Competition for Waste Contract revealed as a sham

But it has now been revealed that the two final bidders left in the race, Viridor TIRU and Onyx Aurora, are BOTH linked to the French company Vivendi.

Vivendi has a 24% holding in Viridor TIRU and a majority shareholding in Onyx, the parent company of Onyx Aurora.

Nevertheless, on 24th September East Sussex County Council (Cabinet decision) decided that of these two companies Onyx Aurora offers the best potential outcome for residents in East Sussex and Brighton.

Interestingly, Onyx Aurora does NOT identify Mountfield as a site where they want to build an incinerator.

Council issues new update on the Waste Local plan

Approximately 5,500 members of the public and organizations put in objections, including the Mountfield heritage group.

The council admits in its statement: "Early analysis shows particular concerns with the amendments to the Plan that support the principle of Energy from Waste and specific proposals at Newhaven & Mountfield".

View the full update

Expert says incinerator plan "will be thrown out" 

"I am confident this plan will be thrown out by the Government Inspector at the Local Plan Inquiry," he said.

The meeting was opened by local MP Greg Barker, who said that he totally disagreed with the policy of Conservatives on East Sussex County Council.  He made it clear that he had little hope of getting his colleagues to change their minds, and supported the Mountfield Heritage Group in their strategy of using the planning system to overturn the proposals.  

"It would be extraordinary if an incinerator was allowed in an AONB [Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty] when only last year the government denied the area a bypass on supposed environmental grounds," Greg Barker added. 

Heritage Group gears up for fight

The meeting heard that the Mountfield Heritage Group is gearing up for the fight at the local plan Inquiry next year.  A solicitor, Andrew Pawlick, and an environmental planning consultant, Geoff Smith (both of whom were at the meeting) have been retained, together with a top barrister with expertise in incinerator cases, Thomas Hill.

Rother Council's "pathetic" record on recycling 

Councillor Matt Wilson of Rother District Council was widely heckled by the meeting when he tried to defend Rother's record on recycling, described by one member of the public as "pathetic".   

Waste local plan - Second Deposit Draft now out for consultation

As with the first deposit draft, the public has 6 weeks (until midnight on 14th May 2002) to put forward representations but we are only allowed to comment on the *amendments* since the first draft. 

It is available in all the usual places - public libraries and so on.   The Council's web site has a list of places where the plan can be seen, and it can be seen on the Council's web site itself (from 3rd April).

The main change to the plan as far as Mountfield is concerned is that it now says that if no suitable location for a MRF (Materials Recovery Facility) can be found at Mountfield, then Pebsham will be considered as an alternative site. Please be aware that an MRF is a waste-sorting plant, not an incinerator. The original plan proposed both an incinerator (EfW) and a waste-sorting plant (MRF) at Mountfield; the revised plan still says the same, but with a fall-back option to put the MRF at Pebsham. They are still proposing an incinerator for Mountfield with no option to put it anywhere else.

The Council wants you to use their official form when making your comments. This can be found along with the plan on the Council's website.  In addition, they say that they want you to quote the reference number of the change, plus your database number (you should have had a letter from the council giving you this number). Furthermore, there is no point in commenting on parts of the plan that have not changed - such comments will be officially ignored. (Comments that were made on the original draft will still go forward.)

A spokesperson for the Mountfield Heritage Group commented: "The whole process seems designed to discourage the public from commenting. But do not despair, the Mountfield Heritage Group and its professional advisers will be going through the plan with a fine-tooth comb. We will be emailing our supporters around 22nd April 2002,  suggesting particular points that we hope you will want to comment on.   

"It remains our opinion that this is a very winnable fight for Mountfield. The facts are still that the council is trying to site an incinerator within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (contrary to the Government's policy) and is contravening the Government's Proximity Principle. These points will come out strongly at the Public Inquiry."

"Zero Waste" conference

Conference attendees heard about the implementation of "zero waste" programs around the world.  "Zero waste" means see waste as a resource rather than as a problem.  

Burning waste is not proper recycling as it destroys more resources than it creates.  With a zero waste approach incinerators become expensive white elephants.

