Update on Planning, Transport & Other Issues at Ashdown Brickworks

1. The Need for Landfill All landfill sites in East Sussex are now full with the exception of Pebsham, which has been granted a four year extension to infill its Northern Quadrant. While there has been a significant decline in waste arisings through recycling, over 60% of East Sussex waste is still disposed to land.
2. ESCC Waste & Mineral Development Framework Next month (October), East Sussex County Council (ESCC) will publish its 'Preferred Strategy' for Waste Disposal in the county. This is the most crucial stage in its longrunning Waste and Mineral Development Framework (WMDF) process which will decide how waste is handled during the period until 2026.This process will probably complete in 2011 and, if passed by Council, will replace the current Waste Local Plan (WLP) that identifies Ashdown as the only site for landfill in East Sussex (although this plan is no longer 'saved').
   Despite the WMDF recognizing that the landfilling of waste is the least acceptable method of its disposal, and despite the framework process supposedly involving a fresh selection of transfer and disposal sites, it is 99% certain that Ashdown will be identified as a 'Strategic Location' for the landfilling of waste in the Preferred Strategy. This has been confirmed directly to BALI (orally) by Tony Cook, Head of ESCC's Waste Team and is largely due to its current position in the WLP.
   While there is a further stage in the WMDF of 'Site Selection' it is inconceivable that, if Ashdown is identified as a Strategic Location for landfill in the Preferred Strategy, it will not be selected for landfill in the final plan.
   This is an extremely dangerous situation for BALI and Bexhill. As a result BALI has re-engaged its planning lawyers to make submissions on its behalf in the consultation that will follow the publication of the Preferred Strategy. We will argue that 'circumstances have changed' since the Waste Local Plan that make Ashdown no longer suitable for landfill, also that it is not deliverable in the time-frame required. For these and other (environmental etc.) reasons, an appointment of Ashdown as a landfill site would be 'unsound'. (For further information on BALI's case please see the further document 'Update on BALI's Activities to Fight the Proposed Landfill.)
3. The Newhaven Incinerator is currently being constructed with a large capacity sufficient to handle most of the county's residual waste. It would be a great relief to BALI and the people of Bexhill if, as local Councillor Brian Gadd argues, this incinerator could handle our entire waste disposal. However, BALI has studied this issue closely and concluded this is unlikely to be possible in the medium term. Moreover, such a view ignores the problems of waste that cannot be incinerated, the unrecovered metals and the bottom ash produced by incineration which may amount to 25-30% of the waste burnt. The facts on this issue will likely become clear in October when ESCC publishes its Preferred Strategy.
4. London Waste. There is also the question of 1.8 million tonnes of London Waste required to be accepted and disposed of to land by ESCC during the period until 2026 under the South East Plan, finally passed by government earlier this year. However, there are High Court challenges to the plan and the Conservative Party, if elected at the next General Election, may abolish it. Also the Mayor of London has announced in his latest environmental proposals ('Leading to a Greener London') that he wishes to end the practice of exporting waste to the South East. He notes, however, that this 'cannot be done overnight' and will inevitably involve a transition period.
   BALI's view is that it is still probable that East Sussex will be required to receive substantial quantities of London waste. Surprisingly, however, Stephen Hardy of Ibstock Brick Ltd., the owners of the Ashdown site has told BALI that the company will not be prepared to receive London Waste at Ashdown!
5. The role of Ibstock. BALI continues to hold regular meetings with Ibstock and there is no change in their intention to eventually landfill the site on which basis, earlier this year, they unsuccessfully fought in the High Court Rother District Council’s decision to grant itself outline planning permission to extend Bexhill Cemetery into an adjoining field. They also have refused BALI's request to restrict waste landfilled at the site to inert waste as opposed to organic, putrescible waste.
   Ibstock has been hard-hit by the decline in construction during the recession and have closed 5 plants in the past year. Ashdown has often been working on short-time. This is likely to bring forward their plans to landfill the site and they have admitted that discussions on this issue are now taking place at senior level.
   The decline in brick-making works two ways however: the 'holes' are not getting bigger  and to 'open them up' may be costly beyond Ibstock's means at the present time. (However any Waste Contractor to whom Ibstock grants 'landfill rights' at Ashdown might well contribute).
6. The Ashdown Site It is essential to understand that there are two ‘holes’ at the Ashdown site and the plan is to empty one and start landfilling it while continuing to extract clay from the other. (There are probably 30 years of clay extraction left at the site.) To do this Ibstock need to stockpile clay on fairly adjacent land and BALI believes they may be in the process of acquiring land for this purpose, perhaps in the '4 fields' to the east of the quarry owned by Mayo Land Ltd.
7. Transport Links The enormous problem remains of transport access to the site, which currently is insufficient to enable substantial landfill usage. If the Link Road goes ahead, this will only partly resolve the problem. Two further roads are required:
   
   1. A spur road off the Link Road to the A269. This road, entitled the Country Avenue appears in the RDC Local Plan and in ESCC Local Transport Plan 2006-2011 (as a longer-term scheme) but it does not go as far as the A269.
   2. A purpose- built road from the A269 to the Ashdown Site or the continuation of the Country Avenue across the A269 to the site. (This latter suggestion appears in the recent RDC Local Development Framework – Core Strategy.)
   That eventually such roads could be achieved is not doubted, but whether they can be achieved in the time-frame required for Ashdown to be a viable landfill site in the medium term is open to question. However planners tend often to ignore practical realities in favour of paper solutions to the problems they have to deal with.
   

Nick Hollington

Chairman, BALI

September 2009