Letters Of Objection

Summer 2009

From Ralph Fiennes, Actor, UNICEF Ambassador

To whom it may concern

RE: WSCC/048/09/T  Lay Brook Landfill Objection 

I am dismayed to learn of the Lay Brook Landfill proposal in West Sussex. 

The EU landfill directive of 1999 clearly declared landfill to be hazardous and a wasteful use of land.  This goes against the UK government’s stated aim that it would target a ‘zero waste policy’.  The landfill would be in immediate proximity to the Knepp Wildlife Project which has the support of government and such organisations as Natural England, The Environment Agency, the Sussex Wildlife Trust and the National Trust amongst others.  

The seepage of toxicity over decades would severely compromise and damage the earth and particularly natural water sources.  As a dedicated environmentalist and someone who is disheartened by the continual abuse of the English countryside by misguided bureaucratic decisions, the landfill proposal strikes me as a retarded approach to waste reduction.  

I urge you to re-think this and to consider other and more enlightened forms of waste disposal. 

Yours sincerely Ralph Fiennes

From Patrick Holden Director of the Soil Association

Dear Sir

I am writing to object to the planning proposal of a landfill site adjacent to the Knepp Estate.  Having visited the Estate, and being knowledgeable about sustainable agriculture, I can testify that what has been achieved at Knepp is making a unique contribution to the wildlife of the area.  

The proposed landfill site is bound to have a detrimental effect on the delicately balanced ecosystem of the Estate - I cannot imagine a more inappropriate position for a landfill tip and would strongly recommend that you decline this application and consider other ways of dealing with the waste of the area.

Yours faithfully

Patrick Holden
Director

Patrick Holden, CBE, Director, Soil Association

Dear Sirs,

Re Planning Application Reference Number WSCC/048/09/T  

I understand that an application has been made to West Sussex County Council for permission to establish a landfill site at Laybrook near Thakeham.  I wish to express my objection to this application in the strongest possible terms.  

The proposed site is on the southern border of a most interesting and successful re-wilding scheme at Knepp, which has attracted a very great deal of interest from conservation and scientific bodies not just in the UK but across Europe.  The scheme has been established for eight years and receives funding from the Government via Natural England.  

A landfill site on the border of Knepp would effectively undermine completely all the work that has been done there so far.  It would encourage seagulls and rats into the area and would drive away the many rare and endangered species of insects, plants, bats and birds which now inhabit the place.  Not only that, it would pollute the ground water sources, the soil and the air in the area which would complete the spoliation and defeat of this project.  

To grant such an application would seem completely illogical for the following reasons:  

• The Knepp project has been, and continues to be funded by the Government and to destroy the project would be a crass waste of taxpayers’ money
• At a time when the national focus is on environmental problems and their resolution, to choose to place a landfill site next to such a project as Knepp would appear totally inept
• Landfill as a way of dealing with rubbish has been discredited and, whilst the European Union is, in my opinion, rarely right, on this subject it has had the sense to issue a Directive (as long ago as 1999) which the British Government has undertaken to observe. 

I should be grateful if you would register my objection.  

Yours faithfully, Robert Salisbury  

Marquess of Salisbury

Shana Fleming PA to the Marquess of Salisbury

from the Historic House Association HHA

Dear  Sir 

Re:  Objection to Proposed Laybrook Quarry Landfill, Pulborough  Ref  WSCC/048/09/T on behalf of Knepp Castle. 

We are writing on behalf of the Burrell family to support their concern that the above proposals will have a detrimental effect to the setting of Knepp Castle a significant Grade 2* listed Nash building set in an historic park believed to have been designed by Repton and featuring a 60 acre lake that was once an important 18th century hammer pond. 

The Historic Houses Association represents the interests of 1500 of Britain’s historic houses and gardens that remain in private ownership for the benefit of the nation and future generations. The cost of maintaining them thereby preserving the heritage they represent and the associated industry they sustain is huge and met by private individuals.  

Knepp Castle is called after the old 12th century motte and bailey, the ruins of which still stand on the estate overlooking the River Adur.  Both the Knepp Castle, its lake and the river Adur - which is currently also being restored by the Environment Agency and Natural England as part of the Knepp Wildland Project - are highly likely to be affected by leachates from the proposed Lay Brook landfill. Not only does the proposal threaten the ecology of the unique and acclaimed Wildland Project now under way on the Estate, including the Repton park around the house, but it will seriously affect the setting of Knepp Castle and its rural estate. 

The importance of the survival of such buildings, as Knepp Castle, considered to be of outstanding architectural and historic interest, together with their setting is well recognised by government. Planning Policy Guidance 15 lays out government policies for the protection of historic buildings, conservation areas and other elements of the historic environment. In this case factors that need to be taken into account will be the need to protect the views from an outstanding building, the views of and approaches to it, by the proximity of unsympathetic development. 

