Leave Pebsham out of waste plans - Rother

With just hours before the deadline for comments on the county's second deposit of the waste local plan, Rother's cabinet agreed its objections.

The statutory six weeks consultation period finished on Tuesday during which only representations relating to the changes from the first deposit could be made. Representations made previously to the first deposit remain and will go forward to a public inquiry later in the year.

The cabinet met for special session following a May 2 meeting of the regeneration and environment committee to agree a response to the second deposit.

Rother planning officer Les Robinson told the cabinet that while Mountfield was still the favoured site, the second deposit suggests Pebsham should be included as a site for a materials recovery facility and waste transfer site if facilities could not be developed at Mountfield.

He said the county's new line "reintroduces the prospect of a major waste facility at Pebsham which has been fiercely opposed in the past. It also blights both locations because of the uncertainty it introduces."

He added the council had already lodged a strong objection to the proposed EfW/MRF at Mountfield.

The Pebsham objections include that the site is in the important countryside gap between Bexhill and Hastings and could jeopardise the proposed country park.

It would also perpetuate the waste activities in the area which local councils and communities have long been waiting to see cease. And it would perpetuate adverse effects of residential amenities and already unacceptably congested traffic conditions.

Mr Robinson added an MRF anywhere in Bexhill was going to be a problem because of the road system. "Providing the infrastructure would make facilities that much more expensive," he said.

Cllr Peter Fairhurst said the objections made were "too politely" put and needed to be a lot stronger. "Pebsham has had this problem for a long time and for so many times now we have been told this is going to finish. I believe the county's feeling is let's stick it all at Pebsham."

Cllr Martin Kenward said: "I cannot believe the county council cannot look at the site at Mountfield and know whether or not it would fit both the EfW and MRF onto the site. It is just a ploy and they have got it at the back of their minds to put it at Pebsham. Recently I have no faith in the county council planning system."

Mr Robinson said he believed the county was not confident that the site at Mountfield would be agreed and at least it had a fall-back already in this area.

"We advocate an EfW site in the west or central part of the county and a series of MRFs networked across the country to feed into that and other landfill sites.

"We accept there should be one here, but not at Pebsham. We urge a more thorough study to look at other industrial land sites and not just fall back on Pebsham. If they can get the combined site at Mountfield there would be no need for one at Pebsham."