Gardens & wildlife

Questions To Local Representatives

Click here to see what the three leading candidates said

1) pollution from Hollingdean Depot
What pressures will you put on the Government's Environment Agency to take responsibilty to manage the ongoing pollution caused by odour, fugitive dust particles and noise from The Dump?


1a) Pollution in the form of noise, odour and dust particles, permitted to escape through the frequently opened doors of a Waste Transfer Station, causing nuisance to nearby residents.

1b) The continued absence of adequate landscaping.

1c) The poor construction of the WTS/MRF buildings RE containment of the pollution: the lack of double doors/filtration.

1d) Profit / cost minimisation before people's health.

1e) Operating Licences (licences to pollute) which fail to set precise limits to manage AND PREVENT odour/dust particle/noise pollution. Instead, the Environment Agency's ongoing system of regulation requires local residents to suffer (i) POLLUTION EVENTS and (ii) sufficient anger and stress to telephone whichever of their officers is logging complaints.

The terms of the licence to pollute given by the EA to Veolia (which is not obliged to monitor the effects of its operation) then leave it to the discretion of the EA's officers as to whether (iii) to believe local residents or (iv) require Veolia to take any action.

The protection of public health is the duty of EA. Making the mechanism conditional on complaint neither respects the mental or physical health of the worst affected residents. The EA's mechanism guarantees rather than controls pollution. Intervention in fact depends on ongoing low-level torture of pollution victims, avoiding the (more costly?) scientific checks which a reputable EA should be using to carry out its duties.

1f) The polluter's requests for "lenience RE the problem of odour during weekends following Public Holidays" should trigger sanction by the Environment Agency rather than be allowed to try the patience of local residents.

See also Life Near The Dump

2) city cramming and loss of open space
Are you willing to act to prevent urban cramming and further loss of Brighton's greenfield sites, green hillsides, wildlife habitats and open spaces through development of "windfall sites" i.e. plots of land in already densely populated parts of the city which are not the designated "Development Areas" in the Council's Core Strategy?

Specifically, what are your views on:

2a) Carelet's proposal for a new building-line of 6 three-storey houses on a greenfield site (Application BH2010/00083)? Have you registered an objection?

2b) The need to retain greenfield sites in densely populated cities e.g. Carelet (Princes Rd), Springfield Rd & Highcroft Villas developments.

2c) The value of urban open space even if only hillside offering visual amenity, habitat for wildlife, buffer-zone/green space between residential and noisy & polluting industrial zones.

See also Greenfield Development and Open Spaces Policies
This page was last updated by Ted on 01-Aug-2013
(registered users can amend this page)