Finally government has recognised the need to protect the whole entity of an historic house, its buildings and setting. The incentive for private owners to spend substantial sums of money and effort is in the long term public and national interest, but this can often cease as a result of nearby development which materially reduces the enjoyment of occupation. In many situations, when the amenity of a house has been diminished, a point is reached when the owner is discouraged from pouring capital into its constant maintenance in the way that all such buildings require.   Estates such as Knepp remain viable through careful management of property and without a sustainable income would not be able to support itself.  Hence the prospect of over two decades of stench and noise, release of noxious gases, flying plastic bags, invasion of seagulls and rats, plus massive increase in heavy traffic will have a devastating effect.    

The historic Knepp Estate, struggling, like all similar estates, to survive, may be dealt a severe blow by this proposal and the Historic Houses Association urge West Sussex County Council to reject this landfill scheme.   

Yours sincerely 

Robert Parker

HHA Technical Adviser

from Humberto Fernández Borja Director of Conservación Humana A.C., México 

Lay Brook Landfill Objection

We, Conservación Humana A.C., would like to widely express our objection to the Lay Brook Landfill Proposal. As a Non-Governmental Organization dedicated to the conservation of the natural and cultural heritage of indigenous communities in Mexico, we have reflected upon the importance of being able to preserve our environment in order to directly preserve our culture. Therefore we consider the “re-wilding” conservation approach of the Knepp Castle Wildland Project as not only a landscape and nature conservation work, but also as a great step towards promoting our own humanity and satisfying our real needs. 

Culture, as well as nature, is highly threatened by the Landfill Proposal, it is not only a menace to the great efforts made by the Knepp Castle Wildland Project, but it also represents a step-back to all the proposals made around the world to promote natural and cultural preservation, it not only signifies a proposal that will contaminate in an irreparable manner the environment, and hence our World, but it also affects directly an ongoing initiative that prevents the degradation of our landscapes and nature and that protects and respects biodiversity. 

We have come to a time where we should not doubt about the importance of the conservation initiatives, as they not only represent the kind of future we will be leaving to following generations, but also to our own, we can see the fast and irreparable damage that we as humanity are inflicting to our World, and should act immediately through the promotion of ecological initiatives such as the Knepp Castle Wildland Project, but also through the objection to proposals such as the Landfill. 

Yours sincerely, Humberto Fernández Borja Director Conservación Humana A.C., Zacatecas 110-1, Col. Roma 06700, México D.F.

From Farther Matthew Harrison Saint George’s Anglican Church, Paris

West Sussex Planning Services re: Application WSCC/048/09/T

Dear Sir/Madam, 

I wish to lodge objections to the above planning application by Cory Environmental to use the Laybrook Quarry Site as a landfill site for the disposing of over 4 million tonnes of non-inert waste. 

As someone who knows the Knepp Castle Estate well and who supports the Knepp Wildland Project, I am very alarmed by the negative consequences that will result for this project should this planning application for a landfill waste site neighbouring the project be approved. 

The Knepp Wildland Project is a nationally important nature conservation initiative, supported by the leading national and local environment agencies. It seems extraordinary that an initiative of such importance can be put at such risk by the proposal for a landfill site – an out-moded method of waste disposal – that does not even follow the council’s own guidelines. 

Yours faithfully, Matthew Harrison

with a pale is clearly shown on William Saxton’s 16th Century maps between ‘Shepeley’

so far a bracket of Ganoderma resinaceum has been found. It is a fungus on the

Dear Sir/Madam

I have known the Knepp Castle Estate for over twenty years, and wish to record my astonishment that the possibility is even being entertained  of granting consent for the landfill at Laybrook brickworks.

It is an unfortunate fact that our society produces waste in large quantities, which must somehow be disposed of; but the  pioneering and happy experiment carried out by the Burrells at Knepp in recent years - pointing towards a reversal of the destructive effects of modern life - is unique, and the idea that this landfill should be so placed as to threaten it is a counsel of utter despair.  The possibility of willfully despoiling this precious resource mocks the council's claim that it maintains its environment "to the highest degree" (WSCC website).

I earnestly look forward to hearing that this potential flight from good sense has been rejected.

Yours faithfully

Andrew Williamson MA (Cantab) Dip.Arch.

from Matthew Oates - Naturalist, ecologist, writer, broadcaster.  

Dear Sir / Madam

Your Ref:  WSCC/048/09/T 

I am writing as a prominent naturalist and environmentalist to express my extreme concern at the proposal to turn Laybrook Brickworks into a major landfill site.   

I grew up in the area and still have strong connections there.  In particular, I am one of many ecologists involved with the Knepp Castle Estate wilding project.  This project is of national and European importance, pioneering process-driven ecology in lowland Britain.  Its significance will grow, such that it should be regarded by planners as a National Nature Reserve, and it will become a key feature of the West Sussex landscape and cultural identity.   

The restoration of wetland habitats is a key element of the Knepp project.  This depends greatly on water quality.  The proposed landfill site lies directly upstream of Knepp, on the headwater of the River Adur.  It would be grossly irresponsible to risk compromising the restoration of wetland systems along the Adur at Knepp by citing a 4.1m tonne landfill site, of 20-30 years usage, directly upstream.  It is almost certain that water quality at Knepp would be adversely affected.   

