Land to West of Bexhill Cemetery

15/02/07: Planning Permission Granted for Change of Use

Rother District Council Planning Committee granted planning permission (subject to conditions) for change of use of land at St. Mary's Lane from agricultural use to use as a cemetery. The land is adjacent to the Ashdown Brickworks site.

The permission is in accord with the Rother District Local Plan and supports the Council's desire to provide sufficient provision for burial needs for the area.

The Planning Committee approved the grant despite a letter of objection from Ibstock, the owners of the Ashdown Brickworks site.

The Planning Agenda and Minutes from the Committee on the 15th February can be read on the Rother Council Website. Download the minutes from the Rother Council website. (Word format). If you download the Word format Minutes, you will need to refer to page 10 to read the specific grant Ref: RR/2006/3294/3R.

---

BALI letter re: Pebsham Tip Proposals

Read the letter by BALI Chair, Nick Hollington in response to the Planning Application to redevelop the Reprotech Pebsham site.

Turkey Road Battle Not Over Says BALI

Turkey Road battle not over, says BALI

Visitors to a Spring Fair organised by Bexhill Against Landfill / Incineration (BALI) have been warned that the fight against the use of the Turkey Road brickworks quarries continues.
Introducing Town Mayor Cllr. Eric Armstrong, who was accompanies by his wife and Mayoress, Jeanette, BALI Chairman, Nick Hollington said; "Someone said as they came in "Are you still fighting, then?".
We are very much fighting. From our letter in the Bexhill Observer, you will see that we are still very much alive".
Referring to the objection lodged by brickworks owners Ibstock to Rother Council's plan to extend the Bexhill cemetery, the chairman said "Ibstock, quite clearly, are still thinking of using the quarries for landfill.
It is very difficult to run a campaign over a long time. People get tired and people get bored.
We have been going five or six years but we are still very grateful for the support we get from the community. The BALI 100 Club, where people can put in £100 towards our fighting fund and have it returned with interest if no application is made for landfill, is going well."
Cllr. Peter Fairhurst, Cllr. Paul Lendon and county council member Cllr. Martyn Foster were also present as the chairman added:"It is nice to see so many councillors here this morning."
The Town Mayor said "In the role of Town Mayor I am not allowed to make political statements but the issue BALI is fighting affects everyone in this town.
We don't want landfill and we don't want incineration in Bexhill."
Referring to the existing Pebsham tip, he said:"I live close to it and I can see no positive aspects for anyone."
He urged supporters to spend their money in supporting a worthwhile cause.
In addition to a stand loaded with recycling literature and a welcome display in the foyer of St. Martha's hall which included press cuttings and photographs, Saturday's event included cakes, jewellery, tombola, raffle and china and glass stalls in addition to bird boxes.

BALI comments on the recent planning application Pebsham Landfill Site

Letter dated 19th January 2007 to East Sussex County Council from Nick Hollington, Chair of BALI

---

19th January 2007

• Director of Transport and Environment
• East Sussex County Council
• County Hall
• St Anne's Crescent
• LEWES BN7 1UE

Dear Sir

Ref: Planning Application RR/498/CM(JP)

Proposed redevelopment at Reprotech Site, Pebsham

We wish to object to this development on behalf of the residents of Pebsham and Bexhill on a number of grounds as follows:

