East Sussex: Decision due on plan to introduce booking at tips
Proposals to introduce a booking system at rubbish tips in East Sussex are set to go in front of a senior county councillor.The decision will be made by Claire Dowling, East Sussex County Council's lead member for transport and environment.If introduced, the new system would require residents to book a half-hour timeslot before using one of the sites.Officers say the change would save about £50,000 per year, discourage businesses and out-of-area visitors from using the service, and help prevent queuing problems currently present at some of the sites.
The council said the system would also allow it to charge non-East Sussex residents to use the facilities.Under the proposals, bookings could be made online or by telephone.
The council ran a public consultation on the proposals between October and December last year.The consultation received 5,992 responses, which the report notes to be the highest number of responses ever submitted to a consultation run by the council's communities, environment and transport department.A total of 91% of responses were negative.Most respondents raised concerns about the "inconvenience" of the change, according to the Local Democracy Reporting Service.The council also received a 2,276-signature petition opposing the changes.The petition, set up by the Lewes Liberal Democrats, argued the changes were "unnecessary" and risked "making waste disposal more complex and less accessible", and argued it could result in an increase in fly-tipping.Despite the opposition, officers are recommending the changes to be approved.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
7 hours ago
- Telegraph
Politicians must not shy away from any public debate on face coverings
SIR – Nigel Farage is quite right to call for a debate on the subject of people covering their faces in public, and brave to consider making it a Reform UK policy. It is clearly part of our culture that people's faces are visible. This is very important in looking to protect the public against criminals and others who wish to hide themselves behind any form of face covering. There are people who like to believe that it is part of their religion to cover their faces, but all politicians must know this is not a specific religious teaching. Face covering is unacceptable in our society and any political party knows that policy on the matter risks losing votes from that element of society that demands women cover their faces in public. Politicians need to raise divisive subjects, rather than evade them, and make difficult decisions for the benefit of social cohesion. Jonathan Longstaff Buxted, East Sussex SIR – I fully support Sarah Pochin, the newly elected MP for Runcorn and Helsby, in calling for a ban on the public wearing of the burka (report, June 8). If France, Denmark, Belgium and others are prepared to resist this affront to their way of life, then what is stopping us from doing the same? Will Forrow Dawlish, Devon SIR – Several European countries have banned the wearing of full facial coverings in public, both for security reasons and to tackle a lack of integration into their indigenous populations. We should follow suit. Peter Rosie Ringwood, Hampshire SIR – I would add to Dr Chris Staley's list of unacceptable face coverings (Letters, June 7) the keffiyeh, as worn by militant protesters who seem ashamed to show their faces. Gordon Cook Torquay, Devon SIR – It is a pity that while Kemi Badenoch opposes sharia courts ('Badenoch: Let bosses ban burkas in offices', report, June 8), she has said nothing about their Sikh counterpart. Sikh courts have no precedent in India. In fact, they are alien to Sikh traditions: even during the Sikh rule in the 18th-century Punjab, there were no exclusive Sikh courts. Moreover, once you accept Sikh courts, you indirectly accept that Sikhs are fundamentally a different people, and hence deserve special treatment. The creation of these courts has been a great victory for those Sikhs who want to live not as Sikhs of Britain, but Sikhs in Britain. To create social cohesion and communal harmony, Britain needs a uniform civil code, not separate religious courts. Perhaps that is the reason why the Supreme Court of India has consistently demanded the abolition of such courts.