In addition, the landfill site would alter the ecology of the entire area by attracting large numbers of predators and scavengers, avian and invertebrate.  These would certainly impact adversely on the ecology of Knepp.  My main concern here is over the impact on invertebrates, rather than seagulls, and I am an entomologist.   

There is also the matter of air quality at Knepp, which lies directly downwind of prevailing south-westerly winds.  Air pollution will almost certainly impact adversely on the developing ecology of Knepp.   

I strongly advise the Council to reject this proposal in full.   

Yours sincerely

Matthew Oates - Naturalist, ecologist, writer, broadcaster.  

From Dominic Dromgoole, Artistic Director Shakespeare’s Globe Theatre

Dear Sir, 

Re. planning application WSCC/048/09/T 

The Globe Theatre has long been a friend of the Knepp Estate, since much of the oak which went to build this theatre came, gratis, from Knepp. 

I have also watched personally, with fascination and enthusiasm, the transformation of the estate from a private farm into a site of huge excitement and potential for a huge variety of different stakeholders – scientists, environmentalists, consumers and the public.  The Wilderness project is a wonderful and visionary attempt to transform our landscape, and our attitude to the land, and it has been set up in a sensitive and caring way to bring an enormous number of different constituencies with it. 

How can such sensitivity be rewarded with such an act of vandalism as to dump an enormous landfill site right next door, and thus potentially to ruin all of the gifts it has to offer? How can so many potential benefits be so casually denied to so many, both now and in the future.

I ask that you reconsider this decision. 

Yours, Dominic Dromgoole Artistic Director  Shakespeare’s Globe Theatre

Then please reconsider. Think again. Sasha Hails (lead writer for BBC Casualty) 

from George Tiffin Director, Writer, Cameraman 

Dear Sir / Madam:

from Lorna Russell, Editorial Director BBC Books

Ref: WSCC/048/09/T   

I am writing to set out my objection to the proposal by Cory Environmental to create a landfill site at Laybrook Brickworks in Thakeham.  

One km down the road from Laybrook Brickworks at Knepp Castle is the Wildland Project - a pioneering, government-agency supported ecological endeavour of great value not only to the local environment and community, but to the wider world in the valuable lessons it is learning about nature restoration, sustainable agriculture and land management. As the Lay Brook flows through the land-fill site and directly on to Knepp, this internationally acclaimed initiative will be irreparably compromised in the short term (at least 40 years) and long term.  

While the work at Knepp is looking at ways to build a sustainable future for the planet in line with current thinking on environmental and public health, this proposal to dump 4.1m tonnes of non-inert waste from London in Ibstock’s clay pits at Laybrook is a huge step backwards, that will not only impact negatively on the lives of local residents with increased levels of air and water pollution, but will take the Knepp Wildland Project with it too. I find this unacceptable.  

Lorna Russell

To West Sussex County Council 

Potential landfill site at Laybrook Brickworks WSCC/048/09/T


I would like to object in the strongest possible terms to the proposed landfill site at Laybrook Brickworks.

It is obvious from the name of the site 'Lay Brook' that it is on a brook. This brook forms part of the Adur catchment area. It will be almost impossible to prevent contamination and pollution of the river Adur if a rubbish tip is allowed on the site of the quarry. Just downstream from the site is the Knepp Wildland Project. The restoration of wetlands and natural meadows, so important for wildlife, form a key part of this Project, which is supported by all the major conservation organisations of the UK. 

To date, the Knepp Wildland Project has been a great success with numerous endangered bird, insect and mammal species returning and thriving in a part of West Sussex that was previously intensively farmed. It is hoped that the success of this Project will encourage other landowners to imitate it and create a patchwork of Wildland ‘reservoirs’ across the country to the great benefit of our native wildlife. 

Sadly, if West Sussex County Council decides to site a rubbish dump on the edge of one of the most important local wildlife habitats, a great deal of what has been achieved will be destroyed. The obvious pollution risk to about 65% of the river Adur is one thing, but the rats, gulls, foxes and crows that thrive in unnaturally high densities on our rubbish also have a terrible effect on some of our most endangered wildlife. These opportunistic generalist predators not only feast on our rubbish, but also on any creature small enough that they come across in their travels. Nesting birds are particularly vulnerable and one of the Project’s greatest triumphs so far has been the increased breeding success of species like nightingales, turtle doves and skylarks. If Laybrook is turned into a dump, these species, which we all love to see and hear, will become locally extinct.

Cory Environmental says that most of the waste (100 lorry loads per day for 21 years) will be from West Sussex. Surely a better site can be found nearer the great conurbations of the south coast where the waste is generated? If we still have to have landfill sites, let’s have them nearer the coast so that the shortest possible lengths of our rivers are jeopardised by the inevitable polluted run off. In this day and age it seems very strange to be proposing yet another landfill site, rather than modern incineration or mechanical biological treatment plants, and even stranger to propose a site so far up the catchment area of one of the major river systems of West Sussex. 

