 |
Salmon & Trout Association Game anglers for fish, people, the environment EAST SUSSEX BRANCH |
|
|
|
| Join S&TA Today |
|
08/01/2009.
Mr.
I. Blake 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.
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. 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.
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.
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. 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
Cc: N. Soames MP
|
|