The future of waste management in East Sussex will not be left in the hands of contractors following a crunch meeting.

Members of East Sussex County Council narrowly rejected a proposal by the council's own ruling cabinet to allow the successful bidder of the waste contract to choose where to build future incinerators, recycling centres, and other facilities.

Instead, councillors voted to stick with plans agreed last year that identified six sites, including three in Brighton and Hove, as possible locations for waste facilities.

They also rejected a proposal to remove the possibility of waste burners being built in the county until all health issues had been properly considered.

Despite widespread differences of opinion, all parties agreed time was running out for the county to make up its mind about future waste management with existing landfill sites rapidly running out of space.

The vote means the council's Waste Local Plan will go out to public consultation with the publication of the first Deposit Plan scheduled for October.

It also means there is still no solution to the ongoing deadlock between East Sussex and Brighton and Hove of where to build an "energy from waste" facility or incinerator to deal with waste that cannot be recycled.

Before the meeting, about 30 protesters, including Norman Baker, MP for Lewes, gathered outside Pelham House in Lewes to voice their opposition to the prospect of waste incinerators in parts of East Sussex.

The meeting itself centred on the ruling cabinet's proposal on July 4 to abandon the original site specific plan for choosing waste sites in favour of a criteria-based approach.

This would have left the task of choosing a site to the bidders of the £1 billion contract with each site approved only if it fulfiled certain criteria.

Conservative members described the proposal as a "cop out", allowing the administration to evade a difficult decision. It would lead to uncertainty in many areas on the list of possible sites.

Coun John Barnes said: "It's an abdication of responsibility by the cabinet. A criteria-based scheme is very unlikely to be accepted at a planning inquiry. I also have severe reservations about a scheme which would place many areas of the county under planning blight for years."

Coun Michael Murphy said: "The criteria-based plan is a flawed proposal. This administration has as much backbone as a chocolate eclair."

Coun David Neighbour sought to remove the prospect of waste burners from the Waste Local Plan altogether until all health risks had been investigated. It was a proposal supported by many members.

Coun Ann De Vecchi Hopper, leader of Lewes District Council, said: "There is no scientific evidence that incineration is safe. How we can write incineration into our waste plan is utterly beyond me."

Many argued that there were other "energy from waste" techniques other than incineration.

Despite many councillors from both the Lib Dems and Conservatives admitting they were unhappy about incineration, Coun Neighbour's amendment was rejected. The Conservative amendment calling for a return to a site specific approach was passed by 21 votes to 16. After the meeting there were concerns the two councils were no closer to finding a solution to waste management in the area.

Tony Mowzer, of Lewes district Friends of the Earth, said: "If the two authorities cannot reach agreement, the Government might well step in and take away the £49 million of private finance allocated."