Yours sincerely 

Julian Smith

The Sussex Wildlife Trust has been doing what it can to support your campaign against the Laybrook landfill site and yesterday I wrote a short piece in my blog, (http://tonywhitbread.blogspot.com) again directing people to your web site to encourage objections.  I have noticed a couple of good pictures of landfill on the Home page of the campaign web site – would it be acceptable for me to copy these to use in my blog, to help break up my screeds of text?

With best wishes

Tony Whitbread

From Sebastian Anstruther, Landowner 

Application No WSCC/048/09/T Laybrook Brickworks Quarry, Goose Green Lane , Pulborough, West Sussex , RH20 2LW: Infilling with Non-Inert Waste

Applicant Corey Environmental, Ibstock Brick Ltd and Ibstock Brick Hudsons Ltd

Dear Sirs,

I wish to OBJECT to the above planning application.  

As a fellow landowner with important environmental interests on my estate I visited the Knepp Castle Estate rewilding project some two years ago and was lucky enough to be shown round by Charlie Burrell. It was clear that he had immense knowledge about and justified pride in the groundbreaking work he was then starting at Knepp. He was particularly keen to show me the Lay Brook river restoration scheme which is a key part of his project, as we had carried out a similar scheme with the Environment Agency some years before.  

It would be a tragedy if a landfill on adjoining land were to pose a pollution risk to this internationally important environmental work and therefore I do not think that this proposal should be permitted.  

On the broader issue of landfill in general as a means of disposal for non-inert waste, I recognise the seriousness of the waste disposal problem now facing us, but I believe incineration and energy recovery is a better option. It cannot make sense to bury a vital source of energy and create an environmental hazard by so doing.  

Yours faithfully,

from Chris & Ann Seddon, Retired architect, partner of Foster Associates

From Patricia Stainton, Trustee of the Somerset Wildlife Trust

With reference to application number: WSCC/048/09/T

Proposed Laybrook Brickworks landfill site, Thakeham

I strongly object to the proposed landfill site at Laybrook Brickworks Quarry for the following reason.

The Knepp Estate is in the process of developing a nationally important ‘re-wilding’ of the landscape project and the proposal to put a landfill site at Laybrook Brickworks Quarry would be a major threat to it.

I visited Knepp estate recently in my capacity as a Trustee of the Somerset Wildlife Trust with a number of my colleagues, as many other people in the world of conservation have done since it began. This project is inspirational and supported by numerous conservation organizations. It is not only locally important because of the long-term biodiversity gains it will bring to the area, but nationally significant as one of the first of it’s kind in Britain and is already becoming an example of international importance.

I wish to stress how important this ‘re-wilding’ project is as an example to other conservation organizations and landowners, and that it’s long-term development should not be compromised by the proposed landfill site, which constitutes a risk to the environment and wildlife of a large area of the Knepp ‘rewilding’ project as well as the River Adur restoration project.  

Patricia Stainton Cooks Farm  North Brewham Bruton  Somerset BA10 0JQ  

From JOCK PALMER & ASSOCIATES PTY LTD  ABN 61 106 668 188

PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS:  LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

Dear Sir/Madam

 Re:            Objection to Proposed Landfill at Laybrook Brickworks, Thakeham

In 2004 I had the opportunity to visit the Knepp Wildland Project in Sussex as part of an international study tour on sustainable landuse planning. 

This unique project has obtained international recognition by both Government authorities and the private sector, for its re-creation of natural systems that rely on biodiversity and soil improvement.  It is indeed a world class model for sustainable natural landuse systems and one which relies on the support of Government at all levels. 

Therefore it comes as an immense shock to learn that the future viability of this exceptional project is now being placed at risk by a landfill facility proposed for an adjoining property.  Landfills by their very nature, adopt technology which is universally recognised as being both environmentally and  socially unsustainable.  Landfill waste disposal is a totally obsolete and inappropriate method of waste disposal for a developed and sophisticated first world economy such as Great Britain.  

It is totally incongruous and absurd to have on the one hand a world renown and Government assisted innovative natural system based landuse model competing against an example of one of the most ecologically unsustainable waste disposal landuse systems in the world, which is proposed on an adjoining property. 

Any approval of this landfill project would give a clear message to those individuals and organisations dedicated to improving long term biodiversity and landuse sustainability within Great Britain that such initiatives are not important and that short term irresponsible planning solutions are of greater worth and priority. 

The Knepp Wildland Project is synonymous with our future while the Laybrook Brickworks Landfill is only indicative of our  past.  

This landfill project must be rejected if we are in any way concerned about handing a sustainable environmental legacy to future generations. 

