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

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

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

East Sussex County Council and Brighton & Hove Council really are pursuing a WMD policy in their attempts to destroy the East Sussex Low Weald with ill advised land raise sites

We have heard from a whole range of experts who confirm that there are enormous problems with the current ESCC land raise waste proposals; these range across all the whole spectrum from Ancient Woodland to Visual Eyesores and include Water Pollution, Road Capacity, Proximity and so on .....

Furthermore there is universal all party condemnation for these retrograde land raise proposals

Therefore, why is East Sussex County Council continuing to pursue their monumentally flawed land raise policy in spite of all evidence to the contrary?

All the advice so far has suggested that ESCC scrap the current proposals and start again - yet nothing seems to be happening except a pointless assessment exercise about 'counting' all the objections so far. We all know of these objections so what will 'counting' them achieve except more delays; especially as no one at ESCC has so far addressed any of the objections by answering them

It is worth noting that any current assessment which conveniently ignores all the historic objections (CLEAR etc) is clearly meaningless and solely geared to favour ESCC stance. With this in mind we need a statement from Councillor Lock assuring us that all historic information has been taken into account

Why is ESCC not listening to the people of East Sussex, Norman Baker, Charles Hendry and every other advisory body that has been consulted who all confirm that ESCC policy is a disaster. Nevertheless ESCC continue relentlessly with this disastrous policy by burying their collective heads in the sand?

If ESCC were listening they would abandon the current fruitless exercise of reviewing the objections and actually move forward constructively by starting the whole process again from scratch

What particular reasons can ESCC have for ignoring the people of East Sussex

(this is an on-going/evolving list of questions that will be added to when necessary)

Please note that questions have been numbered to ensure accuracy when ESSC supply answers

1. What alternative measures for waste disposal (in accordance with the Waste Hierarchy) has ESCC investigated? Please provide comprehensive documentation into everything investigated

2. Can ESCC demonstrate by life-cycle assessment and cost-benefit analysis that any deviation from the waste hierarchy (i.e. re-use, recycling, other recovery operations and, as a last resort, safe and environmentally sound disposal) by an alternative treatment option shows a better record for a specific waste stream - Please provide all relevant documentation so that it can reviewed by independent scientific bodies

3. Has ESCC used it's legal powers to prevent District Councils from recycling?
'.. East Sussex County Council’s refusal to pay recycling credits beyond the estimates of recycling levels that were given in 2004 is a serious constraint on the finance available for investment in recycling. The five Boroughs and Districts in East Sussex are in dispute with ESCC ..' Reference: Lewes District Council - Recycling Services (Feb 2008) (Word) OR HTML Version
ALSO: Norman Baker - Parliamentary Report Hansard (02 July 2009)

5. Who is the architect of the Land Raise proposals within ESCC? (Not Scott Wilson because presumably they were only acting as consultants in accordance with their terms of engagement)

6. Please provide the precise wording for instructions to Scott Wilson (Consultants). Were Scott Wilson the consultants used last time (historic) around and if so, why were they used again this time instead of seeking a 'fresh' unbiased approach?

• We also believe that the Scott Wilson site selection report is inaccurate in so far as they haven't identified that the Broomham's Farm site is visible from the South Downs and an important watercourse that leads directly into the Cuckmere above Arlington reservoir is missing 

7. The issue of Land Raise was first raised about 10/11 years ago and received many objections which resulted in the proposals being dropped at the time. Can ESCC please confirm that in order to legitimately resurrect the Land Raise proposals all historic objections have been addressed to the satisfaction of the public. If this is not the case please identify each and every historic objection and provide reasons why it has not been addressed or is no longer valid in the current context of Land Raise

8. Will ESCC please confirm that all the objections raised when Land Raise was first proposed (10 years ago) will be carried forward as objections this time around? Furthermore, every previous (historic) submission from the public must form part of the current process - otherwise ESCC will be deemed to be engineering the situation to achieve (favour) their own agenda; which would clearly be classed as a form of 'gerrymandering'. Could we please have copies of each and every objection/submission made the last time around?

9. Bearing in mind that we do not believe a Land Raise sites throughout East Sussex Low Weald to be in the Public Interest (especially with regard to waste from Brighton & Hove). Please outline the advice taken by ESCC on the Human Rights position with regard to "Article 1 of the first Protocol of Human Rights Act (1998) - protects the right of an individual to quiet enjoyment and freedom from interference of his property except in public interest.".