Daily Mail
a day ago
- Daily Mail
EXCLUSIVE Policeman defends teenager telling pro-Israel supporters that 'Jews kill children' and says it is 'in the same vein as displaying sign calling Hamas rapists'
A pro-Israel campaigner was left stunned when a police officer explained that saying 'Jews are baby killers' was 'in the same vein' as holding a placard stating ' Hamas are rapists'. The visibly shocked man was provided with that answer during a vigil in Brighton, East Sussex, which was held on Saturday to remember victims of the October 7 Hamas attacks in Israel, as well as the 55 hostages that remain in Gaza. Campaign group Sussex Friends of Israel, which has shared footage of the incident on social media, tonight accused Sussex Police of 'downplaying' antisemitism after the officer 'disagreed' that the evocative words amounted to racial incitement. The incident was sparked after a group of youths allegedly heckled vigil participants by saying 'Jews are baby killers'. As seen on the footage, one of the pro-Israel supporters approached a police officer to complain. He tells the officer: 'This man has just said that Jews kill children. That is a racially aggravated barb intended to incite hatred. 'I wanted to stress [that by saying that] he intends harm to me and other Jews.' The officer then responded that while he had heard the comment, people were allowed to 'express views'. He explained: 'I heard him say that, I'm not going to disagree that he didn't say it, but we are in a public forum where people can express views. 'I disagree that its a racially aggravated remark and at the same time there was a sign up there not too long ago saying 'Hamas Are Rapists', which I would suggest is in the same vein as the argument you have just made.' A second campaigner then stepped forward to say that he 'takes a great objection' to what the officer has just told them. 'Think about this for a second. 'Jews are baby killers' is in the same vein as stating 'Hamas are rapists'. Think about it,' he urges the officer. The officer responds: 'I'm simply saying that the tone of the messages that are used are very similar. 'I'm not going to get into an argument with you in the street...[they are] simply expressing their views in relative calmness. 'If they are going to start causing issues, we will be there to prevent them from doing that. 'But while we are having an argument and a simple back and forth discussion on the street we're not going to get anywhere are we?' The vigil participant however disagrees. He tells him: 'Jews are an ethnicity, Hamas are a proscribed terrorist organisation. Having a poster saying 'Hamas Are Rapists' is not in the same vein as saying 'Jews are baby killers.' There's no similarity whatsoever.' The officer shakes his head and tells the men: 'We will agree to disagree on that aspect.' He then asks the pair to return to the rest of the group 'to stop an unnecessary escalation.' One of the men however tells the officer: 'If they come and heckle us we have a right to respond.' In a post on X tonight, Sussex Friends of Israel accused Sussex Police of making a 'shocking false equivalence'. The group said: 'At today's peaceful rally in support of Israel, held to remember the hostages murdered and taken on October 7th, we were confronted by a group of masked, aggressive youths shouting antisemitic slurs, including 'Jews are baby killers.' 'When we raised this with the police, the liaison sergeant in charge refused to recognise the comment as racially aggravated. In a post on X tonight, Sussex Friends of Israel accused Sussex Police of making a 'shocking false equivalence'. 'Incredibly, he claimed it was 'in the same vein' as our placard stating 'Hamas are rapists.' 'This shocking false equivalence not only downplays vile antisemitism, but shows a complete failure by the police to uphold their duty throughout the event.' Tonight antisemitism campaigners told MailOnline the officer had seemingly failed to 'tell the difference between a minority and a terrorist organisation' and described the incident as 'appalling'. Stephen Silverman, director of Investigations and Enforcement at Campaign Against Antisemitism, said: 'Britain has descended to a place where police officers cannot tell the difference between incitement against a minority that they are supposed to be protecting and a proscribed terrorist organisation that they are supposed to be defending our country against. 'This embarrassing, pathetic excuse for policing is the product of the appeasement of extremists and racists that our police have engaged in since 'Free Palestine' thugs first started shouting abuse and mobbing our streets 20 months ago. 'Sussex Police need to apologise for this appalling incident and find the perpetrator who had been right under their officers' noses, but more importantly the Government needs to take charge and tell our police forces to get a grip. 'When police can't tell the difference between a minority and a terrorist organisation, it's not just demoralising, it's actually dangerous.'
Reuters
4 days ago
- Reuters
Spain pays first arbitration award in long-running renewable subsidies dispute
MADRID, June 5 (Reuters) - The Spanish government has agreed to pay 32 million euros ($37 million) to a U.S. fund to end a legal dispute tied to renewable energy subsidies that were cut over a decade ago, an Energy Ministry spokesperson said on Thursday. Foreign investors, mostly investment funds, took legal action against Spain after the previous conservative government cut renewables subsidies in 2013 to reduce a power tariff deficit built up through years of artificially low prices. U.S. fund Blasket Renewable Investments had acquired the rights to the award from Japan's JGC Holdings Corporation, which won it under a 2021 ruling by the World Bank's International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes. In 2024, the court shot down Spain's attempt to annul the decision. Since the arbitration proceeding was from a non-EU investor, the payment doesn't clash with a March decision by the European Commission that told Spain not to pay up in a similar case as it would be a breach of EU state aid rules - which prevent governments from giving unfair advantages to one firm over competitors. Cases from non-EU investors represent only 5% of the total, the spokesperson said, adding that Spain continued to pursue all legal avenues to defend its interests. So far, Spain has been ordered to pay around 1.5 billion euros in various cases and the country has been able to reduce by 85% the amount demanded by investors, the spokesperson said. ($1 = 0.8754 euros)
