Ibstock's Appeal Against Cemetery Extension Dismissed

Background

In February 2007, Rother District Council (RDC) granted itself planning permission, against objections by Ibstock, to extend Bexhill Cemetery into one of 'four fields' owned by Mayo Land Company adjacent to Ashdown Brickworks. These fields were represented by Ibstock in the ESCC Waste Local Plan inquiry as crucial to the early development of a landfill in the quarries allowing them to stockpile clay thereon. This possibility was noted by the Inspector in his report but the land was not 'allocated' or 'safeguarded' in the plan itself.

In May 2007, Ibstocks lawyers sought permission in the High Court to apply for judicial review of RDC's decision on 9 grounds, being 'concerned that the planning permission given will affect the proposed landfilling of the quarry'. In August 2007, however, the Court refused permission for judicial review, rejecting all of Ibstock's grounds. However, Ibstock appealed the decision and permission for judicial review was granted though on one ground only: that RDC had failed to sufficiently consider noise abatement and screening regarding those visiting the cemetery.

Court Decision 18th January 2009

Mr Justice Dean dismissed Ibstock's application on the grounds that the issues of noise and screening from any landfill site were not required to be addressed at the stage and that 'the case is fact-specific and raises no principle or legal issue'. RDC was awarded £21,472 to cover its legal costs.

What next?

• RDC will almost certainly compulsorily purchase the land it requires for the cemetery extension
• There could be a further appeal; Mr Justice Dean noted that 'it would be for the civil Appeals Office to decide whether they wish to hear any appeal'. BALI is not aware if Ibstock intend to appeal.
• There is almost certainly to be opposition to the cemetery plans at the next planning stage
• Ibstock may consider stockpiling clay on the other fields or elsewhere, offering to purchase any land not owned by them.

Is the stock-piling of clay crucial to whether or not there will be a landfill at Ashdown?

If a landfill is required at any early date, it probably is, Ibstock emptying one of its quarries (it has two) to landfill it while still extracting clay from the other. In the longer term there would be less need.

BALI's view

The High Court decision allowing RDC to extend the cemetery makes it more difficult for Ibstock to use the Ashdown quarries for the landfilling of waste, but certainly not impossible.

Note: Throughout the Court hearings, BALI was registered as an interested party, receiving all the paperwork and decisions made.

The ESCC Waste and Mineral Development Framework (WMDF)will soon reach a crucial stage

The Background

The 'WMDF' is the most important document for BALI. In February 2006, the ESCC Waste Local Plan (WLP) got us into this mess by 'designating Ashdown as the only suitable site for landfill in East Sussex'. The WMDF might well get us out of it as it will replace the WLP and is considering the handling of waste in East Sussex entirely anew and does not need to follow the WLP.

BALI has been in on the WMDF consultations since the beginning, first in 2007 with the 'Sustainability Appraisal: Scoping Report' which posed broad questions to stimulate debate such as whether waste should be handled in small local (e.g. district) facilities or larger (up to regional) facilities. The last stage in March- April 2008 was called 'Issues and Options', where the County Council set out all the relevant waste and mineral issues or 'choices' that should be considered when developing the new 'waste strategy' and deciding on suitable sites for waste treatment and disposal. BALI made a detailed submission on this document a copy of which is available free of charge.

Next stage

The next stage will be the development of a 'Preferred Strategy' (document) where the council will choose its preferred options for dealing with waste. This document will 'identify strategic locations for key significant future waste site but not specific sites'. There will be a full consultation on this stage as previously and BALI will make submissions.

The stage after that will get into the selection of specific sites. Of course it will consider Ibstock's Ashdown site, but it will also consider sites previously rejected (like Mountfield) and entirely new locations.

What will be the WMDF's criteria for handling waste?

This is complex and as yet not fully decided. A lot of the WMDF is boringly detailed and difficult to read. However, landfill is considered a 'last resort' at the bottom of the 'waste hierarchy', the top being the reduction, reuse and recycling of waste. The Spatial Vision, setting out 5 objectives, is just about comprehensible and worth taking the trouble to read. Most of it, BALI would agree with, but not that East Sussex should provide for 'disposing of a proportion of London waste'.

How can BALI influence the process so that Ashdown is excluded from the WMDF?

Our Chairman, Nick Hollington, has so far been representing BALI in the ESC consultation and has made various submissions. However he considers that his own efforts will be insufficient in the next crucial stages. We will need experts. BALI will meet soon to consider whether now is the time to re-engage our planning consultant, Geoff Smith of DMH Stallard, and perhaps later, a barrister to fight our corner and do our best to try to make sure Ashdown is not selected in the WMDF as a suitable site for landfill. This will be expensive and our 'war chest' will be needed to be called upon.

Note: the timing of the next stages of the WMDF is not all clear. As Geoff Smith has said 'it moves at 'dinosaur pace'. The next stage is likely to be not until late Summer or even Autumn 2009.

The Big Danger: London Waste Coming Our Way

The Background

The South East Plan, sometimes called the 'Regional Spatial Strategy', is a plan for the South East of England for the period 2006 - 2026 prepared by SEERA (South East England Regional Assembly) and submitted to Government (GOSE -The Government Office for the South East) in March 2006. There followed a lengthy inquiry called 'The Examination in Public' from November 2006 till August 2007. In July 2008, the Government finally approved the plan in principle but published 'Proposed Changes' which were subject to a consultation which ended last October. The Councils comprising the South East and other bodies then made their final, detailed submissions for final changes to the plan which is expected to be adopted final form in April 2009.

