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

 

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.

 

For those who missed it (and there must have been many) here is an East Sussex workshop outlining the preferred approach to land disposal

 

Land Disposal Workshop Presentation - 03 November 2009

 

The 'Test for Soundness' is questionnable because in the light of all the curent evidence the strategy cannot be 'justified' in terms of

 

• being founded on robust credible evidence

 

• most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives

 

('.. most appropriate strategy ..' does not mean that it is now the only available route because ESCC (Ms Miller) have done nothing for 10 years and are now panicked into any solution)

 

How about this for excellent ESCC spin under 'What is a Land Disposal Site?'

 

'.. Landraise - raising existing land levels by deposit of waste usually greenfield. Landform should enhance the area ..'

 

Oh well this must be the solution we have all missed - LANDFORM SHOULD ENHANCE THE AREA

 

In the immortal words of Cheryl Miller CEO ESCC

 

'.. We are often the perpetrators as much, if not more, than the politicians, as

we have honed our own skills to spin and fudge and manipulate ..'

 

East Hoathly & District Preservation Society Monthly Walks
With
Residents of East Sussex Against Landraise

 

Walking the proposed Land Raise Sites

 

Sunday 7th February - 88 concerned residents walked from Laughton Stores across green fields through LAUGHTON PARK FARM to HALLAND PARK FARM. The history of the listed building, archaeological finds and information on landraise was displayed, tea and biscuits served and the importance of Greenfield sites recognised.

 

Sunday 7th March - Broomham Farm/Golden Cross - Meet at Deanlands 2:00pm

Sunday 4th April - Piltdown and Newick - Meet at The Piltdown Man

Sunday 2nd May - Wick Street (West of Middle Farm) - Meet at Middle Farm

Sunday 6th June - Hellingly (Between Hackhurst Land and Broad Farm) - Meet at Hellingly Village Hall

 

All sites have been selected by the same criteria - NO site identified is any more, or less, suitable than any other

 

East Sussex say they have a difficult decision:

• The decision should be easy: - NO new sites for landraise

 

Keep writing to the Councillors, asking them questions about it

 

Some times and details to be confirmed

 

Everyone Welcome

 

EACH WILL HOPEFULLY include displays of LOCAL history/INTEREST, WILDLIFE SURVEYS & ARCHAEOLOGICAL FINDS

 

Contact Chris & Jenny Pellett 01825 872830

 

'.. 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

 

Norman Baker

 

What we have is a 15th Century solution for a 21st Century problem

 

The idea that the county council can seriously think that it's right to build 80ft high mountains of waste on a 60-acre site in the middle of the Sussex countryside is just beyond me

 

They should really hang their heads in shame and think again

 

 

BBC - Residents fight plan to pile rubbish in Sussex

 

Present :  Norman Baker(MP), Charles Hendry(MP), Barby Dashwood-Hall (Chair-Wealden DC), Stuart Meier(CPRE), Tony Cook(ESCC), Matthew Lock(ESCC lead Member), Andrew Woodis(Scott Wilson)

 

A rather expected but none the less a disappointing performance by ESCC

 

A very well articulated delivery by CPRE making a number of unarguable points about the flaws in ESCC Strategy.

 

• all the proposed sites were unsuitable for the valid reasons provided

 

• a great many considerations had been overlooked by ESCC making them look completely incompetent

 

• Ancient Woodland Regulation and 500m buffer zones (which ESCC was originally in the forefront of suggesting) had not been taken into account by ESCC

 

Interestingly during a quick show of hands amongst those present there was NOT ONE person from Brighton & Hove in the audience - well why should there be because after all they are the exporters and not the recipients of the waste

ESCC's totally crass comment by Tony Cook was that we must endeavour to get Ancient Woodland and Waste Sites to co-exist on the same site. We have to wonder how competent these officers of ESCC are if they can utter comments that are clearly born of such ignorance!

 

It was very evident that ESCC had woefully failed to produce a workable solution for the Waste Strategy.