10. We believe the proposals for landraise in East Sussex do not comply with Environment Agency policies on Ground Water Protection, namely Landfill Directive Regulatory Guidance Note 3 (RGN3) and Landfill Directive Regulatory Guidance Note 6 (RGN6) on geological/engineering constraints. The sites are such that there is potential for an unacceptable discharge/runoff that would cause pollution to groundwater. Could ESCC please provide all their consultation and statistical data demonstrating support for their case so that we can verify the data with our own experts

11. Has ESCC disussed the issue of Unitary Status with Brighton and Hove District Council? (this would prevent ESCC having an obligation to provide Waste Disposal for B&H). If ESCC has not discussed unitary status with B&H - WHY NOT? Please provide all relevant documentation for any discussions that may have taken place on this subject

12. There are numerous diagrams (pie charts) about the split in waste types over ESCC & Brighton and Hove combined. BUT we are not able to find similar charts for ESCC and Brighton and Hove separately. This is an important issue and the public should be made aware of just how much waste 'dumping' is being provided for Brighton and Hove as opposed to the rest of the county. Please provide individual waste breakdowns for the rest of ESCC and Brighton and Hove separately.

13. In relation to the 'Proximity Principle' (Waste should be disposed of as close to its source as possible) - Please could ESCC explain how this principle is adhered to under its current proposals to transport Bighton and Hove waste many miles by road into the countryside. Failing to ensure landfill/land raise sites are on the outskirts of Brighton and Hove contravenes this principle which is one of the conerstones of waste management. We therefore contend that once again ESCC is failing to adopt advice and Best Practical Environmental Option (BPEO) in order to 'push through' unsuitable land raise sites throughout East Sussex

14. Define the risk assessments associated with the sites involved and confirm that they adhered to the guidelines outlined by the Environment Agency. Please provide a copy of the risk assessments for all the proposed sites to that they can be reviewed by 3rd parties

15. In a Sussex Breakfast radio interview 18 January 2010 Councillor Matthew Lock stated that the reason a tip will be needed is because central government is making us have so many new houses down here that the soil from the building sites has to go somewhere; there will be no room for the soil within the curtilage of the building site. Please outline the precise nature of the waste going into any land raise sites and confirm that during the life of the site the land raise content will never change from the initial waste type specified (i.e. soil)

16. Would ESCC please confirm that they still have all details about their historic proposals on land raise (1999-2003 Land Raise-CLEAR campaign etc). In this context we refer to individual letters of objection, lists of objectors, objections raised, Parish input, any answers ESCC may have provided and all other relevant information; together with ESCC notification(s) giving reasons why the proposals were withdrawn. Please be advised that ESCC will be expected to produce all this information so that it can be validated against any information we already hold; any shortfall in information by ESCC will be regarded as evidence of complicity to influence the consultation process

17. We do not believe that ESCC proposals meet the requirements of Policy W17: Location of Waste Management Facilities “The suitability of existing sites and potential new sites should be assessed on the basis of…good accessibility from existing urban areas or major new or planned development; good transport connections including, where possible, rail or water…” - Please explain how ESCC proposals adhere to this policy

18. We do not believe that ESCC proposals meet the requirements of Policy WLP2: Transport Strategy 
Proposals will be required to demonstrate that:

• the proposal facility is located as closely as practicable to the sources of waste that will be managed by it;
• access and use by modes of transport other than road have been considered and, if not proposed, why it would not be practicable; and
• if road transport is to be used, the proposal is located and designed to minimise the length and number of road traffic movements and the proposal will comply with Policy WLP36.

Please explain how ESCC proposals adhere to this policy

19. We do not believe that ESCC proposals meet East Sussex LTP2 Vision
“to make East Sussex a thriving County where every resident enjoys an enhanced quality of life with improved travel choice and access to employment opportunities and local facilities; safer and healthier communities and a cleaner environment that is valued, protected and improved for future generations"
Please explain how ESCC proposals adhere to this policy

20. Have any Environmental Impact Assessment been carried out on any/all of the sites. If not, then can ESCC please explain why not; surely this is one of the first stages in the process so that everyone can be made aware of the situation and have a sound basis for discussion (rather than political 'spin')?

21. Have ESCC identified areas of search in the current proposal which were rejected as unsuitable in the Waste Local Plan for 2000. If this is the case can ESCC please explain what has changed with these unsuitable areas to make them eligible to be included in the current process

22. Can ESCC please explain the conflict between the proposed sites and the existance of Ancient Woodland because both types of area will overlap to a considerable extent on most of the proposed sites. How can Tony Cook's statement about getting waste & ancient woodland sites to co-exist on the same site be justified. Please provide all research undertaken by ESCC to backup Mr Cook's statement