A spokesman for the Mountfield Heritage Group said "a few County Councillors attended the morning session Zero Waste Theory but oddly enough they left before the afternoon session Zero Waste Practice.  Perhaps the idea of giving up a whole Saturday was just too much."

Revised timetable for Waste Local Plan

The pubic will then have 6 weeks starting on 3rd April to make their objections to the revised draft plan, but only objections to the changes in the plan will be accepted; if you made an objection before and the thing you objected to hasn't changed then your objection still stands and will be considered at the Public Inquiry.

A spokesman for the Mountfield Heritage Group said that this probably meant that the Public Inquiry would now take place in the Spring of 2003.

The first draft of the Waste Local Plan was published on 1st November 2000.  So it will have taken the Council just over 15 months to get from the first draft to the second draft.  

Cabinet backing down on Mountfield site?

A spokesperson for the Mountfield Heritage group explained: "when you get behind the alphabet soup, an MRF is a Materials Recovery Facility, ie Waste Sorting plant to you and me, and a WTS is a Waste Transfer station, ie a place where they would bring and collect waste for transport elsewhere.  

The spokesman added: "We note that they are not backing down on the plan to build an incinerator at Mountfield.  This appears to be a ruse to try and undermine the objection that siting a waste plant at Mountfield would generate huge amounts of lorry journeys through Battle and the surrounding area.  Does it really make sense to first transport all the waste to Pebsham, sort it, transfer it to more lorries and move it many miles again to the middle of the countryside?"

Council cabinet votes to reject their own officers' recommendation to drop incineration at Mountfield

Once again, the Council cabinet has voted to ignore its own officers' recommendations against incineration and waste sorting at Mountfield.

The Cabinet committee minutes give no reasons for this decision.

A spokesman for the Mountfield Heritage group said "The fact that the Cabinet has repeatedly ignored its own officers' clear advice simply means that the plan is very likely to be rejected when it goes to Public Inquiry.  East Sussex will then be left without a coherent waste plan.  This is the height of irresponsibility by the cabinet."

Council identifies preferred bidders for Household Waste contract

East Sussex County Council cabinet and Brighton and  Hove City Council Joint Waste committee have agreed a shortlist of two preferred bidders for the Household waste disposal contract.  

The two preferred bidders are Viridor-Tiru and Onyx Aurora.

Under the Private Finance Initiative, details of the waste contracts will be kept secret for reasons of "commercial confidentiality."  

The final contract is expected to be awarded in Spring 2002.  

A spokesman for the Mountfield Heritage Group said "Because the council is years behind schedule in preparing its Waste Local Plan, we now have a situation in which the contracts for Household waste will be awarded in the absence of an approved plan for the future.  This is an abuse of the democratic process."

Council officers recommend against incineration at Mountfield - again

Once again, Council officers have recommended against Incineration (EfW) and waste sorting (MRF) at Mountfield.  In a report to the Council cabinet, the officers recommended to "delete Mountfield form EfW/MRF"  

The reason given by the officers was "In response to objections that the the allocation of Mountfield for EfW and MRF is contrary to national guidance on development in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and that the site fails to meet the proximity principle." 

Cabinet ducks consideration of waste plan - officers are instructed to withdraw and rewrite their report

The Council Cabinet meeting of 26th June decided not to consider their Officers' report ("Main issues arising from the First Deposit Waste Local Plan consultation") at this meeting.  Instead, officers were instructed to withdraw and rewrite sections of the report.  

Mysteriously, the reports for the meeting of 26th June, which should have been published prior to the meeting, still had not been posted on the Council's web site by the middle of July.

Council officers recommend against incineration at Mountfield

Council Officers have issued a report for the Cabinet meeting of 26th June recommending that Mountfield be removed from the list of sites for EfW/MRF (Energy from Waste, ie Incineration, and Materials Recovery Facility, ie Waste sorting).   

Officers also recommended raising recycling targets.  

Waste plan timetable chaos

June 2001.  Council Officers have informed the Council that they cannot meet the revised Waste Plan timetable and are unable to give a new timetable.  