 

Unfortunately ESCC’s current problem is that they seem to have done absolutely nothing for the past 10 years and are now faced with the fact that Beddingham is closed, Pebsham closed/open only has capacity for 400K tons and the requirement to 2026 is in the region of 3.6 million tons, giving an enormous shortfall.

 

We were told that the level of waste in East Sussex has flattened out, although because of more houses being forced upon us by central government it will grow over the next few years.

 

Again ESCC was evasive over the B&H waste figures with platitudes about the Hollingdean process playing its part. The question was very simple - how much waste emanates from B&H against the rest of the county - surely not difficult to answer unless it causes embarrassment to ESCC?

 

Overall there was a considerable degree of buck passing and pointing at 'planning laws' to highlight any oversights by ESCC. The concept seemed to be to encourage the private sector (waste companies) to put in planning applications to 'test the water'. This is neither sound practice nor an acceptable approach.

 

Furthermore, ESCC’s over-riding excuse of only identifying 'Search Areas' in this document is simply not acceptable. They have used this excuse to 'blight' whole areas of the East Sussex Low Weald and cause residents unnecessary concern & worry. This 'catch all' statement is being used to cover up all manner of incompetence and failures by ESCC with the aim of addressing any oversights later in the process when the land raise sites are investigated in more detail. This approach is simply not acceptable!

 

• no one from ESCC could provide a satisfactory reason why sites that had been unsuitable 10 years ago were included in the current process

 

• the response by ESCC to a question from the floor about EIA (Environmental issues) was 'thank you for letting us know' and this will be picked up by any eventual planning application. Clearly ESCC did not have a clue about this issue!

 

A question from the floor asked about the Newhaven Incinerator consultation and Public Trust with the process. After all 14,000 people had objected and been simply ignored so would objections be discounted in this process. Matthew Lock explained that matters were confusing because there were different levels of consultation and with Newhaven the public were ignored at the 2nd consultation level whereas we were current at the 1st consultation level .... that clears up the matter doesn't it ....? 

 

An evasive unsatisfactory response was received to a question about ESCC ‘capping’ District Council’ recycling

 

Norman Baker called for the entire current process to be scrapped because the whole basis of the ESCC Strategy was seriously flawed in taking the 'Medieval Approach' of disposal to land. Simply dumping waste on greenfield sites was not a viable option in this day and age

 

Quite frankly Norman Baker is correct - this whole thing needs to be started again with completely fresh members of ESCC

We simply do not want excuses for ESCC spending 10 years doing very little and in the process producing few innovative ideas or suggestions and relying on dumping waste as a substitute for a coherent plan

 

Who is accountable for this complete shambles?; presumably the 'buck’ stops at the top!

 

Suggestions

 

• sack all those involved in the current process - i.e. Councillor Matthew Lock (lead member), Tony Cook and the team involved in coming up with the current Waste Strategy

 

• employ different consultants;  Scott Wilson were used on the previous occasion so how can 'blue sky thinking' be achieved under these circumstances?

 

• set up an all party review on ESCC’s failure to produce a proper Waste Strategy despite having 10 years to formulate one

 

• determine accountability and censure (with financial penalties) all those responsible for this disaster from the top down starting with the Chief Executive

 

• commence a new all party Waste Strategy process for East Sussex with the mandate of producing a workable draft in 12-18 months time using the 'Waste Hierarchy' as an absolute guideline and the goal of zero waste

 

• assess the zero waste approach employed by Germany and all 'best practice' globally

 

• question whether the alliance with Brighton and Hove City Council over waste was the correct decision and serves anyone other than B&H

 

Then move forward with a proper approach

The Public Meeting in Hailsham which was cancelled due to the snow is now to take place on the 23rd January at 10.00 am in Hailsham, at the Community Centre, Vicarage Field. (Next to Wealden Council Offices).

I know that many of you braved the weather last time only to find the meeting cancelled, but please do try again as it is essential as many as possible turn up.