1. While it is established in the East Sussex and Brighton and Hove Waste Local Plan (WLP) that there might be a Waste Transfer Station (WTS) at Pebsham to assist increased recycling and diversion from landfill:
   1. The WLP puts conditions on such a development which we believe are not met.
   2. Residential properties are within 500 meters of this site and three schools within a kilometre. It may be that these and other environmental conditions cannot be met in a site so near a residential area.
   3. Alternative sites may and should be considered.
   4. If the development is to go ahead more consideration and respect must be given to the rights and amenities of Pebsham residents.
2. Pebsham residents have been more than patient and have done more than their fair share in serving the county's waste disposal and treatment needs for over 50 years. They have been promised several times an end to waste activity in the vicinity. The proposal represents a breach of these promises.
3. Pebsham residents continue to be affected by the BIFFA landfill, due to close in 2008, but for which an application for extension till 2011 is shortly to be submitted, as well as Southern Water's waste water treatment plant. Not only are there problems in such activity such as noise and smell, but they generate a substantial volume of vehicle movement causing greater noise and traffic congestion. A Waste Transfer Station will only exacerbate these problems.
4. It is recognized that the A259 at Bexhill Road is overloaded:
   1. Air pollution levels in this area are above accepted levels. This has been recently measured. It is an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA).
   2. Traffic is heavily congested.
   There will be substantially increased traffic movements as a result of the proposed development which will simply worsen the situation and there is still no certainty that the alternative Bexhill-Hastings Link Road will be built.
5. In this connection the ESCC Waste Local Plan itself makes its own conditions (Policy WLP 6.27) that "any increase in vehicle movements along the A259 would be unacceptable until the strategic road network in the area has been improved" and again later "Any net increase in traffic would be unacceptable at least until measures have been implemented to relieve congestion on the A259". However if the landfill's life is extended and there is no reduction in other waste or waste water treatment activity there will inevitably be an increase in traffic.
6. Policy WLP 36. states that proposals will not be permitted "where access arrangements are inadequate for the volume and nature of traffic generated by the proposal". Current access to the plant via the "junction" with the A259 is totally unsatisfactory. It is a major cause of delay and relies on the pedestrian traffic lights to make a gap in the traffic. Such a long-term development as is being proposed for the Reprotech site clearly requires entirely better access such as a slip road with traffic lights or a roundabout.
7. There will be increased hazards for other road users and again, according to the WLP proposals will not be permitted where such is the case.
8. Noise is a particular concern because of the acoustics of the area. A local resident Ken Paterson, recently reported on the high existing noise levels in the local newspaper (see Bexhill Observer 5.01.07). Not only the noise from the landfill and the household tip can be heard but also "the drone of the sewage plant, and even the noises of football matches on the Bulverhythe playing-fields".
9. In this context the hours of operation proposed for the WTS as 6:00 a.m. to 10:30 p.m. - seven days a week are completely unacceptable and show no respect for the local residents' rights and amenities. Particularly no activity should take place on a Sunday. NB. Pebsham Farm Industrial Units were refused longer hours and the same criteria should be applied in this case.
10. In particular regarding noise, Policy WLP 35 states that all proposals shall contain "adequate means of controlling noise" and we are not satisfied that sufficient arrangements have been met in this regard:
    1. The use of the site for skip storage and activity is of concern as skips heighten noise annoyance when dragged or dropped. Care needs to be taken to provide rubberized surfaces and undercover areas.
    2. It is not clear that sufficient sound insulation will be provided to all buildings.
    3. Residents are particularly maddened by reverse warning beeps from "smart" devices fitted to lorries. These are aggravating noises if continual and, while mindful of health and safety requirements, these should be minimized wherever possible or the hours when reversing will take place reduced.
    4. It is not clear how many sensors there will be to check on noise or how inspections will proceed and at what frequency. Tests must be made throughout the site and the surrounding area and not on just one part of the site which currently is totally unrepresentative! Please see the addendum for which I am grateful to Mr Roy Goodall. There is also an echo effect produced by the valley which must be taken into account to evaluate the true level of noise.
    5. We are not satisfied there is sufficient landscaping in the proposal. The site should be hidden from residents by planting high evergreen trees. This would also enhance noise and dust suppression for residents.
    6. WLP 6.27 states that any development proposal for this area "needs to be co-ordinated with plans for the Pebsham Countryside Park" and that "redevelopment proposals for this site "must assist in reducing visual impact". Evergreen trees along the Western and Northern Western sides would assist, but it is not clear how noise and dust impact would be controlled.
    7. Clearly the development would be required under WLP 6 to meet current environmental standards as to air quality and an environmental report will presumably be forthcoming. However it is difficult to see how the currently poor air quality will be improved and every reason to think it will deteriorate especially if the BIFFA landfill site is extended. Further detailed environmental consideration needs to be given in this area. For example there is too much reliance on gatekeepers/weighbridge operators for ensuring doors are opened and closed per lorry visit. In summer the station will be hot and the door may be left open all the time with consequent pollution and fumes from the lorries. There needs to be proper air-conditioning and an automatic system of opening and closing doors.
    8. The proposed overnight parking at the site of 40 refuse vehicles previously housed at the Bulverhythe Depot may or may not reduce vehicle movements but clearly will increase noise and petrol fume nuisance to the residents from early in the morning till late at night.
    9. The accumulation of all the above difficulties surely suggests that this site is not a suitable location for the proposed development. It is surely not, under WLP 35 "of a scale, form and character appropriate to its location". This not only is in relation to its proximity to the homes but also given the proposed Pebsham Countryside Park which local residents were promised, after all their trials, as a haven of beauty and tranquility. It is difficult to see how this project will not be spoiled by this development on the Southern side together with the planned Link Road on the Northern side.
    10. In addition Freshfields Road has lately been put forward as one possible site (out of 3) for a travellers' transit camp! Surely the combination of a Waste Transfer Station and a travellers' camp is not a sensible idea?
    11. We respect that this proposal by Veolia is made to meet local needs as part of its long-term strategic integrated waste management service to the county as outlined in the WLP. But how this proposal fits in to their strategy or plan is not made clear particularly in regard to their facilities for non-recyclables (BALI recognizes the great strides made by Veolia in recycling facilities). These presumably primarily concern the proposed incinerator at Newhaven but may also impact on the suggested (in the WLP) landfill at Ashdown Brickworks. Pebsham and Bexhill residents surely have a right to see the "bigger picture" of how this proposal will fit in with others, where all the lorries are likely to come from and go etc.
    12. While this proposal currently deals with the "transfer" of recyclable waste there is an underlying sense of Pebsham and Bexhill as a whole being used as East Sussex's permanent dumping ground. The Council and Veolia will need to act positively to dispel this impression.
    13. Finally we are shocked to understand that at present it is not planned to commission a full Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) regarding this proposal. This is a highly questionable decision and should be immediately reversed. This development is a new long-term development which could result in a seriously adverse impact on local residents' health and well-being with regard to all kinds of pollution, noise, dust, odour, etc. Furthermore there is the factor of the proposed Pebsham Countryside Park to consider. It is not "same again" and demands full environmental reappraisal. We therefore ask the council to reconsider its decision on this matter.

Nick Hollington , Chairman BALI

ADDENDUM re: noise assessment

1. The Noise Assessment data produced by the applicant was based on readings taken at a point which is not representative of the area near the proposed site, although their statement suggests otherwise. No. 2 Pebsham Lane was used, and was the only place used, to gather data. This house is a considerable distance from the proposed development which would, therefore not be indicative of the potential noise levels one could expect at, for instance, Top Cross Road and nearby roads /residences.
2. A more appropriate study must be initiated by both the applicant and the Environmental Agency. To allow the application without this new study would result in many roads nearer to the plant suffering excessive noise levels far and above that recorded at No.2 Pebsham Lane. Then, any complaints from the nearer houses in the future would be met with "the operation is within the planning limits". The decibel readings and projected noise levels would be met for those people living at the far end of Pebsham Lane (near to No. 2) but the noise levels would increase in magnitude the further along Pebsham Lane one travelled. These noise levels would rise exponentially. This is not good enough!