BALI Chairman Newsletter - March 2009 (1)

For me, these past six months as Chairman of BALI have been busy, yet the ordinary Bexhillian could be forgiven for thinking that not much has happened regarding the proposed landfill at Ibstock's Ashdown Brickworks. This is implied because nothing much has been "in the news".
One should remember at these times, and I am always conscious of, the facts that simply don't go away. These are as follows:

1. the Ashdown quarries are large holes in the ground; there are very few of those in East Sussex. They are of huge commercial value.
2. The tendency has been, and still largely is, to use such holes for the landfilling of waste. (Those not so used are Eden-project type exceptions, often because they are 'wrong' for such uses, being chalk pits and / or with risk to ground water.
3. Ibstock is a company which has tended to use its excavated quarries mostly for landfill. It's probably the best and easiest way to bring profit to their shareholders.
4. Landfill in East Sussex is fast running out, with its only two sites left, Beddingham and Pebsham, which are shortly to close.
5. Recycling locally has been greatly increased but 60% of East Sussex waste is still disposed of by landfill.
6. The incinerator at Newhaven will probably not be able to cope with all of East Sussex's waste and certainly not if London waste is sent here as is envisaged in the South East Plan.
7. (Probably most importantly) The Ashdown site has been allocated for the landfilling of waste in the ESCC Waste Local Plan. It is the only such site allocated for landfill in East Sussex.

Ashdown Brickworks site pitcured left:
top) looking west and
below) looking east.

Since the ESCC Waste Local Plan allocated Ashdown for landfill in a sense we have been lucky. Firstly, that the proposal to use Ashdown for landfill hit the time of the 'green revolution' where landfill started to be and is increasingly regarded as the least acceptable way of disposing of waste, largely because of its methane emissions. So there has been a great emphasis both on recycling, which has increased greatly, and on incineration and other means of waste disposal.

Secondly, almost as soon as the Waste Local Plan was passed in February 2006 it became outmoded and work began on a new 'Waste and Minerals Development Framework' for East Sussex, allowing a renewed consideration of the disposal of waste in the county and a fresh selection of suitable sites - though not entirely fresh, as I have recently found out. This process has ground on for several years now and is still incomplete.
Finally, the Link Road has taken much more time than expected to be approved and is, even as I write, still not 100% certain to be built. The biggest disadvantage of the Ashdown Site, as recognised by the Waste Local Plan Inspector, was/ is the transport access and there have not been the developments in the transport infrastructure that were envisaged as necessary at the time of the Waste Local Plan.
But things being slow, or us being so far lucky, does not mean that the prospect of an Ashdown landfill has receded one iota and many times over the past six months I have been reminded that a landfill at Ashdown is still very much in the minds of those who have the power to effect it.

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!

Landfill in West Sussex: Landmark decision - Ibstock seeks planning permission for a landfill at Laybrook

West Sussex, like East Sussex is, in principle, against accepting London waste or creating further landfill sites, even though its landfill sites are fast running out of space. It too is preparing a Waste and Mineral Development Framework (WMDF). They too are under pressure to create further landfill sites and, unlike East Sussex, have a considerable amount of void-space (holes in the ground). Their WMDF is at a further stage than East Sussex' and it should be noted that sites previously rejected have been brought back into consideration.

Apart from the comparison it could be that West Sussex may provide part of the solution for East Sussex waste and/ or vice versa. Although there are clearly some transport restraints, waste disposal often takes place out of county and some suspect there may be working understandings between the two counties.

In 2007 West Sussex County Council (WSCC) were considering no less than six possible sites for their WMDF landfill. These were then reduced to three, all in Horsham district, as follows:

• Brockhurst Wood extension: Approved March 2008
• Langhurstwood quarry: Still under consideration
• Laybrook Brickworks(Ibstock): Planning Application still under consideration

In addition to this, Veolia applied in 2007-08 for a landfill at Rock Common Quarry near Storrington, proposing it to be the largest in the South East. There was much opposition from local residents and the local action group Chanctonbury Landfill Action Group (CLAG). The Environment Agency opposed the application as representing 'a significant threat to groundwater quality'. The local MP, Nick Herbert, Shadow Secretary for the Environment was a leading light in the campaign against the application even addressing the WSCC Planning Committee. In any case WSCC officers recommended refusal of the application as 'not in the long-term public interest' and it was duly refused in January 2009.

Laybrook Brickworks (Thakeham)

Cory Environmental, the waste contractor, submitted its planning application on 23rd January 2009 after consulting (mainly 'exhibitions') with the local residents and the local action group: Thakeham Village Action (TVA). This has now been validated by WSCC and an eight week public consultation is now taking place.

What is already apparent is that Nick Herbert MP has again taken up the cudgel to support the local residents. In fact he is calling for an end to all landfill of non-inert waste. let's hope our local MP will be of similarly heroic stature if it ever comes to an application for landfill at Ashdown!

We could well regard Laybrook as a test case for Ashdown, a similar quarry. TVA are in a similar situation to BALI and we should make contact with them.