Yours Faithfully

Jock Palmer & Associates Pty Ltd  

J Palmer

 Jock Palmer AILA ,RAPI , LGPA. BA. Dip Urb Stud. Director   

From The Hon Lavinia Noel 

Dear Sirs,  

Planning application WSCC/048/09/T  

I would like to object in the strongest possible terms to your proposed Landfill site at Laybrook Brickworks, it seems perfectly extraordinary and astonishingly ill-thought out to choose a part of the country which is not only extremely beautiful and unspoilt but also is next to the wonderful SSSI site at Knepp whose importance is recognised by conservation and scientific bodies in government and indeed across Europe.  It is accepted fact that if you put your landfill site at Laybrook poisonous chemicals will eventually seep into the ground water sources and pollute them, this in turn will harm the wildlife and plants.  How can it make any sense for the government to support this conservation project with one hand whilst the other hand does it’s best to destroy it?  

The electorate of this country are lead to believe that this government are trying to be more environmentally aware, and to stop the use of landfill sites altogether, and yet they manage to come up with this appalling idea – have they absolutely no sense what-so-ever or perhaps they have not done any reasonable research into the effect it will have upon the surrounding land?  In either case this really is a matter that should be rethought and this landfill site proposal abolished.  

Yours faithfully,  

Lavinia Noel  

From Mr Charles Fraser

Landfill at Laybrook Brickworks WSCC/048/09/T  

To whom it may concern  

There are many reasons to object to the above proposal and these have been articulated very profoundly in the numerous articles and letters already in the public domain.  

Irrespective of these passionate, objective and factual arguments, it seems extraordinary that any planning authority can give credence to a proposal that that defies an EU Directive (Landfill 1999) and is supported by two Government Agencies and at least four NGO’s.  

Along with all the others, I would like to register my own objection to this proposal in the most imperative manner.  

C T de M Fraser  

From - River Adur Conservation Society 

Opposes Laybrook Landfill site proposal

The River Adur Conservation Society (RACS) opposes the Laybrook Landfill Site proposal because of the possibility of contamination of the Lay Brook, a tributary of the River Adur, by leachates from the site.  The Lay Brook passes through the existing brickworks, joins the Hammer Pond stream on the Knepp estate and then flows into the River Adur.  A failure of the planned measures to contain leachates at the Laybrook site could contaminate a 31km stretch of the River Adur with disastrous consequences for fish and other wildlife.  The Society is concerned that measures to prevent the escape of contaminants from the site may not be adequate, especially in view of the length of time that the site will be in use.  “This proposal means that we shall have the possibility of a major pollution incident near the source of one of the River Adur's tributaries for decades to come.” said Bob Platt, a member of RACS.  RACS is also concerned about the potential effects on the Knepp Estate rewilding project.

RACS was formed with the aim of protecting and improving the River Adur and its tributaries.  The Society is a member of the Association of Rivers Trusts which promotes and co-ordinates similar bodies in the UK.   RACS volunteers have taken part in a number of projects, mainly involving habitat enhancement, including creating and improving sea trout spawning areas.  Potential pollution hazards are a major concern for the Society and it will be monitoring water quality at selected sites throughout the catchment in the future. 

RACS is concerned that the presence of the landfill site could have an adverse effect on the rewilding  project on the Knepp Estate which the Society actively supports.  RACS volunteers have, among other things, worked on projects to create and enhance wetland habitat on the estate and there are plans for other activities in the future.  “There are exciting prospects here for us to improve freshwater habitats for fish and other wildlife on the Knepp Estate and it would be a pity to see them jeopardised by the proximity of a massive landfill site.” said Bob Platt.

ENDS River Adur Conservation Society 

Dear Sir/ Madam,  

I am writing to register my opposition to the proposed landfill site at Laybrook Brickworks, Knepp West Sussex.  

Over the past 10 years this area has become one of unique wildlife significance and it defies belief that the Council authorities can see it as an appropriate place for a Landfill site in West Sussex . 

I urge you to reconsider and reject the application.  

Yours sincerely,

Dominic Mahony

I have long been a supporter of the excellent Wildland Project at Knepp Castle and have seen from the beginning the remarkable and swift effect that it has had on bio-diversity.  

I am amazed therefore that water quality which is vital to the continuing success of this important project may now be jeopardized by the landfill proposal for Laybrook. (WSCC/048/09/T).

Having now looked at the proposal it is even more surprising to see a landfill being sited so close to a project which is firstly a success and secondly supported by the Government/ taxpayer funds. The landfill will undoubtedly undo all of the good work done at Knepp to date quite apart from the hazards and inconvenience to local communities.  

Living as I do in South London, I have no local vested interest like a local resident might have and I understand that landfill is required in the UK. But as  someone who has seen a Government backed initiative work with dramatic conservation pluses in a short period of time in a beautiful part of the country, it is a tragedy that this is conservation success is under threat from an ill-thought out landfill proposal.  

Please do not allow this application to proceed and further.  

Yours, Christopher Wilmot-Sitwell

Dear Sir,  

Ref: application WSCC/048/09/T

This application for a landfill site has been brought to my attention.  

It is tragic that anyone should even contemplate such a scheme so close to the Knepp Wildland Project. As stated in the European Union ’s own landfill directive of 1999:-  

“Landfill not only takes up more valuable land space,  it also creates air, water and soil pollution, discharging C0² and methane CH into the atmosphere and chemicals and pesticides into the earth and groundwater. This in turn is harmful to human health as well as plants and animals.”  

