• Save Newick
• Objections
• Comments
• Save Newick Forum
• Join us on Facebook

SaveNewick.com aims to gather information relating to the proposals to locate a land raise waste facility next to Newick. We want to help local residents and businesses to learn more about the issues, and discuss them online, so that they can offer a valid defence to the council’s proposals. Our objective is to stop a waste facility being built next to Newick.

The Doorstep Challenge: In the run up to the general election the political parties will be asking for our votes. When they knock on your door we want you to ask them: “What are you doing to Save Newick?”

Print out our factsheet and stick it to the back of your front door so that when they call at your home you are ready to challenge them. If we can get as many people as possible to put our politicians on the spot it will become very clear to them that it should be their top priority to stop this waste site from ever being built.

Comments

Newick Parish Council
www.newick.net/...

• The choice of a preferred site on the A272 to the east of Newick, whatever its precise size and positioning, is misguided. (source: letter dated 1-Dec-09)
• With soil composition a mixture of sand and clay, it would be extremely expensive or impossible to prevent contamination from the tip into the Ouse. (source: list of objections)
• Whilst it is recognised to be unlikely that lorries would come from London via Newick, there is a much greater chance that any landfill/landrise in the area would receive waste from West Sussex, especially as they are currently receiving waste from our County. It would be intolerable for such lorries to regularly pass through Newick and indeed it is unlikely that other towns on the route like Haywards Heath would be keen either. (source: letter dated 1-Dec-09)

Newick Health Centre: Dr P H Ashby, Dr J V Elliot, Dr Y Galan, Dr J Lawrence, Dr Z Nunn

• We are particularly concerned about the risk to health of leachate from the proposed landfill site that will inevitably filter down to the river on the western edge of the proposed site, contaminate the water course, and eventually enter the drinking water supply at Barcombe reservoir. (source: letter dated 22-Dec-09)

Piltdown Action Against Landfill / Landraise
piltdownaal.wordpress.com

• Many people have not been informed by the local authority and are completely unaware of this possible development and those that are, are not necessarily aware of its precise location, the extent and type of development or the likely impact on the community. (source: information)

Campaign for the Protection of Rural Sussex
www.cpresussex.org.uk

• The provision of new landfill sites and waste incineration plants should be strictly limited, and dependent on the relevant local authorities having achieved demanding targets for waste reduction and recycling. Provision should happen only after waste disposal options further up the waste hierarchy have been exploited. Landfilling and incineration should no longer be viewed as the acceptable default option where recycling ventures have failed. (source: waste policy position statement)
• CPRE is objecting strenuously to the proposals, not only because the proposed ‘areas of search’ for a site or sites will destroy greenfields and farmland, but because NONE of the areas will in CPRE’s opinion yield a site which is not fundamentally flawed on detailed environmental grounds. (source: www.cpresussex.org.uk)
• The four more northerly search areas share one feature apart from proximity to main roads - they would all affect areas of Ancient Woodland, directly or indirectly. While each also has other planning flaws, the protection of Ancient Woodland was greatly strengthened in 2005, and CPRE believes that none of the areas would be acceptable for this reason alone. (source: www.cpresussex.org.uk)

No Landraise
www.no-landraise.org

• Disposal of waste to land is the least preferable of all of the waste disposal options in the waste hierarchy. Reuse, recycling, composting and energy from waste must be maximised. The provision for further waste dumps to land goes against all current recommendations for the disposal of waste. If there is a problem with commercial waste then the waste operators must invest in recycling facilities such as reusing demolition waste and waste wood energy systems. Dumping waste is an easier option and would discourage investment in other waste processing. Restricting waste disposal sites encourages innovation and development of new environmentally safe means of waste recycling.
• There are limited former mineral workings which could be utilised for disposal of sorted commercial and construction waste and these should provide sufficient capacity and time to allow for the change to complete reuse of the waste stream material.

