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."

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

Regarding ESCC Response To Norman Baker FOI Request About Chield Executive Cheryl Miller Retirement

East Sussex County Council really need to answer some questions - we heard in December 2009 that the Chief Executive Cheryl Miller intended to resign and now we find out that in fact she may have been 'sacked'; yet Mrs Miller has been given an additional 'ex-gratia' contribution to her pension pot of £197,000. Is this yet another 'Reward for Failure'?

Why has East Sussex County Council done their best to avoid disclosing material information about the retirement of Cheryl Miller?

The response by ESCC was - County Council Chief Exec Gets EXTRA £197,000 pension pay-off

'.. The County Council faces considerable challenges over the next few years, when it will be necessary to deliver financial savings of nearly £60m. Against that background, it was agreed that, in the interests of business efficiency, there should be a change of managerial leadership, to ensure the Council is in the best possible position to address the challenges ahead ..'

'.. In accordance with County Council policies, applying to all employees, Cheryl Miller was awarded three additional years pension at a one-off cost of £197,000. Mrs Miller will not receive any severance payment. The pension strain (unavoidably arising in the case of any early retirement before the age of 60 on the grounds of efficiency or redundancy) in this case is equivalent to approximately £270,000, but this is covered by the county wide contribution for pension strain that the County Council continuously makes as part of its contributions to the pension fund ..'

This now raises questions about the following two paragraphs:

'.. in the interests of business efficiency, there should be a change of managerial leadership, to ensure the Council is in the best possible position to address the challenges ahead ..'

'.. Mrs Miller will not receive any severance payment ..'

On the face of the reply by ESCC to a FOI (Freedom of Information) request by Norman Baker it would seem as though Cheryl Miller has been 'sacked' (forced retirement) from her post as ESCC Chief Executive. Has this decision by ESCC been brought about in part by the failure of Ms Miller to adequately address the land raise issues over the past 10 years?

The following questions need to be answered by ESCC:

• detailed reasons need to be provided as to why '.. there should be a change of managerial leadership ..' and in what way has Ms Miller failed in leadership

• how has Cheryl Miller failed to live up '.. the business efficiency standards required by ESCC ..' - information in detail should be provided to the public

• is the whole land raise disaster (overseen by Cheryl Miller) a contributory factor in ESCC's decision to 'retire' Ms Miller

• why has ESCC and others (Councillor Peter Jones) been less than forthright over this issue, tried to 'cover up' the position and only declared the matter after an FOI request. Is this what 'Open Government' is all about?

• why does ESCC regard itself un-accountable to the public on this matter and has done its best to hide the position

• which is it to be 'health Grounds' or 'business efficiency' because it cannot be both. If it is 'health grounds' then why mention '.. Mrs Miller will not receive any severance payment ..' or is 'Health' being used as the age old euphemism provided by all those high places when they become discredited and need to make a graceful exit

In the light of all this new information, why has Cheryl Miller been provided with a bonus (£197,000) on top of her substantial annual remuneration and sizeable existing pension pot

Further information - Nearly £200k for county council chief executive

With all these new revelations now emerging, the following refusal to answer questions by Councillor Peter Jones starts to make rather more sense - ESCC Councillor Peter Jones Refuses to Reply to Ratepayer Questions

Unfortunately the message from ESCC spin machine simply does not 'stack up' and quite frankly the people deserve to know the full facts and reasons behind the matter. Why is it that these public servants continue to take us for fools?

MORE ESCC REWARD FOR FAILURE

06 April 2010

The Chief Executive of East Sussex County Council, Cheryl Miller, already by some distance the highest earner of all council chief executives in East Sussex, is to receive a windfall pension sum worth £197,000 as part of her leaving arrangements.

In an email to Lewes MP Norman Baker, ESCC revealed:

"The County Council faces considerable challenges over the next few years, when it will be necessary to deliver financial savings of nearly £60m. Against that background, it was agreed that, in the interests of business efficiency, there should be a change of managerial leadership, to ensure the Council is in the best possible position to address the challenges ahead.

"In accordance with County Council policies, applying to all employees, Cheryl Miller was awarded three additional years pension at a one-off cost of £197,000. Mrs Miller will not receive any severance payment. The pension strain (unavoidably arising in the case of any early retirement before the age of 60 on the grounds of efficiency or redundancy) in this case is equivalent to approximately £270,000, but this is covered by the county wide contribution for pension strain that the County Council continuously makes as part of its contributions to the pension fund."

Lewes MP Norman Baker has also compiled salary details for each of the Chief Executives of the local councils in East Sussex , which show that the Chief Executive post at East Sussex County Council is paid almost double that of the district councils.

Norman Baker says:

"At a time when the public finances are so tight, it is questionable whether six-figure sums being paid to leading council officials can really be justified. The County Council in particular, by paying a huge annual salary to its Chief Executive, and agreeing to a very generous pension package, shows a cavalier disregard for those struggling to make ends meet."

