PLANS for waste incinerator sites in Sussex are to be discussed in secret, it was revealed today.
Campaigners have demanded that the "hit-list" being drawn up is made
public.
Labour councillors in Adur are furious that talks on the future of the sites are being held behind closed doors by Tory-controlled West Sussex County Council.
They say any plans for incinerators should be made public so
residents can have their say from the start.
The councillors are especially concerned about the possibility of an incinerator at Halewick Lane, on the Downs at Sompting, near Worthing.
The future of sites including Halewick Lane, which is situated in an area of outstanding beauty, are being discussed in private at a meeting of West Sussex County Council's minerals and waste planning sub-committee tomorrow.
Coun Barry Mear, who represents Sompting, led the calls for the county council to hold talks in the open.
He said: "When Labour's Adur councillors first questioned possible plans for an incinerator at
Sompting, we were dismissed as scaremongering.
"This latest example of county council secrecy on planned incinerators does nothing to reassure
anxious local residents and I am calling on the county council to come clean and openly publish their hit-list of incinerator sites."
Coun Harold Hall, chairman of West Sussex minerals and waste planning sub-committee, said: "I don't think any particular areas have been identified as potential incinerator sites.
"There is a list of sites across the county which could be considered for various methods of waste
handling, from recycling to incineration."
Mr Hall said the list was being discussed in private session because it was far too early to indicate which sites could be short-listed.
But he added: "Halewick Lane, as an existing waste handling site, will be among them, as will every other site in the county."
Coun Peter Jones, vice-chairman of the planning sub-committee, said Mr Mear was over-reacting.
He said: "The subject he is talking about is in private session. The reason for that is throughout the county there is a fairly high degree of sensitivity with regards to the potential sites for waste disposal or waste sorting in general."
Jane Robinson, the county council's public relations manager, said councillors will be going into private session to discuss a report "providing information about the technical evaluation of locations to assess their potential to accommodate new waste management
facilities".
Halewick Lane currently
consists of a refuse transfer station, a civic amenity tip and a recycling centre.
Wendy Raymond, of the Highview and Halewick Lane Residents' Association, said: "It matters to everybody where they put these sites and it must be dealt with in the public domain.
"We all know waste has to be dealt with and we've had it here for 40 years, but an incinerator is another thing. It is such a beautiful place and to imagine a great big incinerator chimney there is awful. You never know what they will burn and the effect that will have."
Mr Mear said he didn't trust a word the county council said, adding: "I have been fighting the Halewick Lane site for 13 years and I don't believe a word they
say. They haven't got the guts to print that list. It's all done behind closed doors. But they will have a fight like they have never faced before."
The county council's strategic planning and environment committee will decide on December 5 whether to extend temporary use of Halewick Lane.
The South Downs Conservation Board has spoken out against the plans, which will be referred to Environment Minister John Prescott.
The secret discussions are the
latest row over the Halewick Lane site. In July the Sussex Downs Conservation Board was accused of putting politics before principles by "fudging" attempts to shut down the rubbish dump on the site.
The board had been against plans to retain the dump on the site. West Sussex County Council performed a U-turn and pledged to keep the Sompting site open.The conservation board then voted to defer its own decision on the site until after the county council's final decision.
Converted for the new archive on 30 June 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article