Link-Up Sparks Landfill Fears

As Reported in the Bexhill Observer of 4th December 2009

The threat of landfill in Bexhill has grown with the news of an agreement between the owners of Ashdown Brickworks and a waste management company.

Brick manufacturer Ibstock, which runs the Turkey Road site, has signed an agreement with Cory Environmental, a leading waste disposal company.
Six-monthly meetings between Ibstock and BALI, which began in 2001, have ceased as the company moves into the early stage of evaluating the potential for landfill.
Nick Hollington, chairman of BALI, condemned the move, saying 'It was a shock to us. We never thought this would happen so soon.
'You would think that they would wait until the current consultation process is completed.
'It really is thumbing their noses up to Bexhill.
'It's saying "you can have your public meetings, you can send your letters to East Sussex County Council (ESCC) but we are just going ahead."
'I find it utterly deplorable.'
The move comes in the same week ESCC announced an extension to the consultation process.
A spokesman from Ibstock, which has a 10-year history of collaborating with Cory, rejected the idea that they were trying to rush through a planning application saying: "I cannot say that we are going to proceed with an application.
"We would need to do it with a partner, and that depends entirely on Cory and if they decide it's a project they would like to take further.
"An application would probably take two or three years to put together. No one could predict the length of time."
Questioned over the timing of the move, the spokesman said: "We see that there may be a better opportunity for us now than there may have been in the past."
Speculation that Ibstock may have been encouraged to talk to Cory by ESCC was denied by the county council, whose spokesman said in a statement: "Any operator or landowner can submit a planning application for a new waste management facility at any time."
Mr Hollington will lodge a Freedom Of Information request to reveal all correspondence between Ibstock, ESCC and Cory Environmental.
Rother District Council (RDC) and local MP Greg Barker have both come out fighting this week.
As a key consultee, the council submission to ESCC concludes:'It is premature to put forward Ashdown Brickworks as a location for waste disposal in the Core Strategy and it should therefore be excluded'.
Mr Barker said "I'm alarmed and surprised that Ibstock is so actively pursuing an agenda which runs contrary to the best interests of the town.
"I have requested a meeting with lead cabinet member for East Sussex to ascertain what officers at Lewes have been saying, and I'm supporting the Freedom Of Information requests to ascertain exactly what's been going on.
"If the officers are giving encouraging signals to Ashdown Brickworks it makes a mockery of the whole consultation and waste plan process."
Mr Hollington added:"People must not stop sending in their forms. I think this indicates we have a long fight and I don't think the public will take this lying down."
He also called for more support from both district and county councillors. Although some restrictions, reported in last week's Observer, affect county councillors, the Standards Board clearly distinguishes between predisposition and predetermination.
The document reads "It is not a problem for councillors to be predisposed. Predisposition is where a councillor holds a view in favour of or against an issue, for example a planning permission, but they have an open mind to the merits of the argument before they make the final decision at the council meeting.
"This includes having formed a preliminary view about how they will vote before they attend the meeting, and / or expressing that view publicly. They may even have been elected specifically because of their views on this issue."
The consultation deadline has been extended to Friday, January 15th to accommodate parish council meeting schedules.
To comment on the plans, visit www.eastsussex.gov.uk/haveyoursay (a better link is The ESCC Consultation Portal website)send your comments by post to: Transport and Environment, East Sussex County Council, C4 Waste and Minerals Policy (AP), FREEPOST (LW43), Lewes, BN7 1BR.
For information about protesting, please contact Nick Hollington on 01424 843046.

See the Bexhill Observer website.

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

Rother's Local Development Framework

Rother's Local Development Framework (LDF) proposes a "country avenue" leading to an Ashdown Landfill

Background

In November 2008, Rother District Council published its 'Consultation on Strategy Directions' document, the latest stage in the preparation of new 'Core Strategy' that will guide future development and change in Rother District until 2026.

This is part of the Local Development Framework, a series of documents representing a new planning system throughout England and Wales which is designed to involve local communities in providing a policy framework for planning decisions. The Statement of Community Involvement was produced after consultation in 2006 to provide protocols for public involvement in the process and last year there was a consultation called 'Issues and Options' with a document asking very broad questions to stimulate public debate about how the district should evolve and grow. BALI participated in both these consultations.

Is it important?

The LDF is very important and will replace the Rother District Local PLan. However, it should be remembered that waste disposal is not a subject for local (district) Councils as a county matter. This will be covered in the ESCC Waste and Minerals Development Framework (WMDF) which will replace the ESCC Waste Local Plan (which first included the proposal for a landfill site at Ashdown).

The current stage

The current stage of the LDF is the most important as it deals with the Core Strategy, the key planning document which:

"...will set the overall vision and general distribution of development for the district....identify broad locations for housing and other development needs, including for employment, shopping and community facilities."

BALI made detailed submissions to the 'Consultations on Strategy Directions' in January 2009, supporting much of the general proposal for protection of the environment in the district. It however, vigorously opposed its vision for North and West Bexhill in the section 6.33 - 6.38 (on page 42) of the document, which proposed an extension of a 'Country Avenue' from the Link Road up to and across the A269 Ninfield Road*, lined with developments and "providing the transport infrastructure regarded as essential to the planned landfill use of the Ibstock site"

Our arguments were manifold and you can read an extract of them. The most important were that to propose a road leading to the Ibstock site was premature and beyond RDC's remit as neither transport nor waste are district matters and that the forthcoming ESCC WMDF had not yet decided on waste disposal sites.

*in fact, in 6.38 they envisage the Country Avenue carrying on right down to the A259!