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."

01 August 2010

UK may have to import rubbish for incinerators

'.. Environmental groups are demanding an end to the building of new waste incinerators, which they say will undermine recycling. Experts question whether Britain will produce enough household waste to fuel energy-from-waste plants as the country improves its recycling efforts. And they warn that waste will have to be diverted from sustainable recycling schemes or imported from elsewhere to keep a rash of new planned waste incinerators working ..'

This is surely just a natural progression from earlier issues about ESCC capping recycling so that more rubbish can be channelled to the Newhaven incinerator

'.. county council has this week (March 17) disputed claims by Lewes Liberal Democrats that its current recycling credits scheme is limiting the amount of waste that can be recycled in the county in order to ensure enough material for the energy-from-waste facility at Newhaven ..'

ESCC plans overhaul of Waste Collection Authority (WCA) recycling incentives

Let us not forget that the major residue with incineration is ash and this is one of the materials ESCC intends to use in land raise sites

'.. for every four tons of trash burned you get at least one ton of ash: 90% is called bottom ash (that is the ash collected under the furnace) and 10% is the very toxic fly ash. ..'

Although we have already addressed this issue in the past a timely reminder might be in order

ESCC Newhaven Incinerator Dangerous Residues and Emissions

Unfortunately having made a questionnable decision in the first place about building the incinerator (in the face of about 14,000 ignored objections) it now seems as though East Sussex County Council (ESCC) intends to compound the the issue by dumping the highly toxic ash residue on land raise sites in the Low Weald

Don't think that you will not be affected because Newhaven is a few miles away from where you live - ESCC Newhaven Incinerator - Do You Think You Are Safe From Contamination

Just how stupid can ESCC get?

From the ESCC web site - ESCC Waste and Minerals Development Framework Consultation

'.. We are currently analysing nearly 3,000 responses received. It will take some time to do this but expect to publish the Council's initial response in late Summer 2010. Anyone who has sent in a representation will automatically be notified when this takes place. Anyone who did not send in a representation but would like to receive notification of key stages of the preparation of the Core Strategy should register with the Council's ..'

Contact the Waste and Minerals Policy Team:

E: wasteandmineralsdf@eastsussex.gov.uk

East Sussex County Council:

Waste and Minerals Planning Policy Team

Planning Service

Transport and Environment

County Hall

St Anne's Crescent

Lewes

East Sussex, BN7 1UE

T: 01273 481846 F: 01273 479040

Brighton & Hove City Council:

Planning Strategy & Projects

Brighton & Hove City Council

Hove Town Hall

Norton Road

Hove, BN3 3ZZ

T: 01273 292505

Finally - it would be very interesting to see figures published concerning the origin of any objections or requests to be kept informed. These figures should be simply split between ESCC and Brighton & Hove and would provide an insight into the concern displayed by both areas - one as exporter of waste and the other as recipient of waste

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

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

   

02 June 2010

In March Councillor Peter Jones was asked a question by a member of the public (about censuring Cheryl Miller over her performance with Land Raise) to which he refused to reply (ESCC Councillor Peter Jones Refuses to Reply to Ratepayer Questions) stating:

'.. I find your message offensive and deserving of no further reply. Peter Jones ..'

Subsequent to Councillor Jones reply a complaint was made to ESCC Standards Committee on the following basis - ESCC Councillor Peter Jones Questions about him under 'Members’ Code of Conduct'

Let us first just remind ourselves of the purpose of the ESCC Standards Committee - What this committee does

'.. Responsible for promoting and maintaining high standards of conduct by councillors, co-opted members as well as church and parent governor representatives ..'

The complaint has been heard by the Standards Committee and we have the following outcome

Decision

'.. In accordance with Section 57A (2) of the Local Government Act 2000, as amended, the Assessment Sub-Committee of the Standards Committee decided that no action should be taken in respect of the allegation ..'

Reasons for the decision

'.. The Sub Committee considered to the General Principles governing the Code of Conduct. However the Members Guide to the Code of Conduct advises that “these principles define the standards that Members should uphold, and serve as a reminder of the purpose of the Code of Conduct.” However, as the principles do not create a statutory obligation for Members, allegations that they have been breached cannot be accepted, and are not subject to sanction in themselves.

The Sub-Committee considered the provisions of the Code of Conduct, and whether any provisions of this, including paragraph 3: ‘You must - 1) treat others with respect’ might potentially be breached. The Sub Committee also had regard to the East Sussex County Council Standards Committee Assessment Criteria, including paragraph 1 (5) (e) which provides that ‘The Assessment Sub Committee may decide to take no further action where the complaint is believed not sufficiently serious to warrant further action’. Councillor Jones had responded to the email, all be it briefly.

The Sub Committee decided, taking into account the above considerations and the documents before them, the alleged conduct was not sufficiently serious to warrant further action ..'

Questions for the Standards Committee

• Is this yet another all too familar whitewash we have come to expect from regulatory committees?

• what is the purpose of having 'General Principles governing the Code of Conduct' if they cannot be enforced and clearly there is no will to adhere to them by Councillor Jones. Surely it a waste of everyones time and effort even producing a code of conduct which is meaningless?

