A depressingly familar story from the past concerning land raise
Sussex Express Series (Lewes, England), May 23, 2002
'.. Villagers who fought a successful campaign against land raise waste disposal sites on their doorstep are gearing up to fight a new threat to their environment.
Parish councils in Chiddingly, Laughton, East Hoathly and Chalvington with Ripe joined to form a campaign group called Clear when four sites at Halland, East Hoathly, Chiddingly and Laughton were suggested for land raise.
They were supported by Selmeston, Firle, Berwick, Alfriston and Ringmer parish councils and the town council of Polegate in the battle which culminated in a large scale demonstration at Lewes. That led to a promise of support from county councillors who later voted to exclude land raise on greenfield sites in Sussex.
But the councils are on their guard again because land raise has slipped into the county's second deposit waste plan.
Sites are not specified, but the document says: 'There shall be a very strong presumption against any land raising provision for non-inert waste on greenfield sites.
'No such provision will be considered until all appropriate previously developed sites have been investigated and eliminated.'
That has triggered Clear's alarm once more because they claim the only area that could be targeted for land raise covers their villages in the Low Weald.
One of the members Mr Nigel Braden said the Downs and High Weald, which are categorised as Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, could not be considered because of that.
'We have been told that land raising will not go on greenfield sites, but the way this is written makes it an open door policy for any contractor coming to lodge a planning application for disposal sites in greenfield areas.
'We will do whatever we need to do to register this point and if it comes to a public inquiry we will vociferously oppose any principle of land raising on greenfield areas.'
Wealden councillor Sylvia Tidy, who represents Chiddingly and East Hoathly, fought at a meeting of the council's executive last week to get Wealden support for opposing land raise in the Low Weald but failed.
She argued that the landscape of the Low Weald was unsuitable for land raise because it was flat and while new hills of refuse could be lost in hilly areas they would stand out in the Low Weald.
But councillors were told the suggestion of land raise could not be excluded from the plan because of a hefty shortfall in provision of waste disposal facilities.
And Cllr Teresa Blaxland, representing Heathfield, said that to suggest Low Weald should be protected at the expense of Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty would be very difficult for the county to sustain at a public inquiry and very difficult for Wealden to argue. Other executive members agreed ..'