Vale of Sussex Society
www.valeofsussexsociety.org

• We oppose, as a matter of principle, the construction of any type of waste disposal facility on a greenfield site. (source: VOSS Policy)
• Domestic, commercial and industrial waste should ideally be disposed of in disused mineral workings. Improved road access to the Ashdown Brickwork site near Bexhill should be constructed as a matter of top priority, so that this site can soon play a major role in the County’s waste disposal plans. (source: VOSS Policy)
• East Sussex County Council should, as a matter of urgency, enter into negotiations with adjacent County Councils about the possibility of hiring disused mineral sites in those counties for the disposal of waste originating in East Sussex. (source: VOSS Policy)

Norman Baker MP, Lewes Liberal Democrats
www.normanbaker.org.uk

• The county council has completely failed, in my judgement, to follow the waste hierarchy. The county has put very little emphasis on reducing waste, or reusing waste through schemes such as materials exchange. The county council have stopped councils like Lewes recycling more than 27%, while Lewes District Council believe they could reach a level as high 60% if these limits were removed. Technology such as mechanical separation and anaerobic digestion barely feature. (source: Save Newick on Facebook)
• Thirdly this proposed landraise site will be as wide as 60 acres and as high as 80ft, this will create a significant blot on the Sussex countryside. Landraise is a 15th century solution to a 21st century problem. (source: Save Newick on Facebook)
• There are in addition some specific problems relating to the site just east of Newick, including the volume of lorries that would travel up from Brighton, and the potential for leachate into the river Ouse. I am calling, in the strongest possible terms for East Sussex County Council to completely rethink their waste strategy, and come up with one that is fit for the 21st century. (source: Save Newick on Facebook)

Jason Sugarman, Lewes Conservative Candidate
www.jasonsugarman.org.uk

• I am completely against the idea of land raise sites. We need to find alternative workable solutions that can be used in the long term. (source: Press Release 2-Feb-2010)
• I will do everything in my power to prevent the County Council from using outdated and environmentally unfriendly forms of waste disposal. (source: Press Release 2-Feb-2010)

The National Trust
www.nationaltrust.org.uk

• The National Trust is extremely concerned about the identification of two of the search areas. The Newick Area of Search lies close to our property at Sheffield Park. We believe the Newick area is unsuitable for waste disposal in principle due to its relatively remote location from the source of the majority of the county's waste arisings and the capacity of the road network in the area. Whilst all other search areas are located on the strategic road network, Newick is located on the A272. We believe the traffic impact of the development of a strategic waste disposal site in this area would have an adverse impact on the settlements along the A272, in particular Newick and Heathfield. In addition it is likely there would be significant increases in traffic on the A275 to the north and south, past Sheffield Park Garden. (source: Jane Arnott, National Trust, Land Use Planning Adviser)
• We have given further consideration to Policy CS6 and the proposed Area of Search at Newick, particularly in relation to our property at Sheffield Park Garden. This important visitor attraction (with some 200,000 visitors per year) is a Grade 1 Registered Park and Garden of Historic Interest lying within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. We believe the proposal for a land raising facility at Newick could have a severe detrimental environmental effect on the property in terms of odours and in terms of noise from both operations at the site and HGV traffic. The proposal would be likely to adversely affect the setting of, and tranquillity of, the Garden as well as public enjoyment of the surrounding estate. We have serious doubts that the site would be suitable in terms of the strict environmental criteria as set out in PPS10 (Annex E) and Policy W17 of the South East Plan. (source: Jane Arnott, National Trust, Land Use Planning Adviser)

Salmon and Trout Association
www.east-sussex-sta.org.uk

• The proposal will threaten the ecology and wildlife of a river system which has now gained Salmonid designation under the terms of the European Union Freshwater Fisheries Directive, demanding much higher standards of water quality. The Ouse is recognised as an important salmonid fishery, unique in respect of the rapid maturation to unusually heavy weights of its sea trout population. In addition it is home to indigenous brown trout and bullheads, the latter being a species already recognised internationally as being under threat. (source: letter from East Sussex Branch)

