Save Newick Forum

On 11th October 2011 the Cabinet of East Sussex County Council agreed to withdraw their plans for a landraise waste facility next to Newick. Having reached a successful outcome we have subsequently discontinued the hosting of the Save Newick Forum although archive documents are available here for reference, and our Facebook group is still active if you wish to comment on any issues.

Salmon and Trout Association East Sussex Branch by Admin

Archived Post...

Salmon and Trout Association
East Sussex Branch
www.east-sussex-sta.org.uk/branch_responsepiltdown.htm

www.esussex-sta.org.uk
esussex.sata@btinternet.com

Cockerswood House
Stone Hill
Horam
East Sussex
TN21 0JN

(Tel.: 01435 813492)(Mobile: 07972 801914)(e.mail: rodyuill@cockerswood.co.uk)

08/01/2009.

Mr. I. Blake
Transport and Environment
East Sussex County Council
C4 Waste and Minerals Policy (AP)
Freepost (LW43)
Lewes
BN7 1BR

Dear Mr. Blake,

Re: East Sussex County Council Waste & Minerals Care Strategy Consultation, Land disposal site to the east of Gold Bridge and south of the A272 between Newick and Piltdown: Policy CS6.

I am writing on behalf of the 450 members of East Sussex Branch of the Salmon and Trout Association to object to the planning application submitted by East Sussex County Council, for the creation of a Land Raise Tip in the Grisling Common Area between Piltdown and Newick. The reasons for our objections are as follows:

1) Waste Storage: Disposal of waste to land is the least preferable of all the waste storage options. Re-use, recycling, composting and energy generation from waste must be maximised. Further dumping of waste on land sites is against current recommendations for waste disposal. Commercial waste producers must be required to invest in recycling such as the reuse of demolition waste and wood waste energy production. Dumping on land is the easy option and discourages investment in other waste processing. Restricting waste disposal on land sites will encourage investigation into more innovative and environmentally safer recycling options. Current EU policy is that landfill (is the term “Landraise” an invention to circumvent the policy on Landfill?) should be the last resort and given the pressure to reduce such schemes, increase recycling and thereby protect our environment.
The Lewes Local Plan, policies ST13 and ST30 require potentially polluting activities to be situated in an appropriate location, have an acceptable impact and no negative effects on health or the natural environment. The ESCC proposals would appear to be in direct contradiction of these policies. The Lewes Local Plan, policy ST14 also states “Some development proposals can give rise to unacceptable risk of pollution, such as landfill/Land Raise”. Again it would appear that there is little by way of joined-up thinking between the two authorities.

2) Transportation: East Sussex County Council’s own documentation states that traffic and access are important considerations. None of the proposed sites are satisfactorily served by the road network and in most of the sites there are no rail links at all.
This site is some way from the main areas of waste creation, namely the coastal towns and the inevitable increase in HGV traffic would adversely affect local communities and road safety.

3) Brownfield Sites: East Sussex County Council’s Policy states that priority should be given to the use of brownfield sites, land adjoining brownfield sites and former industrial sites for locating Land Rise Waste Dumps. All of the proposed sites fail to satisfy this test.

4) Communities: It is important that these sites are an acceptable distance from the nearest residential buildings and schools and that the visual impact is acceptable. The proposed locality is relatively flat with only gentle undulation. The impact of a 30 metre high artificial hill would be disastrous and would interrupt the views from footpaths towards the South Downs and would be easily seen from the Downs.
There is also likely to be interference to public rights of way including the Wealden Walk.
The proposals will be detrimental to the local community with a blight of the area with pollution from noise, dust, leachate and much more additional heavy traffic on a stretch of the A272, already notorious for accidents.

5) Leachate: All of the proposed sites will have an effect on water catchments for the reservoirs at Arlington and Barcombe. No liners are completely safe and water contamination is a potential problem for the future.
The proposed Land Raise is in close proximity to the River Ouse, one of the most important spawning streams for sea trout within the Sussex Ouse Catchment. The scheme will affect it adversely, either by a direct or indirect discharge of leachate generated by the site, through failure either of on-site leachate management, accidental spillage or the integrity of the Land Raise itself. The consequences of contamination on the nearby River Ouse would be disastrous to this already fragile aquatic environment as well as affecting water supplies.

6) Environment and Pollution: 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. The site is a naturalised wildlife environment, which is home to a variety of species and which as a consequence of human activity is constantly under pressure. The proximity of a hazardous waste site will heighten that threat.
Already heavy effluent loads within the Ouse catchment make this latest application even more worrying, especially since ultimately, the Ouse provides one of the largest sources of fresh drinking water in Sussex. Since the recent Environment Agency’s Catchment Area Management System (Cams) review confirms that there are no other sustainable sources available for further abstraction, the need to protect the Ouse from the possibility of further pollution is absolutely critical
As yet, as far as I am aware, No qualitative or quantitative data relating to water quality in the Sussex Ouse, or to its ecological characteristics have been presented. This must be regarded as a highly significant omission given the proximity of this proposed development to the river, and the river’s ecological importance

For all the arguments given above I trust that ESCC will revise their thinking on this ill-conceived proposal.

Yours sincerely,

Dr. R. G. Yuill
Branch Chairman

Cc: N. Soames MP
C. Hendry MP
N. Baker MP
N. Pringle SOCS
J. E. St.Pierre SOCS
P. Knight S&TA
M. Lloyd The Angling Trust
L Holdcroft PAAL

Disclaimer

This is an archive document of comments posted on our web site maintained for reference.
We do not necessarily support or endorse the comments of the author.