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