Your article "Burner worries persist" (The Argus, March 30) gave a misleading and one-sided impression of our proposed energy recovery facility, and failed to relate it to the key issue - whether Sussex and the UK should carry on dumping waste into landfill sites or recycle it, as we would like to do.

The fact is our facility would save 40,000 tonnes of construction and demolition residue (not packaging waste, as your article inaccurately stated) being dumped into landfill sites each year.

What's more, this residue could be used to generate enough electricity to power 6,000 homes.

This type of modern, efficient, energy-from-waste facility is common in countries such as Germany because it is proven to be a better way of dealing with biodegradable waste than landfill, which has been outlawed there because of high methane and carbon dioxide emissions, which contribute to global warming.

Yet in the UK we continue to dump 80 per cent of our waste into the ground. Why? We don't have to.

It is interesting that members of the public who visited our exhibition at Lancing Parish Hall last year, where we clearly explained our proposals, understood this point.

Of the construction and demolition waste we handle (concrete, metal, wood etc), we are currently able to recycle 74 per cent, significantly above the national average.

Our proposed energy recovery facility would increase this to 98 per cent.

Let me address some of the other points made in your article: Your article said there are fears over noise. The proposed energy recovery facility will operate within the noise limits of the existing recycling plant.

Your article said there are fears over pollution. There is no consistent evidence of adverse health effects from energy recovery facilities, which are regulated by far more stringent emission limits than fossil fuel power stations.

In fact, according to the Environment Agency, more harmful dioxins were emitted in one hour during fireworks during the millennium celebrations than will be produced by all of the UK's incinerators in 120 years. Your article said there are fears over traffic. The new plant will not require any additional truck movements - in fact, it will remove the need for the big articulated trucks taking residue to landfill.

Your article quoted an incorrect source, saying there would be an "excessive level of water usage".

The proposed facility has been designed to minimise water usage and will operate within all the limits set by Southern Water.

Your article said there are "concerns about the appearance and height of the building." With a height of 13 metres at its apex, and surrounded by existing industrial buildings, the new building will not be visible from any roads and houses.

The chimney will be visible but with a height of 16 metres it will not dominate the view from any direction.

Sussex Water Recycling Ltd is a trailblazer in good environmental practice for waste management and has been for ten years, long before recycling became trendy.

It goes without saying that we will operate strictly within the existing noise limits and the existing truck movements limit.

I think most people agree that recycling is better than dumping waste into landfill, especially when the waste can be used to generate electricity, instead of traditional fossil fuels.

So it is a shame our alternative proposals should be the subject of alarmist distortions in truth, which will only prolong the damaging practice of landfill.

-Greg Burton, managing director of Sussex Waste Recycling Ltd