Chailey Parish Council
www.chailey.org

• The Newick/Piltdown site is not close to the areas where most of the waste is generated and so consideration of the Newick/Piltdown location conflicts with the general aim of minimising the distance for transportation of waste away from the main settlements along the coastal strip, namely Brighton & Hove, Eastbourne, Bexhill and Hastings. (source: letter dated 11-Jan-10)
• Chailey Parish Council supports the preferred approach of seeking sites on previously developed land and avoiding greenfield sites (source: letter dated 11-Jan-10)
• If ESCC is minded to approve the Newick/Piltdown site (against the parish council’s strong objection) then ESCC Highways should be asked to review weight bearing capacity of ‘A’ roads and feeder roads in the parish. (source: letter dated 11-Jan-10)
• There is a high frequency of emergency ambulance movements along the A272 serving the PRH in Haywards Heath - slow moving waste trucks would hinder their progress. (source: letter dated 11-Jan-10)
• Sections of the A272 ands A275 run alongside or though a SSSI (Chailey Common LNR). The amenity of residents and any adverse environmental impacts of proposed facilities should be carefully assessed. In policy formulation care to safeguard sensitive habitats should not just be restricted to areas designated as AONB or National Park. (source: letter dated 11-Jan-10)

Chiddingly Parish Council
www.chiddingly.gov.uk

• Chiddingly Parish Council has concerns that while the context takes into consideration policies and strategies from ESCC and BHCC it does not give due consideration to the local policies, derived from national and regional guidelines, that are the primary tools used by Wealden District Council (WDC) to maintain its area. WDC has specific policies relating to the development of the Countryside, as stated within both their Local Plan and Non Statutory Local plans, that the preferred options for landraise would not comply with. As a result the Parish Council would have to question the very “context” under which this strategy has been devised. (source: consultation responses)
• Chiddingly Parish Council would support policy CS4 with one amendment. As over 60% of the County has some form of Environmental constraint placed upon it, e.g. AONB, the search area for these sites is severely compromised. The Parish Council would like to see the inclusion of the AONB’s as search areas where they are adjacent to built-up areas and are serviced by good road networks. This would be on the condition that any strategic waste recovery facility would be allowed where there was no demonstrable harm to the environment and any development and any development could be justified on grounds of sustainability. (source: consultation responses)
• Chiddingly Parish Council request that the number of proposed sites is calculated and the area of search is broadened thereby reducing the concentration of recycling facilities within the Low Weald area. (source: consultation responses)
• The geology of the area while considered suitable in the document is in fact according to British Geological Survey map (1:50,000) fissured clay with a geological fault running east to west across the area of search. The depth of the clay is 2-3 metres deep and as such is not considered to be suitable for the prevention of percolation of leachate, which could damage the local water supply. (source: consultation responses)
• No Scientific explanation has been given as to why existing quarries cannot be given consideration. It is assumed that these located in Bramber, Bexhill and Glynde have suitable road systems already in place to support previous activities and all are a suitable distance from the main sources of waste arisings. (source: consultation responses)

Wealden District Council
www.wealden.gov.uk

• Wealden District Council objects strongly to any landraise within the Wealden District owing to the high environmental quality of the whole area considering it to be unacceptable in principle when a number of alternative disposal methods are available. (source: Plan Making Consultation Response)
• Wealden District Council believes that there is a need to promote more strongly the use of rail for the transportation of minerals and waste and strongly supports the County Council's resistance to importing and handling waste from London. (source: Plan Making Consultation Response)
• Large quantities of waste will need to be transported by HGV over inadequate roads where there are already significant delays and a high number of road accidents. Generally waste should be treated as near as possible to where it is produced in the interests of sustainability and controlling carbon emissions. (source: Plan Making Consultation Response)
• It will be essential that projections on future waste arisings are accurate, and it is proposed that County be asked to validate current projections. (source: Plan Making Consultation Response)
• Use of mineral voids should be pursued before considering landraise. (source: Plan Making Consultation Response)

Your Objections

You can also comment on these issues on the Save Newick Forum to let everyone know which aspects concern you most, expand our knowledge and provide additional information for others to read. For a quick overview of our concerns about this proposal please see our list of objections.

 

http://www.savenewick.com/comments.php
Last updated: Tuesday, 6th April 2010

© 2010-2010