The timetable - which they now say they cannot meet - was only set last March, following earlier slippages.   Staff shortages are blamed for the chaos.  

It is now likely that waste contracts will be awarded before the plan has been approved - a situation described by a Mountfield Heritage Group spokesman as "scandalous".   

Waste Forum comes out against incineration

June 2001.  The Waste Forum, set up earlier this year by East Sussex and Brighton and Hove Councils to give them a "person on the street" view of the Waste Plan, has come down against incineration and says the Council is not doing enough about recycling.  More

The Forum scandal

East Sussex and Brighton and Hove Councils have approved the spending of £25,000 of ratepayers' money on a Waste Forum.  Membership of the forum is secret and it will meet and hear evidence in secret.  More

Waste plan timetable slips agai

Once again, the Councils' timetable has slipped.   They are not likely to agree a new draft of the Waste Local Plan until the summer, with the consultation period being 1st November to 21st December 2001.  The Public Inquiry would then be in the summer of 2002.  More

Old mine workings could make incinerator site impossible

It could be impossible to build an incinerator at the proposed Mountfield Mine site due to the state of the abandoned mine workings, it was dramatically revealed just before Christmas 2000.  Read the full detail below.

Letter from Patricia Tomkins, of Photonic Science, Mountfield

Reply from P R Deakin FRICS CEng MIMM FIQ FRPS

Map of the mine, showing area of previous collapse (663k - slow download)

OVER 16,000 COMMENTS ON THE WASTE LOCAL PLAN

An amazing SIXTEEN THOUSAND comments have been received by East Sussex County Council on the Waste Local Plan which was published for consultation between 1st November and 12th December 2000.  More

A council spokesman admitted it might take "months" to enter all the objections into their database.  Another spokesman said that many of the objectors said that the recycling target of 33% by 2011 is too low.

This volume of objections shows how effective our campaign is being.  Very many thanks to all who wrote.

1st September 2000

THE REPROTECH SCANDAL

WASTE PLANT BOSS SAYS "COUNCILLORS ARE MISLEADING VOTERS"

The operator of the waste derived fuel plant at Pebsham has accused councillors of "misleading voters".  

East Sussex County Council has used large amounts of ratepayers' money fighting and losing two court cases over the right to generate electricity at Pebsham.

When Reprotech, the site operator, bought the Pebsham plant from the County Council, the plant would have been virtually worthless (and the council wouldn't have got any money for it) if it had been sold without planning permission.  

So it was sold with the right to generate electricity from waste.

But then the council promptly tried to stop Reprotech doing what they had just paid for.  And when the council lost the expensive court case, they appealed and lost again.  

All this, of course, is ultimately paid for by all of us through our rates.  But it gets worse.

Reprotech is now well advanced with plans for a £12m plant which will make electricity from the waste-derived fuel pellets which they are already producing at the site.  

But because the County Council is still trying to pretend that they haven't given permission for the Pebsham operation, they are ignoring it in their plans.  

So Reprotech could end up importing 120,000 tonnes of waste from outside the county while the council - if they get their way - will be clogging up our roads moving Hastings' and Bexhill's waste up to Mountfield.

This is a scandal which is just emerging.  The first most people knew about it was the article by John Dowling in the Rye and Battle Observer (1st September).  It seems unlikely we've heard the last of it - what other dark secrets are waiting to be revealed about the council?

25th July 2000

WHAT HAPPENED AT THE FULL COUNCIL MEETING ON 25^THJULY

Remember the Grand Old Duke of York?

"He marched them up to the top of the hill ..."

E Sussex County Council has a "Cabinet" consisting of 6 councillors who are supposed to do the detailed work of the Council (we understand they get paid extra for this); the Cabinet comes up with proposals which are then voted on by the full Council at their monthly meetings.  

This system doesn't seem to be working very well at the moment!  The cabinet come up with something, the full Council don't like it and tell the Cabinet to come up with something else.  

The cabinet duly come up with something else, the full Council reject that too, and so we go on.   

