Mr R Lander
Wiltshire County Council
County Hall
TROWBRIDGE, Wiltshire 

10th February 2000

Dear Mr Lander

1.1 We do not believe that you have met your obligations relating to the circulation of the document itself or the Key Issues Summary Booklet. So far as we are able to tell even the Booklet was sent to only 3 addressees in this village, yet it was sent to six site operators working in the area. We do not know with whom exactly you were trying to consult, but to start off with such a minimal mail shot just before the Christmas/Millennium holidays has not given the residents of this village a fair chance to respond; if, that is, they were intended to be included in the consultation process.

1.2 Contrary to your assertions the "Open Day" was not publicised in the local paper. It was hidden away under notices and no-one in this village, or any other village that we are aware of, saw the notice.

1.3 The "Open Day" exhibition could not have been less open. It was hidden away in a back room at the City Hall with no bill-board or display sign in the street, the window or in the foyer.

1.4 The questions in the document are facile and over-simplistic and appear to have been composed in a way by which any answers you receive can be construed to mean the opposite of what the respondent might have felt on the narrower issues.

1.5 We have been advised that there was no requirement to identify any "area of search" in the document and we regret the fact that you did so.

1.6 The "area of search" has been defined by using absolute, over simplistic and misleading criteria as represented on your sift charts.

These contrived to remove most of the area north of Salisbury on the spurious grounds that the Ministry of Defence would not allow it, yet you knowingly omitted the SSSIs within and bordering the area you did select.

1.7. You took it as read that the demographic centre of the Salisbury Area was the centre of Salisbury when in fact it is well to the North and West of that point (and not the South and East). Your document turns the proximity principle on its head.

1.8 Knowing, as you do that the Salisbury Area only produces 4/5 container loads of rubbish a day we do not understand why you

have divided the county up into such small areas which will clearly be unviable to a site operator. We understand that the proximity rule applies to the county and not to the District Council.

1.9 Throughout the document you give no indication of what you intend to put in the area of search. After five hours of questioning in the village hall we did establish that it would be a very large site with an incinerator although this is denied in all Mr Lander's written answers.

1.10 Moor Farm is described in the document as a large non-inert landfill site yet the planning permission granted by WCC only relates to the deposit of dry commercial and industrial waste and other waste of an inert non-hazardous nature.

1.11 Because you have not considered any other areas of search, such as redundant MOD land it is only fair that people should (and do) assume that you have a hidden agenda. (see 10. above).

1.12 The document shows that you have given no thought to transporting Salisbury waste anywhere by rail.

1.13 Government and European Planning Guidance suggests that such development as you appear to propose should be located on brown field land and in an industrial location.

2.1. Despite the impression given by your sift charts we all believe that this is a very beautiful area and have worked hard to keep it that way. The village boundary passes through two separate SSSIs and marches with the New Forest Heritage Area.

2.2 We know that it is inconceivable that any facility of the size you propose could be built on the Pepperbox or on the escarpment and plain between the Pepperbox and Salisbury or on the land falling away to the south from Dean Hill. This effectively leaves Whiteparish Quarry and the land to the south east for possible sites.

2.3 To call the site immediately south and east of the Pepperbox "Whiteparish Quarry" is a misnomer. Whiteparish Quarry was infilled years ago. The existing hole in the ground was not quarried, quarried minerals have a value. This hole was cynically dug with WCC blessing under the pre-text that it was part of a "permitted agricultural improvement". Because we were ensured that it would only be filled with inert waste as per the licence, we reluctantly, due to absence of support from WCC, SDC or EA let the matter rest.

2.4 The licence at Whiteparish Quarry has been extended, with your agreement, to include non-inert commercial and industrial waste along with sewage sludge.

2.5 The surrounding area is a chalk basin with areas of sand and clay lying on top of it. The chalk aquifers beneath supply water to Salisbury City and local bore holes supply water to many people in Whiteparish.

2.6 IT IS A MATTER OF GRAVE CONCERN TO THIS PARISH COUNCIL AND ALL THE PEOPLE OF WHITEPARISH THAT THE EFFECTS WHICH LEACHATES MAY HAVE ON UNDERGROUND WATER SUPPLIES NOW, IN THE NEAR FUTURE AND IN THE DISTANT FUTURE ARE BEING IGNORED BY THE WILTSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL FOR SHORT TERM EXPEDIENCY.

2.7 We will be taking separate action in relation to the point above but mention it here so that you understand why we will oppose any further landfill in this area.

2.8 We totally oppose any concept which includes incineration. The only certain data available to us shows that all forms of pyrolysis lead to the formation of dioxins which in turn lead to increases in the onset of cancer.

2.9 We all know, even before you carry out any sort of traffic impact report yourselves, that the roads between Petersfinger and the whole of the rest of the Salisbury area could not support any increase in H.G.V. movements.

2.10 As residents of the Salisbury Area we like to think of Salisbury as our home town and we consider it quite inappropriate that all the rubbish from Wilton, Mere, Amesbury and their surrounding conurbations should be carted through our historic city.

2.11 We have been advised that the Salisbury Area would not produce enough rubbish to make an integrated waste management centre commercially viable and that any operator would have to take in waste from bordering counties to justify the investment. Hence the apparent requirement for it to be near the county boundary. We understand quite clearly that once a facility has been established the Authorities cannot control the importation of waste.

2.12 We have been told very little about your plans for the disposal of commercial and industrial waste. The bulk of this type of waste coming into Whiteparish comes not from beyond Salisbury but from the Southampton direction - we can only assume that operators do not bring it from beyond Salisbury because it is too difficult. Without some legal constraints this is what would happen at any new facility.

2.13 We do not believe that the residents can usefully respond if you do not give them any idea of what you are planning or how those plans might affect them. In the absence of any useful information we must assume the worst and that you have taken no account whatever of the local residents, their quality of life or the blight on their homes.

2.14 Including those in neighbouring parts of Hampshire we also suffer from the side-effects of nine sites of one form of another in this vicinity. This should be a good enough reason for you to look elsewhere and not to add to our burdens.

We deplore your suggestion that it is "up to us to come up with alternative sites". We feel that paid employees of the County Council should have done a great deal more work before issuing this document in its present form.

Without any research or compelling reason you have arbitrarily blighted the lives and homes of hundreds of people and wasted thousands of man hours in fruitless meetings and discussions - all apparently for no better reason than, in Mr Checker's own words "to get a conversation going".

On behalf of all our residents we object to the manner in which this document has been presented and so far as they affect us are opposed to all your conclusions.

Yours sincerely,

Trevor King
Chairman