald in litres of fuel used, the cost of such fuel, and CO2 emissions resulting?

 

Response by Councillor Lock, Lead Member for Transport and Environment

 

We are at an early stage in the process of identifying how waste disposal will be approached in the future

 

The consultation included various methods of treating waste including built facilities and land disposal. In accordance with National Policy Guidance and utilising other criteria, we have identified areas of search for built waste management facilities and land disposal within 1km of an A class road and 500 metres from a railway. The costs of transportation and potential CO2 impacts are more detailed matters that will be considered as the Core Strategy develops

 

Comments

 

• The public is once again being 'fobbed off' by politicians. The standard response seems to be to the effect that any oversights will be picked up later in the process; THIS IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH. Quite frankly if those in charge of this fiasco are out of their depth and unable to do the job then they should resign

 

• Surely CO2 emissions and transport considerations should form part of the initial investigation to establish a sound footing on which to base any future suggested land raise site 

 

• This must be one of the primary considerations on which to base site selection and any initial failure to address these issues prior to nominating suggested sites displays not only a process failure but also shear incompetence by those in charge of the situation

 

• There are too many occasions where ESCC have simply failed to perform sufficient investigation; the last one concerned  EIA (Environmental issues) at the Hailsham meeting Hailsham Land Raise Meeting 23 January 2009 where ESCC was clearly unable to provide an adequate response to a valid question from a member of the public

 

Overall ESCC have displayed woefully inadequate ground work & preparation in just about every area associated with their land raise proposals. They should have been far more dilligent and thorough before suggesting any sites at all

 

References

 

ESCC Minutes 09 February 2010

 

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.

 

Wednesday 7 April 2010

 

'.. pick up a new brochure of guided walks and environmental events ..'

 

'.. environmental events ..' - does this mean ESCC are going to introduce a new spectator sport of watching trucks dump rubbish in land raise sites?

 

Have East Sussex County Council got their wires crossed; or perhaps it is Councillor Matthew Lock's 'last and final offer' to explore the Low Weald before introducing land raise and destroying this unique environment

 

Doesn't it strike one as odd that the very same person advocating 'Exploring East Sussex' (Councillor Matthew Lock) is the same person who:

 

• seems to be in charge of the land raise debacle

 

• was in charge of ignoring over 14,000 objections with the Newhaven incinerator (Newhaven incinerator fallout area)

 

If ESCC and Councillor Lock carry on like this there will only be a very small area of East Sussex that they have not affected. The disappointing aspect is that Councillor Lock is not even from this area of the country in the first place; so he has no heritage to worry about or preserve

 

ESCC Press release: Explore East Sussex this summer

 

Here is a question for Councillors Peter Jones & Matthew Lock

 

Would Councillors Jones & Lock please confirm whether ESCC are having meetings with prospective landowners over land raise sites even before the consultation process has been completed.

 

Could you please explain whether in your opinion the electorate should expect the following comments to be correct - alternatively if you disagree please give reasons

 

'.. East Sussex should be in a neutral position. It should not be actively progressing discussions with potential applicants for land disposal while a major policy review is taking place. ..'

 

Bexhill Observer - 11 February 2010

 

'.. Why are they (ESCC) having meetings with the site owners and waste contractors even before the consultation begins? ..'

 

Although this article predominantly relates to Ashdown Brickworks and landfill - however:

 

'.. When asked if similar meetings had been held to discuss other possible sites, an ESCC spokesman said the county had entered into correspondence with some landowners, but it was too early to speak with other operators because alterative sites have only been narrowed down to areas of search ..'

 

References

 

Document Part 1

 

'.. as part of the preparation of the Waste and Minerals Core Strategy Development Plan Document several opportunities for land disposal are being considered and these involve landfill at Ashdown Brickworks and landraise in the Low Weald. Ibstock have no comment to make regarding the potential landraise sites ..'

 

Document Part 2

 

11 March 2010

 

Laudably councillor Matthew Lock was potentially acting in the best interests of the residents; a difficult decision, nevertheless, this is precisely why there are rules in place to provide guidance. In the event, the prudent practice of disclosure could still have been followed without harming the outcome and would have avoided any come back.

 

However, this matter raises a wider issue in relation to Matthew Lock; namely does the end justify the means - how does Matthew Lock's approach in one area reflect his possible stance in others and what confidence can we have in the recommendations of any committees he chairs?

 

Could his overview of the land raise issue be influenced by believing that the end does justify the means? If this is the case where do all the objectors stand over land raise?

 

Furthermore, can Mr Lock demonstrate that this concept was not used with the Newhaven Incinerator enquiry when he was in charge and over 14,000 objections were seemingly ignored.

