| News release, 29 November, 2007 | |
INQUIRY HALTED AS 'SECRET' DEAL DETAILS PUBLISHED | |
 | THE PUBLIC Inquiry into plans to built a waste incinerator at Newhaven has been halted - to allow Brighton and Hove and East Sussex councils to publish 'secret' papers relating to the deal. Press reports last month suggested that the councils had agreed to extend the proposed contract with the incinerator's operator Veolia to help the firm out financially - but that they had agreed to keep councillors and members of the public in the dark. |
And yesterday the Newhaven inquiry was dramatically halted when the inquiry's adjudicator agreed it needed time to allow the councils concerned to publish the documents - and for all parties to fully digest the information. The adjournment - which could mean the hearing doesn't resume until after Christmas - has delayed the final day of evidence, which was due to be given by local MEP Caroline Lucas. The proposals would be an environmental and financial disaster for Sussex - and could breach EU law, Dr Lucas was due to tell the inquiry. The European Commission has already launched an official investigation into the matter after Dr Lucas lodged an official complaint in September. Dr Lucas, Green MEP for South-East England, has argued that the government should block the burner as it would increase pollution, traffic and greenhouse gas emissions, have an adverse impact on the adjacent South Downs Area of Natural Beauty and breach planning guidance and the agreed local plan. Further, it would tie Brighton and Hove and East Sussex councils into a long-term contract to burn waste rather than re-use or recycle it - and, perhaps worst, it will cost the councils' tax-payers millions to ensure its financial viability. Speaking before her evidence was presented to the public inquiry, Dr Lucas said: "This scheme would be nothing less than an environmental and financial disaster for local people - and I hope this inquiry, which will focus on some of the planning issues, will prompt councillors to drop their support for the proposal. "It will represent a departure from the local development plan and, I fear, breach EU planning law in a number of ways: in particular a secret agreement by the councils concerned to extend the contract between the incinerator's private operator Veolia run counter to laws relating to transparency in financial dealings with public money. "The deal represents an unlawful use of state aid too, and may place the whole scheme on the wrong side of laws governing Government rescue packages for firms facing difficulty." Dr Lucas added: "We are drowning in a sea of waste and if we are to tackle it we must adopt strategies to cut the amount of waste we produce in the first place rather than the defeatist 'predict and provide' approach embodied in the decision to build this incinerator. "There would simply be no need to incinerate waste at all if the Government had the commitment and courage to adopt a 'zero waste strategy' such as that employed successfully in Canada and parts of Australia."
For more information please contact Melissa on 020 7407 9935 or at carolinepress@greenmeps.org.uk | |
Re: Planning application LW/462/CM(EIA) - Municipal Waste Incinerator at North
Quay, Newhaven. 05 March 2007
Dear Secretary of State
Following the recent approval of this planning application by East Sussex
County Council (ESCC) I am writing to ask you to call-in this decision for
examination at a Public Inquiry.
ESCC have already advertised this application as a departure from local
development plans because of its adverse visual impact on its adjacent Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and the loss of areas for the storage and
processing of crushed rock and marine aggregates at North Quay.
I would further add to these concerns;
· incinerators have been shown to pollute surrounding areas with
cocktails of toxic chemicals that have been linked to cancer, heart disease,
respiratory problems, immune system defects, increased allergies and birth
defects. (1)
· the construction and operation of an incinerator will have a massive
environmental impact on the local community, and will tie Brighton and Hove
and East Sussex councils into a long-term contract to burn waste – rather than
improve recycling rates.
· Additionally, reports have shown that electricity-only (such as that
proposed at Newhaven) emit 33% more fossil CO2 than gas-fired stations (2)
· 30% of household waste is food. This should be composted; yet the
contract allows this to be incinerated.
· No consideration of the impact of the proposal on areas of special
environmental protection is provided in the context of alternative means of
delivering a suitable waste management solution.
· North Quay Road and North Way junction show traffic impacts beyond
the 5% threshold limit for traffic increases as a result of a permitted
development.
· The proposal conflicts with the Council's planning policies. Policy
NH 24 of the Local Plan states that planning permission will only be granted
for port-related uses.
· The proposal does not contribute to sustainable development, which
PPS 1 suggests planning authorities should promote through urban regeneration
”to improve the well being of communities, improve facilities, promote high
quality and safe development and create new opportunities for people living in
those communities”.
· The application does not show that there is an overriding need to be
located at North Quay, Newhaven in preference to a site outside the flood
plain. This is in breach of PPG25.
· The proportion of municipal waste to be burned (54%) is too large and
will prevent higher recycling and composting levels in the future. This is
counter to the need to move waste up the waste hierarchy as required by PPS10.
· The incinerator would lead to an unacceptable adverse impact on the
adjoining Sussex Downs AONB and South Downs National Park and their settings,
which has not been given sufficient consideration and cannot be mitigated.
· Flood risk to surrounding users of land is worsened as a result of
the proposal
In my view the proposal conflicts with national policies on important matters
and will have significant effects beyond the immediate locality.
Additionally the issue is of demonstrable public controversy – over 16,000
letters of objection have been submitted.
I am fundamentally opposed to the principal of burning – rather than
recycling, reusing and reducing - our waste. There is no need to incinerate
waste at all if we improve recycling rates and cut waste by adopting the
principles of a ‘zero-waste strategy', such as that employed successfully in
Canada and parts of Australia .
Yours sincerely
Dr Caroline Lucas
Suite 58 The Hop Exchange
24 Southwark Street
London SE1 1TY
Phone: 02074076281 Fax: 02072340183
(1) See Table 1, ‘Incineration & Health Issues’, Friends of the Earth
http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefings/incineration_health_issues.pdf
(2) See ‘Incineration & climate change’, Friends of the Earth
http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefings/dirty_truths.pdf
