Campaigners fighting plans for the Newhaven incinerator have been given a boost at the High Court.

Local residents say that the Environment Agency acted unlawfully in granting a Pollution Prevention and Control permit to Portslade-based Veolia for a large-scale "energy recovery facility" at North Quay.

It will receive and burn waste from homes across East Sussex and Brighton and Hove and process 210,000 tonnes of refuse annually - but campaigners insist it will be an eyesore and have a massive impact on the environment and people's health.

Today Mr Justice Ouseley stopped short of giving protesters permission to seek judicial review but ruled that the matter should be decided at a much fuller hearing, which is likely to take place in October.

However he threw out an application brought against the Department for Local Government and the Environment in which it was argued that Secretary of State Hazel Blears should have herself looked at a planning application rather than leaving it to East Sussex County Council.

The council granted planning permission in February this year but laid down a number of provisions that Veolia must fulfil, including funding landscaping and confining the bulk of refuse lorries to the A26.

Belinda Kiely, of Stanley Road, Peacehaven, argued that the development was of such importance, it should have been given central government scrutiny.

However Mr Justice Ouseley dismissed her judicial review challenge, and ordered the mother-of-two to pay more than £8,000 in costs. He also quashed an injunction she had obtained against East Sussex County Council.

The second case had been pursued by Nicola Day, of Murray Avenue, Newhaven, who is opposed to the North Quay project, which she says will be a blot on the local landscape and pose a risk to health.

She argued that Environment Agency adverts did not say the site was going to be the subject of a national environmental impact assessment which meant only a fraction of the number of objectors complained.

Following legal arguments, Mr Justice Ouseley also said that another challenge bought by Mrs Kiely - which is broadly similar to Mrs Day's - could be "joined" to that case. However he refused Mrs Kiely permission to seek judicial review.

Mrs Kiely says the building of the energy recovery facility is a breach of a number of her human rights, including her right to a private life, and argues the site does not use the most efficient techniques available as it favours air-based cooling systems rather than water-based.

It is her case it will also be a danger to public health, and she says she lost twin babies when she lived next to a similar project in London.

Barristers for the Environment Agency deny that the decision taken was unlawful, Kassie Smith arguing that there would be "no significant pollution" or "harm to human health" as a result of the development.

He added that "all appropriate measures" would be taken against pollution, and said the Environment Agency's decision had been set out in a "full and detailed" document.

Additionally, Veolia insist the proposed centre is perfectly safe and will comply with strict guidelines.