Your Argus
TEXT your pictures, videos and messages to 80360. Start your message with SUPIC or email your tip-offs »
Protesters in legal challenge to burner
2:58pm Thursday 17th July 2008
Comments (1)A legal bid to stop the Newhaven incinerator being built is to be heard in the High Court.
The controversial facility, designed to turn rubbish into electricity, caused outrage among residents, who have complained about pollution and health risks.
Opponents are seeking a judicial review of the planning process that led to the scheme being approved.
The High Court has now granted an urgent hearing for the case filed by Lewes District Friends of the Earth, which will be heard on Monday.
Campaigners say the planning committee that considered the proposal for the incinerator ignored long-term regional recycling targets.
The incinerator is planned for North Quay as part of a joint contract between East Sussex County Council, Brighton and Hove City Council and the waste management company Veolia Environmental Services.
Phil Michaels, solicitor for Friends of the Earth, said: “We’re really pleased this hugely important case is being heard urgently by the High Court. Building the Newhaven incinerator is at complete odds with the region’s long-term recycling targets and will result in waste being burnt that should be recycled.”
Last year, The Argus told the projected cost of the scheme had doubled to £14.5 million. Brighton and Hove City Council and East Sussex County Council have spent almost £2 million between them in legal fees to get the scheme off the ground.
The county council received more than 15,000 letters of objection to the plans. Alison Walters, spokeswoman for Lewes District Friends of the Earth, said: “Local people don’t want this blight on the environment to be built in our back yard. Incineration wastes valuable resources that could be recycled or composted and contributes to climate change through greenhouse gas emissions.
“We hope the High Court quashes planning permission for the incinerator and East Sussex and Brighton and Hove councils focus their efforts on reducing, recycling and composting waste instead.”
Both the councils recycle less than 30% of their household waste and both have a regional target to recycle 60% by 2025.
There was more anger last month when it was revealed Veolia had begun working at the site even though the final legal decision on the judicial review had not been made.
But a spokesman for East Sussex County Council said the facility had “valid planning permission”. He added: “While there is an application under way seeking permission for judicial review of that planning process which challenges its validity, it does not render the planning permission invalid.”
Incineration: environmental vandalism or the best way to reduce landfill? Join the debate below.
In this section
- Jury in Hastings stalker attacks trial told car salesman "terrorised lone women"
- Learn the Brighton Carnival dance
- Sussex councils spend millions on school transport
- Man quizzed over Brighton YMCA blaze
- Sussex swine flu cases mount up
- Portslade schoolboy knocked down at death crash site
- Debt scammers target Sussex
- Paralysed Worthing teenager spends 14th birthday in hospital
- Brighton cabbies 'treated with contempt'
- Sussex disabled boy helped by kind neighbours
Sponsored Links
Local Advertisers
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
Michael Ryan, Shrewsbury says...
11:18am Fri 18 Jul 08
1. Incineration is not "Best Available Technique" and is therefore illegal under European law.
2. The "advice" given by Health Protection Agency & others that the emissions from incinerators pose no significant risk to human health is incorrect as the HPA have admitted to me in writing that they have not examined rates of illness and premature deaths at electoral ward level around any incinerator, which means that they are in no position to offer any advice or opinion. The Surrey Mirror and the Dorking Advertiser have both reported the HPA's failure to examine relevant data & their articles of 22 May 2008 can be seen via links at the home page at www.ukhr.org
3. Neither Dr Dick van Steenis MBBS nor I have been contacted by those pursuing the above legal challenge which suggests that health effects are not thought worthy of consideration. This is an extremely foolish strategy as the Belgian health study "Mispelstraat: Living under the smoke of waste incinerator" led to the Belgian High Court ordering the closure of the Sint Niklaas incinerator in December 2001 -a fact that the UK press seems to have overlooked.
4. East Sussex County Council will have swallowed the same sort of tosh that persuaded Neath Port Talbot Council to have an incinerator at Crymlyn Burrows. Neath Port Talbot are suing two Currie Brown companies for 54 million pounds because they were given inaccurate advice.
5. The Crymlyn Burrows started in 2002 and a cluster of "gastroschisis", a rare birth defect, appeared in Bridgend and was reported in Western Mail in 2004 & 2005.
6. The PM2.5 pollution from Crymlyn Burros incinerator is likely to have been a major factor in the increased suicide rate in both Bridgend and Neath Port Talbot.
7. By now, there will be increased rates of leukaemias and brain tumours in Neath Port Talbot & Bridgend.
8. I live in Bowbrook electoral ward, in the Borough of Shrewsbury & Atcham, where the 2002-6 infant mortality rate is the highest in the Borough at 14.7 per 1,000 live births. There's a hospital incinerator in this ward, but if you go to the wards upwind of mine, ie towards Wales, you'll find that there have been zero infant deaths for at least 14 years 1993-2006 which is my entire record of ONS data at electoral ward level.
9. East Sussex County Council residents should learn from the misfortune of others. My wife & I have buried two of our children and since doing the infant mortality research I've found that Professor Richard Weisler of University of North Carolina, discovered two suicide clusters, one around an asphalt plant and the second one only appeared after a paper mill began to incinerate waste residues instead of discharging into a watercourse.
Kind regards,
Michael Ryan