Solid Waste Strategy (P.95-2005) - amendment

STATES OF JERSEY

r

SOLID WASTE STRATEGY (P.95/2005): AMENDMENT

Lodged au Greffe on 7th June 2005 by Deputy M.F. Dubras of St. Lawrence

STATES GREFFE

SOLID WASTE STRATEGY (P.95/2005): AMENDMENT ____________

In paragraph (a)(viii), for the words"bring forward for the approval of the States proposals for a future inert waste disposal site" substitute the words "bring forward within two years for the approval of the States a feasibility study of future land-based inert waste disposal sites, such as those described in the report of Deputy M.F. Dubras of St. Lawrence dated 7th June 2005, without recourse to any further marine reclamation sites in accordance with Policy M1 of the Island Plan 2002".

DEPUTY M.F. DUBRAS OF ST. LAWRENCE

REPORT

The Solid Waste Strategy put forward by the Environment and Public Services Committee sets out a direction based on a vision that builds on the work of several previous Committees, together with a set of specific urgent actions to be implemented over a time-scale ranging from immediate to very long-term.

Inert waste

Having addressed a number of critical elements of the proposed direction in the first seven items under (a) of the proposition, the Committee then deals with waste left overs' and under (a)(viii) invites the States to charge it, first, "to develop improved aggregate recycling facilities" and then, secondly, to bring forward "proposals for a future inert waste disposal site".

The first aspect effectively falls within a whole new philosophy for the Island community towards increased levels and improved methods of recycling much higher percentages of what would otherwise be waste material to be, simply put, permanently disposed of. A determination and a meaningful approach to more recycling has to be enthusiastically welcomed. It is the second aspect, however, which I wish to target.

Proposal for future disposal sites

I welcome the general proposal outlined in Section 6. However, I am not satisfied that the Committee is prepared to determinedly advance the work necessary in a timely fashion. There is both an attitudinal change needed as well as an urgency to get on with verifying the feasibility of changing direction for the future disposal of inert waste away from the current approach of so-called land reclamation' or "marine land recovery facility" (which I have always considered to be land creation' by covering the sea-bed with man-made spoil) (see also Appendix 1) to, in future, only re-filling man-made craters' on land. In our context, as described in the Committee's report, the most obvious opportunity is to capitalize on the existence of a few large quarries.

The Committee Report in section  6 infers that it willonly get down to serious business of finding the next site(s) as La  Collette  II nears its capacity after beingsuper-filled' by around 2015. To do so would be foolhardy! Whilst acknowledging that previous Planning and Environment Committees in developing the Mineral Strategy and the 2002 Island Plan did identify some preliminary thinking, it seems to me and others that it would be far wiser to commit some resources to start the detailed feasibility studies now. Indeed, it would probably be smart to plan to begin utilizing the next site well before La Collette is full for a number of reasons. But, also, we should be thinking far beyond the next decade.

I believe, therefore, that the States should charge the Committee now to begin the evaluation, including preliminary environmental impact assessments, of a number of sites, probably drawing from the Central Planning Vote for 2006 to fund the work and report back to the States within 2 years at the most. In addition to the discussions that have proceeded with the owners and operators of La Gigoulande quarry in St. Mary, it is my belief that the Ronez quarry which has the potential of many times the capacity of La Collette would prove to be a very much longer-term asset in this regard. It is understood from documentation in the public domain that it is expected to be an active quarry until at least 2040 and that although there is a long-term plan of Ronez being suitable for a specialist port, as an alternate site for imported aggregate materials instead of St. Helier, all options must be explored in the public interest for the wisest long-term use (Appendix 2 to follow).

Further, it is my conviction that it would be quite unacceptable morally to contemplate any further projects for this purpose which involved despoiling the marine environment. I believe that, perhaps with the exception of a possible scheme for St. Aubin, which is designated on the Island Plan Map with a blue star recording a States' decision on 23rd July 1996, a clear commitment should be made now. This would be a strong message consistent with our actions establishing RAMSAR sites, the shoreline zone and the marine protection zone and be an added impetus to engaging all stakeholders with the proposed strategy.

Financial and manpower statement

It is believed that there are no significant additional resources to that proposed by the Committee, only that they

would begin to be expended sooner from designated funds.

APPENDIX 1

POLICY M1 (ISLAND PLAN, 2002)

E x tr a ct from Jersey Island Plan 2002 M a r i ne Environment: page 7.4

M a r i ne Protection Zone

1. The long term, wise use ofmarine resources is essential in the managementofJersey'sunique, fragile and economicallyimportant shores and coastal waters. This wasforeseen in the designation of a Marine Protection  Zone. This  is an overarching designation and forms the  basis  for the safeguarding and sustainable use of the Island'smarine resources.
2. The Countryside CharacterAppraisalincludedin its scope the inter-tidal character areasaroundthe Island and the offshore reefs and islets. Theappraisalconcluded that these are so important that they must be given the highest level of protection against  development and that they should be managed for conservation.
3. DevelopmentintheMarine Protection Zoneincluding,forexamplemarinas, land reclamation, tipping or dredging  for  aggregates, will  not  normally  be permitted.  Where appropriate, the  Planning  and EnvironmentCommittee will require anEnvironmentalImpactAssessment (EIA) to be carried out for significant developmentin the Marine Protection Zone in order to fully determine the potential impactsof development proposals.
4. For clarity,where offshore reefs and islets lie aboveMeanHighWater (i.e.  they are not inter-tidal areas) they  are  designated  as part  of  the  Zone of Outstanding  Character and Policy C4 will apply. For developmentproposalsin all inter-tidalmarine areas, Policy M1 will apply.

POLICY M1 – MARINE PROTECTION ZONE

The sustainable use of the Island's marine environment will be ensured by the Marine Protection Zone extending from Mean High Water to the territorial limits, as designated on the Island and Town Proposals Maps.

Within this zone there is a presumption against all developments except those which are essential for navigation, access to water, fishing and fish farming and coastal defence.

Where  permitted,  development  should  not  materially  harm  the  amenities, character  or  ecological  balance  of  the  area  because  of  its  construction disturbance, siting, scale, form, appearance, materials, noise or emissions.

Appendix 2 was not available from the proposer at the time of lodging and will be issued as an addendum to this report when available.