Is the South East Plan important?

Very. It replaces a document called RPG9 and provides for housing targets, economic developments, transport, employment etc. throughout the South East. For example, Rother District housing targets are not set by Rother District Council but by the South East Plan. Also all local planning frameworks, e.g. Rother District's Local Development Framework, must adhere to the South East Plan.

Why is it important for BALI?

One of the subjects covered by the plan is waste provision. The East Sussex Waste and Minerals Development Framework must adhere to it. This wouldn't matter much if it just left East Sussex to deal with it's own waste, but it required that East Sussex and all the other SE counties share out the disposal of most London waste over the next 20 years.

What are proposals for London waste?

London can't cope with all its own waste - though many feel it should - so the plan is to send 28 million tonnes of it to the South East (the Eastern region is to get 18 million tonnes) over the period 2006- 2026. Of this figure, Sussex is to get 4.6 million tonnes with approx. 2 million tonnes coming to East Sussex (recently reduced to 1.6 million tonnes). It is estimated that this will require 3 to 4 new landfill sites in Sussex, taking a minimum 1.8 million cubic meters of waste each year, the equivalent of 1,800 Olympic size swimming pools. At least 470,000 extra lorry carry movements each year would be required.

Does London agree to this?

The London Boroughs have been traditionally somewhat 'lazy' about their waste disposal, happy for someone else to take the waste out of their hands. However, both the previous London Mayor, Ken Livingstone and the current Mayor, Boris Johnson see the export of London waste to the South East country side as unsustainable. Ken Livingstone wanted to reject the South East Plan and by 2020 make London almost self-sufficient in managing its waste by greater recycling and a chain of massive anaerobic digesters around the city to not only dispose of the waste but also to create energy. It seems that Boris Johnson does not reject the plan, but has formed a London Waste and Recycling Board to boost recycling in the capital and reduce the amount of waste sent to landfill. He also favours the establishment of anaerobic digestion sites and incinerators around the city and an assault on over-packaging. The idea is that a coordinated all-London approach (previously each London Borough took responsibility for disposing of its own waste) will be more effective. However, this will take time to work and some Boroughs oppose it.

What is the County Council's response?

It is fair to say that both West and East Sussex councils have been fighting these proposals tooth and nail. West Sussex has run a high profile political campaign by councillors and MPS. East Sussex's response has been less high-profile but vigorous 'behind the scenes', led by Tony Cook, head of ESCC's Waste Planning Team, whom BALI speaks to on a regular basis. He argued that the plan does not take into account the limited degree of 'suitable void space' (basically holes in the ground) in East Sussex, most of which will be needed for its own waste. He also argues that East Sussex Green Belt is an environmental constraint and that the plan does not recognise that East Sussex is full of Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). Nor does it recognise the transport difficulties (distance, hardly any motorways etc.) which is largely why there has been no 'historic' disposal of London waste in our area.

Is London waste likely to come our way?

Almost certainly, yes, in the opinion of BALI's Chairman, Nick Hollington. East Sussex County Council accepts that in the medium term London will continue to be reliant on the regions for waste disposal. It would require a complete U-turn by Government to allow East Sussex to be an exception (though in fact Hampshire has been made such an exception) in not taking any London waste. At the end of the day, Tony Cook is (only) arguing about figures - and he has already achieved a reduction of the East Sussex figure to about 1.6 million tonnes. He also argues that these figures should only be considered an 'aspiration', not a requirement.

Does it have to mean more landfill?

They always only talk of landfilling London waste. BALI has questioned this, given there are many other methods of waste disposal, but we have seen no evidence of any other plan to deal with London waste than landfilling it.

Will it inevitably mean a landfill at Ashdown Brickworks?

It will certainly make it more likely. To quote Henry Smith, leader of WSCC, 'If people live near an earmarked waste site the threat of having that opened as a landfill is very real indeed'. However, there are still real difficulties with transport with access to the Ashdown site which very clearly need to be resolved before any landfilling takes place.

How will it happen? When? What next?

First, the South East Plan has to be approved in its final form. This may happen as early as April 2009 but could drag on. There is then likely to be a renewed focus in the media with an 'outcry' about London waste and new landfill sites.

The way things will happen is not by the Council 'requesting' an owner of a void-space (e.g.Ibstock) to provide a landfill. Unless, London Waste and Recycling Board steps in, London boroughs might have to hire a private waste contractor who would approach owners of a suitable site or the owners might make the approach. (The owners might have granted 'Landfill Options' already to a contractor.) Then, probably, the contractor, after preliminary soundings, would apply for planning permission. Of course, there would be a greater chance of success if the site is already earmarked for landfill in a waste plan (as Ashdown is in the ESCC Waste Local Plan) or framework. Of course, planning permission could be refused, for example as a result of an unsuccessful Environmental Assessment. But the South East Plan's requirement to accept London waste would clearly put more pressure on the planners to favour landfill applications.

What can BALI do?

Of course, BALI opposes London waste coming to East Sussex. The only way perhaps of stopping it is if, when the South East Plan is published, a high-profile political campaign is launched by East Sussex MPs, perhaps led by our local MP, Greg Barker. West Sussex MPs and councillors are already running such a campaign. Since there is a good chance that the Conservative Party will win the next election, it would be good if they would pledge to reverse the plan in terms of the export of London waste or at least review it. We should seek an early meeting with Greg Barker.

Links: West Sussex County Council Waste information