• '.. the alleged conduct was not sufficiently serious to warrant further action ..'. How serious does the action of a Councillor have to be in order for the Standards Committee to react and not brush it under the carpet? Does it have to reach the level of the MP's recent expenses scandal before any action is taken? (i.e. Tory MP gets £100,000 for 'second' home)

• It is noticable that the Standards Committee still refer to matter as the '.. the alleged conduct ..' so it would seem as though they cannot even decide whether Councillor Jones was actually responsible for his actions in the first place, despite the committee having all the relevant documentation available. Councillor Jones actions are a matter of fact and no interpretation is required, so why is the matter still regarded 'alleged' when they have incontrovertible proof in front of them? 

   

  Could it be that the Standards Committee do not want to commit themselves to passing judgement on one of 'their own'?

• At the very least we need a statement from the ESCC Standards Committee on whether they regard Councillor Jones as innocent or guilty of the complaint. Whether they then choose to do anything about it is another matter entirely

• Based upon the current decision, how can the Standards Committee claim to be adhereing to its mandate '.. Responsible for promoting and maintaining high standards of conduct by councillors ..'.

   

  Which '.. high standards ..' are they referring to because obviously we have a different understanding of this phrase and Councillor Jones seems to have been exempted from the rules anyway. Clearly the committee is doing no such thing as monitoring standards and exists purely as a 'sop' to the public by 'conning' them into believing any standards exist at all

• The Standards Committee would seem to be an all to cosy arrangement for providing a facade of respectability whereas as has just been demonstrated they are infact really a rather toothless committee that panders to the existing councillors. After all they are all really in the same boat, and judging ones peers is always difficult because it may be your own turn next time and naturally you would want the same leniency extended to yourself

One has to ask how removed from reality this committee is for them to say '.. Councillor Jones had responded to the email, all be it briefly ..' when essentially Councillor Jones stated the following '.. I find your message offensive and deserving of no further reply. Peter Jones ..'.

It would seem that in the eyes of the Standards Committee this was an acceptable response for someone holding the position of Leader of the Council and deemed to be accountable to the public. So the natural conclusion must be that Councillors are completely unaccountable and can get away with anything provided the are being scrutinised by the ESCC Standards Committee - is this really the right message to be sending out in these times when the public does not really have much faith in their representatives anyway after the MP's expenses scandal

If the judgement of those on the committee was so awry in this matter we have to ask whether they really fit to form part of a Standards Committee in the first place

Once again we have a disappointing demonstration by those in office looking after their own - even to the extent that despite all the evidence they still regard the matter as 'alleged'. If this is the best that the ESCC Standards Committee can do then perhaps they would be better disbanded because no doubt the resources could be better used elsewhere

Frankly the members of this ESCC Standards Committee should be ashamed of the themselves

The real crux of the matter is that we now know that no ESCC County Councillor is obliged to answer ANY questions on Land Raise - is NO ACCOUNTABILITY on land raise a serious issue? We believe it is a major problem!

Other References:

Councillor Peter Jones and his Wife MP Jacqui Lait

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

What on earth is going on!

Something is begining to seem very fishy with ESCC, Councillor Peter Jones, Cheryl Miller's retirement and the whole land raise issue

We seem to have the following situation

• ESCC under the leadership of Cheryl Miller have woefully failed to deliver a cogent land raise plan after 10 years of trying

• Cheryl Miller has announced her retirement; although it is now disclosed by ESCC that it may have actually been a forced retirement (was performance on land raise a contributory factor?). Nevertheless, no further explanation is provided other than vague 'sound bites' - County Council Chief Exec Gets EXTRA £197,000 pension pay-off

• Cheryl Miller's pension fund has been awarded 'ex-gratia' addition funding of £197,000 to top up an already substantial fund and 'well deserved' annual salary of circa £160,000-£180,000 per annum

• If Cheryl Miller has been invited to retire - why are we funding this extra payment to her pension fund. Is this reward for failure?

• Councillor Peter Jones has refused to answer legitimate questions about censuring Cheryl Miller on her performance in respect of land raise - Councillor Peter Jones refuses to reply to ratepayer questions

one can understand the touchy nature of expenses in Councillor Jones household bearing in mind the expenses claims made by Councillor Jones wife Jacqui Lait (MP retiring) - Jacqui Lait gets £100,000 second home or to put it slightly less delicately

• Whilst on the subject of Jacqui Lait we note that her litigation against the Evening Standard Newspaper has failed - Evening Standard Victory Over Jacqui Lait

Does anyone detect a pattern starting to emerge of incompetence, secrecy, actual litigation and threatened litigation (which is akin to bullying)

Here are some suggested questions for Councillor Peter Jones that no-one seems to have publically aired - of course the question is WHY NOT (is it for fear of litigation?):

• Did you know of the situation of surrounding your wife's (Jacqui Lait) expense claims?

• Did you condone the actions of your wife's expense claims?

• Did you benefit directly or indirectly from your wife's expense claims?

• Under the circumstances have you considered resigning in case your office is brought into disrepute?

References

ESCC Councillor Peter Jones and his wife Jacqui Lait MP

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