A pressure group wants two men heading a forum examining waste plans to be replaced because of their links to the waste industry and local authorities.

Anti-incinerator pressure group Defenders of the Ouse Valley and Estuary (Dove) made the call as it gave evidence at the third of four scheduled meetings of the 21-member body.

An independent forum to examine the waste plans was promised last September when East Sussex County Council voted to back the proposals in the face of strident public opposition.

The council, together with Brighton and Hove City Council, wants to build two burners, at North Quay, Newhaven, and Mountfield Mine, near Robertsbridge.

Tom Crossett, convener of the forum examining the proposals, is a former head of the Brighton-based National Society for Clean Air and Environmental Protection (NSCA), which supports incineration in some circumstances as the best environmental option.

He is still one of the organisation's vice-presidents and sits on the advisory group of an NSCA project studying public attitudes to incinerators.

A report on the project, entitled The Public Acceptability of Incineration, is due to be published in June.

The £120,000 project has received £9,000 from the county council. Most of the money has come from waste companies via the landfill tax, including a contribution from Sita, which is bidding to build and operate the burners proposed in East Sussex.

The second man whose role has been criticised by Dove is forum secretary Tony Duc, who was an officer at East Sussex County Council for 29 years until 1997.

Joelle van Tinteren, who chairs Dove, said: "As far as we can see it is not possible to see how that forum can be independent.

"We certainly can't view them as totally independent and we wonder how it is possible to be so. It just calls into question the validity of the whole thing, there is nothing personal about it."

The one-off forum's 21 members were chosen at random. It has already met to take evidence three times, all in private, and will hold one more meeting before reporting its findings.

The report does not form part of the statutory process the councils must go through as they draw-up the waste plans.

Mr Crossett said neither he or Mr Duc would influence the forum's findings and both councils had promised to publish the report in full.

He said the forum was independent and it would be difficult to advise its members on the waste industry and the issues involved without having background knowledge of the subject.

He said: "I believe under these circumstances it certainly can be independent. The proof of the pudding will be if you detect signs of manipulation in the report. If somebody finds evidence of that I would be unhappy."