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.

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.