'˜Overbearing' Seaford waste transfer station plans refused

'˜Overbearing' plans for a waste transfer station in Seaford have been refused for the second time in just over a year.

Monday, 13th March 2017, 4:42 pm
Updated Friday, 24th March 2017, 11:05 am
Seaford sign ENGSUS00120140122165853

James Waste Management currently operates a facility at the Cradle Hill Industrial Estate and was looking to demolish and replace its existing buildings.

Jack Spurway, acting as agent for the scheme, argued that the new scheme would improve both conditions on the site and the business’ efficiency.

But the application was refused by members of East Sussex County Council’s Planning Committee last Wednesday (March 8), backing the officers’ recommendation.

Richard Stogdon (Con, Crowborough), vice-chairman of the committee, said: “I think that the scale of what is proposed here is out of proportion to that which the site can reasonably be expected to operate.”

He described ‘already inadequate access arrangements’ and feeling ‘particularly uncomfortable’ with the lack of serious landscape screening.

Kathryn Field (LDem, Battle and Crowhurst) also raised concerns with screening and access to the site, describing the new buildings as ‘overpowering’.

The new building would have been steel framed covering most of the site, with a roof pitch height of around ten metres.

The site, which is currently used to manage the applicant’s skip hire business, would have also accepted some materials from building contractors and waste removal companies.

The amount of permitted waste would have increased from 20,000 to 75,000 tonnes a year.

The five reasons for refusal were: the harmful visual effect to residential properties and visitors to the cemetery, the harmful effect of more lorries, the effect on the cemetery as a heritage asset, surface water capacity issues, and the effect on the character of the area.

Several residents objected to the scheme, as well as three business on the industrial estate, including Dignity Funerals.

Lewes District Council also opposed the application.

Barry Taylor (Con, Eastbourne - Meads) said: “In a way it’s a very good operation and I do feel sorry for them. They want to improve the building but it’s too large and obviously they have got what seems to be larger vehicles coming in. I think it’s fairly obvious the business itself has grown out of the site.”

Godfrey Daniel (Lab, Hastings - Braybrooke and Castle), chair of the committee, added: “At this point of time this is a very very large overbearing structure in a sensitive location which is impossible to screen properly.”

Although the scheme was considered an improvement to the one refused back in January 2016, the committee refused the application unanimously.

Don’t miss out on all the latest breaking news where you live.

Here are four ways you can be sure you’ll be amongst the first to know what’s going on.

1) Make our website your homepage

2) Like our Facebook page

3) Follow us on Twitter

4) Register with us by clicking on ‘sign in’ (top right corner). You can then receive our daily newsletter AND add your point of view to stories that you read here.

And do share with your family and friends - so they don’t miss out!

Always the first with your local news.

Be part of it.