I spent years working in conservation in Tanzania , where I was that country’s Rhino Conservation Project Co-ordinator from 1992 to 1995. In the course of this work, I was privileged to be at the coal-face of conservation in such places as Serengeti and Ngorongoro, which are a vital part of the heritage of all mankind. When I see what huge efforts were made in a really poor African country like Tanzania to protect their environment, I find it all the more bizarre and extraordinary that a comparatively rich and advanced country such as England can be so cavalier about its environment, particularly such a beautiful part of our environment as Sussex.  

I wish to object most strongly to the above application.  

Yours faithfully,  

R.P. Heyworth

Managing Director 

From Merrik Burrell

Dear Sirs,
I find it incredible that such an application has been made, and essential that the protest from the local population should prevail at your discussions to ensure that this project never happens.

Thakeham village has adequately summed up the horrors of such a landfill and has highlighted all the effects - HGVs thundering along rural roads every 3 minutes. Constant foul odours & noise pollution. Dangers to human health, e.g. increased risk of contracting cancer and low birth weights in children. Significant increases in pests, particularly seagulls, rats & flies. Livelihoods destroyed through damage to crops and livestock from increased pests. Businesses and homes devalued. Light pollution during twilight hours. Potential increase in council taxes should the UK not meet landfill reduction targets set by the EU - by approving this application, WSCC would not be actively trying to reduce landfill. Hugely harmful methane gas emission. Damage & displacement of wildlife & vegetation. Danger of pollution to lakes, streams & watercourses. There are more environmentally friendly alternatives to landfill, e.g.. MBT, energy from waste plants & anaerobic digestion. Alternatives are better for the economy. West Sussex has enough capacity for all municipal household waste already. Government & Councils must be more proactive in ensuring businesses significantly reduce Commercial & Industrial waste. By approving this application, WSCC would open the door to West Sussex becoming the dumping ground for London's waste. Land filling an existing clay pit is the easy option, not the right option.

In addition there is the effect on the Knepp Wildland project - one of the most successful schemes in Europe, inevitable pollution of the Lay brook and the River Adur, and the prospect of this continuing for years - almost the lifetime of many neighbours.

This is a medieval solution to a modern problem - for which modern solutions exist.
I urge consideration and rejection.
Yours,
Merrik Burrell.

From Hans Kampf Executive Director Large Herbivore Foundation  

Dear Sirs  

I really hope you can stop the plans for realization of the land-fill near Knepp Castle.  

Open land-fill plots have already proven to be very negative for landscape and the ecological circumstances in its surrounding. It is in fact not longer fitting in the way how you should get rid of human's waste, since more sophisticated and sustainable techniques are available.  

Besides its effect on the Sussex landscape, it is even more grievous that the plans for a new landfill negatively affect the Knepp Wildland Project.  Here a private landowner is taking new initiatives for the sustainable management of his estate. What Sir Charles Burrell, owner of Knepp Castle is doing is an example for nature conservation bodies and other landowners in the UK and abroad. This project is particularly important because of the relationship between vegetation development and large mammals, and because of that, it is an example of international importance, as proven last May at the Wilderness Congress in Prague (a network of large wilderness and wild land areas across Europe), organized by the EU Presidency. For Europe it is essential to show that this kind of nature development is also an economical and social advantage for private landowners. 

These plans for the landfill bring the Knepp Wildland project down and could result in the loss of a new reliable and sustainable development for this region.  

sincerely yours and looking forward to your answer  

Hans Kampf

Executive Director Large Herbivore Foundation  

From Rob Reynolds  BVSc  Cert ZooMed  MRCVS 

Proposed Landfill Site South-West of Knepp Wildland Project

Dear Charlie 

I would like to point out a few examples of purely veterinary concerns regarding the proposed Landfill site at Thakeham. 

