The official version of this document can be found via the PDF button.
The below content has been automatically generated from the original PDF and some formatting may have been lost, therefore it should not be relied upon to extract citations or propose amendments.
1240/5(3546)
WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT BY DEPUTY I.J. GORST OF ST. CLEMENT
ANSWER TO BE TABLED ON TUESDAY 6th NOVEMBER 2007
Question
Would the Minister –
( a ) inform members whether Planning permission has been granted to the Transport and Technical Services
Department for the siting and operation of the animal carcass storage facility which they are currently operating at Howard Davis farm next to Acorn Enterprises, and if so, would he advise when permission was granted and what public consultation process, if any, was followed?
( b ) Would the Minister inform members whether an environmental impact assessment was undertaken prior
to the commencement of the process and, if so, what were its findings?
( c ) If it is the case that Planning permission has not been granted, would the Minister advise members
whether he is content that such a sensitive process should be undertaken at this or any site without planning permission, and if so, why?
Answer:
( a ) I can confirm that an application for conversion of the former bulb treatment shed into an animal
cremation hall was registered by the Planning Department on 21 January 2003.
T h is a pplication was widely consulted, and included the then PSD- Highways, Health Protection and the
Environmental Services Unit. The application preceded the implementation of the new Planning and Building Law, so would not have been subject to the public consultation requirements of the current legislation. The application was, however, advertised in the JEP.
I c a n f urther confirm that the Planning Application was approved on 23 June 2003 by the Planning Sub-
Committee.
A g r eement of the permit was based, in part, on that the specifications in the original Environmental
Impact Assessment are met'. This assessment included the inclusion of an overnight storage facility within purpose provided freezers in case of delivery or plant problems'.
I u n d e rstand that the shed is currently being used to freeze and store animal by products. These are held until a sufficient batch is collected for shipment to an approved facility in the UK for disposal.
A l th ough the Planning Consent for the cremator included a requirement for storage it did not cover the
storage of animal by-products prior to shipment off-island. However, as discussed below, planning consent would not be required for this part of the process.
( b ) An Environmental Impact Assessment of the cremator facility was undertaken by Faber Maunsell. This
assessed the potential environmental impact during construction and operation of the facility, and proposed mitigation measures to remove or reduce such potential impacts.
T h e E nvironmental Impact Assessment was extensively commented on by the then Environmental
Services Unit who requested more detail on the disposal of ash waste and wash-down water. Health Protection were also consulted and produced 32 detailed technical requirements involving air pollution, odour and noise issues.
T h e p ermission was granted in 2003 and was based on the most appropriate cremator available at that
time. It is now planned to install a more up-to-date cremator. The new design has again been extensively
commented upon by the relevant bodies above.
A l th ough the Environmental Impact Assessment for the cremator included a requirement for storage it
did not cover the storage of animal by-products prior to shipment off-Island.
( c ) I can confirm that planning permission was granted for the conversion of the former bulb treatment shed
into an animal cremation hall with overnight storage facility. This facility has yet to be built.
B o th t he present temporary storage of frozen animal waste products and the previous storage of bulbs can be classed as agricultural related storage use. There is thus no material change of use at the site.
F u r ther, the knacker's yard had to move from its old location within the abattoir in order so that the
abattoir could become EU compliant. EU regulations prevent the siting of an abattoir operating alongside a knacker's yard.
F u r ther, this is only a temporary use and the storage issue will be resolved when the cremator is
installed shortly. Until the new cremator is installed there is no facility on the Island to deal with animal by-products.
In s u m mary, planning permission is not required, given that the site is still being used for agriculture and
there is no material change of use.
It i s a l so noted that the freezing of animal by-products is potentially less environmentally damaging than
their incineration that is covered by the full environmental impact assessment and that this is a temporary measure until such time as the new cremator is installed.