Pebsham back in waste plan firing line

Hopes of creating a country park to reinforce the so-called "green wedge" between urban Bexhill and Hastings could be jeopardised.

Rother planning officer Les Robinson has spelled out the risk in a report to a meeting of the council's regeneration and environment committee.

Last night's special meeting was called so members could agree a response to the second draft of the county's proposed waste local plan.

Mr Robinson says that while Mountfield is still the favoured site for an energy-from-waste incinerator with materials recovery facilities (MRF), a new policy proposes that Pebsham should be a "reserve area of search" for materials recovery and waste transfer.

A "what if?" clause in the second draft raises the question that if materials recovery and waste transfer can't be sited at Mountfield they could be shoe-horned into Pebsham.

Pebsham waste-derived fuel plant operator Reprotech has already warned that it will use the planning process to seek permission for an energy-from-waste incinerator at Pebsham. This followed the House of Lords' rejection of its claim that it bought energy-from-waste rights when it purchased the fuel pellet plant from the county.

Mr Robinson says the county's new line "raises serious concerns."

"It reintroduces the prospect of a major waste facility at Pebsham, which has been fiercely opposed locally. It also blights both locations because of the uncertainty it introduces."

Rother has already lodged a strong objection to the controversial energy-from-waste and materials recovery plan for Mountfield.

"...I would not recommend any relaxation of that objection."

But he says there are two objections to Pebsham being used.

"Firstly, the location of the site itself is very sensitive. It is in the midst of the very important countryside gap between Bexhill and Hastings.

"The use would be incompatible with the Rother District Local Plan allocation of the land as a country park and a recreational asset for both Bexhill and Hastings.

"It would perpetuate the waste activities in this locality that the local councils and communities have long been wanting to see cease.

"It would perpetuate adverse effects on local residential amenities and on already unacceptably congested traffic conditions.

"Secondly, in the event of an MRF at the Mountfield mine site not being supported through the public inquiry process, or otherwise found to be 'impracticable,' one can foresee inevitable pressure by operators for energy-from-waste to be co-located with a materials recovery facility at Pebsham..."

Mr Robinson warns that despite these firm objections, it would be difficult to argue against materials recovery at Pebsham being well-placed to serve Bexhill and Hastings.

All urban areas will have to provide such facilities in future.

"However, it is not accepted that Pebsham is the only or most appropriate location."

He suggests: "One option would be to consider existing or allocated industrial land or premises as is being proposed at Eastbourne, Hailsham or Uckfield..."