1. Direct pollution effects. The waste is described as non-toxic, so presumably heavy metals and the products of plastic combustion such as dioxins will not be present: has this been guaranteed? Non-toxic waste is likely to degrade with the release of nitrogenous compounds. Nitrates accumulate in deep soil water and, particularly after a drought, pasture plants may contain toxic levels. Nitrates are toxic, but in the plant are reduced to nitrites which are far more toxic. Grazing animals are susceptible. Pigs are most sensitive; followed by cattle, sheep, and horses. Nitrite poisoning is unpredictable, because normally nutritious plants become toxic. Affected animals are likely to die within hours, because of haemoglobin destruction.
2. Indirect pollution effects. An increase in the nitrogen content of the ground water will inevitably be reflected in surface water. One aspect of the Knepp project has been the de-canalisation of the Adur, re-establishing meanders and slowing the water flow. This has benefits in reducing the risk of flooding in builtup areas downstream, but it reduces the rate at which local nitrogenous pollutants are diluted, increasing the risk of eutrophication. The ecological impact of this is for others to assess, but from an animal health point of view eutrophication favours the growth of toxic algae (Microcystis Spp). All animals and birds are susceptible. When the algae are present animals cannot escape ingesting them when drinking. As to the seriousness of the poison, there are two recognised syndromes: the “Slow death form” and the “Fast death form”!
3. Introduction of pathogens. Landfill waste is likely to include spoiled food, and a variety of bacterial pathogens may be present. Those of veterinary significance include Listeria Sp, Escerischia coli, Salmonella, Clostridium Sp, and Shigella. It should be remembered that the 2001 Foot-and-Mouth Disease epizootic has been directly attributed to processed food waste.
4. Introducing vectors of disease. The presence of waste material is likely to attract animals capable of transmitting disease. Apart from the obvious, flies feeding on dead animal tissue can accumulate toxins from the bacterium Clostridium botulinum, and when consumed by birds can cause mortality on a large scale. Waterfowl are most commonly affected in the UK.
5. Changes in the local fauna. Increased visits by opportunists such as seagulls, crows, and magpies are possible. This increases the risk of introduction of pathogens from elsewhere (such as Campylobacter Sp, a cause of serious gastrointestinal disease in all animals and birds, and of “abortion storms” in cattle) and of distribution of pathogens already present in the site. Other fauna may increase in local population, such as rats, which may spread diseases such as Leptospirosis (a cause of liver and kidney damage, as well as abortion, in most mammals including cattle, dogs and humans), Yersiniosis (a relative of the Plague bacillus which I regularly encounter in deer in Sussex) and Tularaemia. Species already present may undergo changes in behaviour, becoming scavengers where previously they were predators. An increase in the fox population would have effects on survival of newborn pigs and deer, as well as on wild prey species. Changes in badger numbers and behaviour could have serious implications, as they are an important vector of bovine Tuberculosis. The Knepp project is not far from the current Sussex Tuberculosis hotspot on the South Downs

 Yours sincerely, Rob Reynolds  BVSc  Cert ZooMed  MRCVS   

From Keith Kirby Forestry and Woodland Officer Natural England

The Knepp Estate and its surroundings. 

For the last ten years conservation has adopted a target-led approach to conservation, whereby we try to maintain particular habitats and species in particular sites through careful management – often based on traditional farming and forestry practice.  However there is increasing discussion about taking a more hands-off approach, of promoting wilderness and the process of rewilding.  

Rewilding is not a precisely defined term, but has come to be used to cover an approach whereby conventional agricultural and forestry management is reduced or withdrawn to varying degrees.  The vegetation and associated fauna would be allowed to respond to ‘natural processes’ (recognising that human influence can never be completely removed under British conditions).  

Rewilding/wilderness can only ever be just one element of the way that we do conservation in Britain and particularly in England.  Many of our valued habitats, species and landscapes do depend on active management for their continued survival.  

There is however the potential for rewilded areas to complement more traditional approaches to conservation; they will develop different suites of species, different habitats, different landscape patterns.  In the process of their development some of the current habitats and species may be lost, but over time others will be gained and experience elsewhere suggests that these can be rich in wildlife and exciting places to visit. 

Some might think that there is not the space for this to happen, particularly not in the lowlands, but the Knepp Estate is showing what can be done.  This is a unique project.  Natural England is supporting both the practical work and the baseline monitoring.  We will be watching with interest how it develops. 

A single estate does not exist in isolation; it is part of the wider biological, historical and cultural landscape.  Therefore what happens in the surroundings could affect the success or otherwise of the Knepp project.  The precise impact of the adjacent proposal for landfill in the clay quarry is unclear, but there are reasons for potential  concern in terms of possible pollution effects.  It also represents a lost opportunity to develop semi-natural habitats in the quarry that could effectively extend the ‘Knepp’ area. 

Keith Kirby Forestry and Woodland Officer Natural England

From Dr A Whitbread Chief Executive Sussex Wildlife Trust

To whom it may concern.

Damage to the Knepp estate re-wilding project from the threatened Laybrook landfill site.  

The Sussex Wildlife Trust (SWT) is gravely concerned by the proposal for landfill on a site immediately adjacent to the ground-breaking Knepp estate re-wilding project. 

The SWT is not part of the Knepp Estate so we feel able to comment on the project from the position of an independent organisation.  From this position the SWT fully supports and welcomes the re-wilding project from the perspective of the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity and regarding the enjoyment, appreciation and understanding of nature.  Furthermore we have been pleased to provide direct support to the project by offering advice and by helping in the co-ordination of survey work (the baseline survey has been published as English Nature Research Report No 693). 

The Knepp estate is in the process of developing a major, and nationally leading, nature conservation initiative.  This is based on the idea of “re-wilding”, an approach whereby natural processes, such as naturalistic grazing, are used to deliver nature conservation and landscape benefits.  A major aspect of this re-wilding, is the restoration of a significant section of the upper reaches of the river Adur.  This is already a rich wetland area but there are ambitious plans, supported by the Environment Agency and Natural England along with the SWT, to re-naturalise this section of river.  This will significantly expand and enhance the range of wildlife habitats and ecosystem diversity on the estate.