 

Hastings & St Leonards Observer - 11 March 2010

 

The problem with this ruling is that it now calls into question every other area where he has had any involvement, which subsequently becomes tainted

 

Reference - ESCC Minutes 08 December 2009

 

5.Question by Councillor Freeman to Councillor Lock, Lead Member for Transport and Environment

 

This question in four parts relates to the consultation process on the Waste and Minerals Core Strategy

 

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 orappreciate the full consequences of the proposals?

 

b) Now that the six weeks consultation period from 21st October to 2nd December has been extended to now close on 15 January 2010 will he direct that a further exhibition takes place in Wealden during this period to enable all residents to be made fully aware of the proposals?

 

c) Despite the extension, residents have been encouraged by officers to comment by 2nd December because it is stated 'we will soon start planning for further technical work and comments received will help with this'. Does he appreciate that the impression given to residents is that decisions have already been taken? Will he direct that this 'technical work' does not take place until after the end of the extended consultation period and the responses fully considered

 
d) Will he explain why search areas for land raise in Wealden are being considered now when they were excluded some eight years ago. What has changed?

 

Answer by Councillor Lock

 

a)The consultation on the Waste and Minerals Core Strategy has been extensive.The consultation exercise has been publicised in a number of ways as follows:

• Press advertisements
• Media releases
• A workshop about landfill on 3 November held specifically for parish councils whose areas coincide with those primary Greenfield areas of search for a landraise site.
• A mail-out to interested parties and stakeholders, including Parish Councils, informing them of the consultation
• Two staffed public exhibitions
• Significant information on the ESCC website
• Leaflets and posters were distributed to all the main libraries, council offices and parish councils across East Sussex. Displays were also in libraries across East Sussex
• An article in the Councils ‘Your County’ publication which is sent to all residents of East Sussex.
  Elected Members were also invited to briefings held at County Hall on 23 September and 16 October.

 

It should also be noted that earlier stages of consultation, on the evidence base in July 2007 and on ‘Issues and Options’ in February 2008 have already taken place and both instances Parish Councils and other stakeholders were notified.

 

Comment:

• No mention of actual dates or how long the consultation opportunity was open

 

b)A public meeting has been organised which is taking place in Wealden District on 9 January. I will be attending this meeting together with officers from the Council who will be able to answer questions about the Waste and Minerals Core Strategy.

 

c) Further responses received up to 15 January will be taken into account. Technical work has been ongoing and will continue related to many aspects of the Waste and Minerals Core Strategy.

 

Comment:

• Does he appreciate that the impression given to residents is that decisions have already been taken? - NOT ANSWERED
• Will he direct that this 'technical work' does not take place until after the end of the extended consultation period and the responses fully considered - NOT ANSWERED

 

d) The Council is preparing a Waste and Minerals Core Strategy. It is Government guidance that this should aim to cover the time horizon of the South East Plan so the new document will look ahead to the period up to 2026. This is a longer time period compared to the current Council’s planning policy on waste management set out in the Waste Local Plan which has an end date of 2015/16. There is therefore more waste that has to be planned for.

 

Comment:

Interesting answer - but incorrect and specious. The following items explain why Councillor Lock's response in totally inadequate and fails to answer the question

• please explain how the historic proposal dates 1999/2016 (17 years) differs from the current 2009/2026 (17 years). Both span approximately 17 years
• therefore it is NOT '.. a longer time period ..'
• why is there '.. more waste that has to be planned for ..' bearing in mind that ESCC (under existing guidelines) should have already addressed and reduced the volume of waste by now. Does this mean that ESCC have already failed in their primary mandate on waste reduction (not disposal)?

 

The Waste Local Plan would currently be used to judge any planning applications for waste facilities. We are currently consulting on all waste treatment options including land disposal. No decisions will be made until this consultation is complete.

 

We understand that many people have serious concerns about land raising but before making any decisions the County Council will consider all representations made.

 

No mention has been made about the historic objections which were never addressed or the fact that they MUST be included in the current process

 

To listen to Councillor Matthew Lock interview on the radio

 

Use iPlayer

 

Sussex Breakfast Monday 18th

 

To hear Matthew Lock - Fast forward to 1hr 13min 30sec for the interview

 

Is Matthew Lock right when he says that only waste going to the proposed land raise sites will be soil which has been cleared for house building OR is this an attempt to play down the whole issue and other forms of waste are destined for these sites?

 

If we subsequently find out in the future that Matthew Locks comments on the radio have been economical with the truth about 'soil' and other types of waste are destined for the land raise sites then we will expect him to RESIGN forthwith for attempting to unduly influence the public by failing to tell the truth

 

One final thought - If Matthew Lock is in favour of the land raise proposals then surely he would be prevented from voting in accordance with Cheryl Miller Statement

 

Nevertheless we must all be mindful about the comment by Cheryl Miller (ESCC Chief Executive) '.. we have honed our own skills to spin and fudge and manipulate ..' and ask ouselves whether this interview falls within Ms Miller's comments