This is why the county is about 4 years behind where it should be in developing its Waste Local Plan.

"...and he marched them down again."

At the meeting on 25th July, the full Council told the cabinet to come up with a site-specific plan (a plan that names the actual proposed sites including, in this case, Mountfield), for the whole county.   

This was in response to the cabinet's decision (on 4th July) in favour of a criteria-based plan for the whole county (a criteria-based plan is one that doesn't name specific sites but just tries to list the criteria by which proposed sites will be evaluated).  

"...And when they were up they were up."

When they voted for a criteria-based plan for the whole county on 4th July, the cabinet well knew that it was likely to be rejected by the full council, and they knew, too, that in other counties, criteria-based plans have been heavily criticized by the Government Inspector at Public Inquiry.  

For these reasons, the cabinet's vote was seen by many people as an attempt to get themselves off the hook - by not naming specific sites, they avoid the heat from people who live near a named site.  

"...And when they were down they were down."

The 4th July cabinet meeting was itself a response to the notorious December 1999 meeting of the full Council, vividly reported on at the time by Adam Nicolson.  

The outcome of the December meeting was an instruction to the cabinet to come up with a plan for specific sites (including Mountfield) for the east of the county, and a criteria-based plan for the west of the county.  

25th July 2000

IMPRESSIVE TURN-OUT AND DEMONSTRATION BY RESIDENTS

Heightened awareness of Incinerator dangers

The councillors tried to avoid us by getting there early (see Nadia Keeler's letter in the Sussex Express 28/7/00) but they knew we were there alright!   

Many of us were able to sit in the gallery during the subsequent debate.  

Our campaigning and letter writing has certainly had an effect.  During the meeting the County Councillors spoke about the amount of correspondence they had received, and had obviously been forced to address our concerns about both locating an incinerator in this area, and the hazards of incineration generally. 

Compared to last December it was clear that the Councillors have realised that they have to treat this matter seriously, and that they still need to do more research.

25th July 2000

WHERE DOES ALL THAT LEAVE US NOW?

The situation is now basically the same as it was after December. Mountfield will definitely remain the specific named site on this side of the county, while the dispute still continues between Brighton and East Sussex County Council as to where the named site should be in the west of the county.

It is our understanding that the Deposit Draft Plan and six week Consultation Period (when we all write again with our objections) is still intended for October. But there is now a real chance that this could still be postponed until another later date; we will of course keep everyone informed.

30th June 2000

LETTER-WRITING CAMPAIGN SUCCESS

Over 400 letters received by the Council

30th June 2000

WHAT HAPPENED AT THE CABINET WASTE COUNCIL ON 4^TH JULY?

Good News, Bad News, or No News?

To appreciate the significance of this, bear in mind that the process is that the incinerators are built, owned, and operated by commercial contractors, on a profit-making basis.  It is the commercial operators who will eventually actually apply for planning permission to build an incinerator on a specific site.  If the local waste plan has already identified the site by name, then they are virtually certain to get the planning permission.  But if the waste local plan does not mention specific sites by name, then the planning applicants have to establish that the site meets the criteria at the planning permission stage. 

In voting for a criteria-based plan, the cabinet once again ignored the advice of their own officers, who pointed out that when Surrey County Council tried to do the same thing, their plan was thrown out by the Public Inquiry Inspector who basically said that they were ducking their responsibility by not identifying specific sites in their plan. 

So, if a criteria-based plan were to be put on deposit, there is a very good chance that it would be thrown out at the Public Inquiry.  In any case, there is still a possibility that the full Council meeting on 25th July will vote to put the plan back to being a site-specific one.

Finally, even if the Council does adopt a criteria-based plan and it gets past the inspector, this does not take Mountfield out of the firing line.  In fact it may make things more difficult for Mountfield.  It would just mean that the argument took place at a later stage, when we might in fact find it harder to resist.  Watch this space.

December 1999

READ THE FULL STORY OF THE DECEMBER 1999 FULL COUNCIL MEETING

Article by Adam Nicolson originally published in the Sunday Telegraph magazine of 16 January 2000.