The potential benefits from the project in terms of biodiversity could be large.  The project will deliver progress towards biodiversity targets for habitats including pasture woodland, fen, marshy grassland and rivers, and targets for species such as water vole, otter and black poplar.  The re-building of an ecosystem in this way will also lead to “emergent properties” - the delivery of added benefits that were not planned or perhaps predicted but become apparent as the ecosystem evolves.  (An example of this is the appearance of barbastelle bat on the estate, one of Europe’s rarest mammals).

The standing of this project is reflected by the fact that it is supported not only by the SWT, Environment Agency and Natural England, but also by the support given by numerous academic institutions, RSPB, British Trust for Ornithology, the European Large Herbivore Foundation and many other partners.  It is also significant that Charlie Burrell, landowner of Knepp and driving force behind the initiative, was asked to present his project at an EU sponsored international conference on re-wilding in Prague in May 2009.

The proposal for a landfill site on the immediate boundary of this nationally important project is a major threat.  The proposed site is on Weald clay and fills up with water when not pumped.  The risk from run-off of polluted water into surrounding water courses is extremely high.  It is probably inevitable that run-off from the site will flow directly into the water system running through Knepp (it already does so), polluting a rich wetland, undermining future plans and would effectively negate one of the key features of the whole re-wilding project.

A second concern is the encouragement of aggressive species by landfill sites.  It is common for gulls and rats to become far more abundant around landfill and, having gained an artificial boost through forage on the landfill site, would then compete with wildlife in the local area.  In the Knepp estate we are working hard to encourage the recovery of species such as otter and water vole, along with many other species.  This would all be put at risk by the imbalance caused by the promotion of aggressive species.

The SWT therefore strongly supports the Knepp estate in its objection to the proposals for a landfill in this area.  We will be making our own representations in due course but in the mean time we are pleased for our position to be noted by others involved in preparing responses. 

Yours truly,    

Dr A Whitbread

Chief Executive

from Mrs. Alexandra M. Zotos, Greece

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

News that governments seem frequently to act in contradictory ways on a same issue are not, unfortunately, an exception, but that any one Government would knowingly destroy its own work on an issue and thus use for naught the taxpayers’ monies only to undo what it spent large sums to build and create, that has a definite hue of scandal.

Just exactly how can this be explained? After the “natural catastrophe” brought about by the mad cows’ disease a few years ago whereby large agricultural enterprises were obliged by emergency laws to slaughter their animals, whether there was or not any case of the disease detected in their enterprise, pushing those farms into ruin, an opportunity was offered to change the use of the land which found a largely positive echo. Government subsidies were liberated in order to allow the change from farmland into an ecosystem by which large areas were hauled back into their natural state, developing steadily a healthy and ever so rich habitat for wild life, insects, plants and earth-and-river development in an environment as uninfluenced by human interference as possible. Owners of large former agricultural areas gave up their until then livelihood to follow this extraordinary path back to Nature which would have become almost lost to future generations had it not been for the help of Government and the subsidies foreseen for these projects, but also had it not been  as well for a tremendous engagement by these landowners , to return to Nature what they had exploited for a long time so as to save for their children and next generations – in an ever more polluted and nature-unfriendly world – what should already have been an obligation long ago.

And now that this tremendous effort on both the part of the participants of the project and the Government allowing the necessary subsidies to flow had succeeded, the same Government sets out to destroy the work they furthered by allowing areas where at long last wildlife has taken foot, to be transformed into landfills, right next to the newly developing natural environment!

It hardly needs a doctor’s degree in Biology, Botany or Wildlife Preservation, to know that such proximity is not only highly endangering the just obtained first results, but it also endangers the health and life of humans that live in the proximity and work daily at the wildlife projects.

In many EU countries the creation of new landfills is prohibited. Where it is not, inhabitants in an area that falls into such a project, protest vehemently against such measures. While the mad cows’ disease seems to have subsided, new calamities will arise. Who knows whether the latest one – swine flue – has not issued from such an area?

Knepp is a family enterprise whose children have learned to respect and protect the emerging delicate new environment, but also where many people are toiling daily to fulfill this obligation towards the environment and the generations to come. A landfill – prohibited since more than ten years through the EU Directive  on Landfills of 1999 -  next to Knepp would mean the ruin of the area, the annihilation of all past efforts and the waste of a good deal of tax payers’ money, not to speak of the eventual loss of work places in view of the hopeless situation created through such a move, steeper health bills and highest risks to the human capital of the country!! Can that be the ultimate goal of any government?

It is not too late to save Knepp and its newly created, invaluable natural environment, but also for the Government to save face before the taxpayer as well as the engaged project participants at Knepp. There are many alternatives, less expensive, harmless to Nature and Inhabitants to chose from to solve the waste problem in a humane manner.

From a friend of Knepp Castle of which I follow the development for many years.

Alexandra M. Zotos, Greece

Back to Press Comments Page

Back to Laybrook Introduction