Energy from waste facility, Newhaven
Latest: Posted 23 July – We are very pleased with the result of the review of our planning procedures. We fully understand the concerns of people affected by this issue. Part of our job now is to reassure anyone who is worried that this is a safe and responsible option that will bring great benefits to the people of East Sussex, Brighton & Hove. Find out more in our press release.
A planning application was submitted by Veolia Environmental Services (formerly Onyx South Downs) in November 2005, for an Energy from Waste (EfW) facility and waste transfer station on land at North Quay, Newhaven.
Decision
7 November 2007 – the planning application was reported again to Planning Committee to consider the relevant changes in circumstances since the February decision. Conditional permission was given, subject to a legal agreement.
23 March 2007 – the Secretary of State decided not to 'call in' the application for her own decision. The permission is subject to several conditions and completion of a legal agreement.
21 February 2007 – the Planning Committee decided that it wished to grant planning permission.
Compulsory Purchase Order
In February 2007, we submitted a Compulsory Purchase Order for the land at North Quay, Newhaven for the construction of an Energy from Waste facility. A Public Inquiry began in November 2007 and finished in January 2008.
Previous consultation on the planning application
Following public consultation between December 2005 and January 2006, planning officers assessed the application, considered the comments and sought technical advice. Key to this assessment was the Development Plan, which includes the adopted Waste Local Plan.
In January 2007 the application was advertised again as a 'departure from planning policies'. See Why was the application advertised as a departure from planning policies?
A pollution prevention and control permit was issued by the Environment Agency in November 2006. However, the Agency will now be redetermining the permit application because it agrees that it did not set out its reasoning on carbon dioxide emissions as fully as it could have.
Find out more from the Environment Agency website.
