Solid Waste Strategy (P.95-2005) - second amendments (P.95-2005 Amd.(2)) – comments

STATES OF JERSEY

r

SOLID WASTE STRATEGY (P.95/2005): SECOND AMENDMENTS (P.95/2005 AMD.(2)) – COMMENTS

Presented to the States on 28th June 2005

by the Environment and Public Services Committee

STATES GREFFE

COMMENTS

1. T h  e amendment proposes that the new Energy from Waste facility be located atLaCollette

The Environment and Public Services Committee cannot agree to support this amendment, for the following reasons.

To be bound by the commitment that the new Energy from Waste facility would be located at La Collette, subject to an Environmental and Health Impact Assessment and planning approval, would mean that, if planning approval was not granted for that site, the Environment and Public Services Committee would not have a site for the facility.

The Environment and Public Services Committee has already agreed, in the Strategy, to give consideration to La Collette as a possible location for the new Energy from Waste plant. This will be subject to Environmental and Health Impact Assessment and planning approval, and the final choice of a site will be made accordingly. However, the Environment and Public Services Committee has expressed that its preferred choice of site is Bellozanne, for the following reasons –

• B ei n g sited in Bellozanne Valley and also in an enclosed part of the valley, amongst tree-clad hills, the plant would be much less visible than at La Collette.

• T h e States have agreed the Island Plan 2002, which states that there is a site for a new Energy from Waste plant safeguarded in Bellozanne Valley.

• T h e overall Capital cost of a plant at La Collette would be higher than at Bellozanne for the following reasons –

1 . L a Collette I - There would be considerable costs in the site adjacent to the Jersey Electricity

Company power station, for enabling works, such as moving some of the Jersey Electricity Company facilities and the Abattoir.

2 . L a Collette II - Constructing the new plant on the new reclamation site would involve much higher

civil engineering costs. The site is also the most prominent, compared to other alternatives.

• O  v er recent years, the Bellozanne site has rationalised its staffing and skills levels and now benefits from a team of multi-skilled operational and maintenance technicians. To move the plant to La Collette could have resource implications for the operation of facilities on 2 sites.

• I s i t a good idea to put all of the solid waste management facilities at La Collette, given the proximity of other strategic infrastructure?

The amendment has made a number of points that are claimed to be advantages for locating the plant at La Collette. The Environment and Public Services Committee does not necessarily agree with these points, and could make a number of other points of advantage for the plant being located at Bellozanne. However, as stated in the Strategy, the Environment and Public Services Committee has agreed to carry out an evaluation of both sites and a more detailed study of the implications of locating the plant at either site.

The Environment and Public Services Committee does not support the amendment. The Committee feels that the States should be keeping site options open at the moment.

2. T h  at residentsofBellozanne should be offered health screening similar to that availablecurrentlyto EnvironmentandPublicServicesstaffoperatingtheexistingBellozanneEnergy from Wasteplant, until the commissioningof the newEnergy from Wasteplant.

The Environment and Public Services Committee has for some time accepted that the levels of emissions from the existing plant at Bellozanne are above international emissions standards.

The experts on health matters are the Health and Social Services officials, and the Environment and Public Services Committee will be guided by them on this matter.