Chief Executive Pay in East Sussex - Freedom of Information responses received by Norman Baker MP

Council Current Salary

• East Sussex County Council £181,098

• Wealden District Council £106,000-118,179

• Lewes District Council £103,539

• Rother District Council £95,432

• Hastings Borough Council £88,693-98,553

Norman Baker - County Council Chief Exec Gets EXTRA £197,000 pension pay-off

Additional References:

Councillor Peter Jones refuses to reply to questions about Ms Cheryl Miller

Councillor Peter Jones and Wife Jacqui Lait (MP expenses scandal)

ONCE AGAIN ESCC POLICY OF REWARD FOR FAILURE

THOUSANDS of villagers have taken up the fight against “medieval” plans for monstrous mountains of waste in a ­ picturesque part of Britain.

ESCC County planners have earmarked five 60-acre sites near rural homes, rivers and ancient woodland to dump 80ft mounds of rubbish ......

Daily Express Newspaper - 21 February 2010

This is a worrying statement from Rupert Clubb, East Sussex’s director of transport and environment

Mr Clubb said they were analysing 3,000 responses to a consultation which closed in January. He added: “There are some well-considered and well-informed responses that might influence a future decision but it is too early for me to say.”

Now hang on here - NO mention has been made about the historic objections raised the last time around. What is happening about the historic objections by CLEAR and others; could ESCC please confirm that they have these historic objections in their posession and that they will be taken into account

Will ESCC please place all the previous historic objections into the public domain so that we know they are being considered as part of the process

'.. MIGHT INFLUENCE A FUTURE DECISION ..' - so it really does't matter how many reasoned arguments against land raise are put forward it could all be for nothing, because someone in ESCC makes an arbitrary decison behind closed doors!

It would seem that the only thing that '.. might influence ..' anything is an impending election rather than any cogent argument. Don't forget that this is a political world and we are lead to believe that the only reason ESCC abandoned the last land raise attempt was because those in power feared being voted out in a backlash over land raise. Perhaps the ballot box is the only way force the current land raise plans to be re-thought; it is just a pity we cannot vote some East Sussex County Council empolyees out of office! 

Can ESCC please provide names and qualifications of all those who will be involved in the decison process so that we can be assured of sufficient competency, impartiality and also that it is not already a 'done deal'

(see Norman Baker - '.. 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..'

31 January 2000

Does this sound a familiar topic

'.. I understand that landfills nationwide are responsible for a third of all groundwater pollution. They produce methane in large quantities, which is a bad greenhouse gas ..'

'.. The joint draft plan to which the hon. Gentleman referred included a range of unacceptable proposals, one of which was landraise in my constituency. That is the worst possible option in the waste hierarchy. It involves landraise in the lower Weald at Veals Farm, next to a development of mobile homes at Deanland, where many people have gone to retire—that is the proposal that the hon. Gentleman is presumably supporting in his intervention—and landraise between Firle and Selmeston in my constituency. Will the Minister tonight rule out landraise as an option for any authority? ..'

'.. ‘Waste should generally be managed as near as possible to its place of production, because transporting waste itself has an environmental impact.’ I hope that the Minister will confirm that tonight. If he does, he should acknowledge that the substantial amount of waste from Brighton and Hove should be disposed of there, and not shunted miles into East Sussex. Brighton and Hove—a great place that wants to be a city—should take responsibility for all aspects of its management. It should not simply dump its rubbish over the border in East Sussex ..'

Reference: Norman Baker Waste Disposal (East Sussex) - January 2000

Could Cheryl Miller and her cohorts please explain why we are 10 years further forward and ESCC remains stuck in the dark ages with their waste disposal proposals?

Why have ESCC provided absolutely no new ideas since that time despite being aware of the situation and the changing enviroment over the period. Just remember we the ratepayers are paying these people (and very handsomely in the case of Cheryl Miller) to do nothing!

In the quest for 'best value' perhaps all those who have been paid to provide a solution over the past 10 years should refund the tax payer because they have obviously woefully failed to do their job - in any other area sackings would be in order; starting at the top!

Quite frankly ESCC inability to formulate a coherent sustainable waste policy 10 years down the line is tantamount to NEGLIGENCE

5th February

East Sussex County Council's plans for a controversial and unpopular landfill scheme were yesterday slammed on the floor of the Commons by Lewes MP Norman Baker.

Mr Baker challenged the government to discourage East Sussex County Council from going ahead with the scheme, which has been met with significant local opposition.

Norman Baker told the Commons:

"Will the government take steps to discourage East Sussex County Council from creating landraise mountains in the countryside?

"In this day and age is it not unbelievable - and appalling - that my Conservative county council wants to build 60-acre wide and 80-foot high waste mountains in the lovely Sussex countryside? Will he draw the council's attention to the Government's waste hierarchy and suggest that it moves from the 15th century to the 21st?"

Environment Minister Dan Norris responded by stating:

"The Government's priority is to reduce the amount of waste we produce. Landfilling, of which landraising is a form, should always be the last resort. The truth is that we need to reduce, recycle and reuse at every possible opportunity, and allowing waste to go into landfill is not a good thing.

"The Secretary of State for the Environment (Hilary Benn) and I both went to Sussex University, so we are very familiar with the beauty of the area, and we recognise people's anger."

Lib Dem Norman Baker later commented:

"Land raise as a method of waste disposal is simply unacceptable in the modern age. If this scheme goes ahead, it will not only create a terrible eyesore, but will have disastrous environmental consequences.

"East Sussex County Council must face up to the fact that this is an ill-conceived and unwanted plan. I am pleased that the government have expressed concern about the use of landraising, and I will continue to campaign against this scheme."

Norman Baker House of Commons