Supporting Statement

 ENERGY FROM WASTE

FACILITY

Supporting Statement

DECEMBER 2006

BABTIE FICHTNER LIMITED

Primary Distribution – Transport and Technical Services Department (TTSD)

Copyright Babtie Fichtner Limited. All rights reserved.

No part of this report may be copied or reproduced by any means without prior written permission from Babtie Fichtner Limited. If you have received this report in error, please destroy all copies in your pos- session or control and notify Babtie Fichtner Limited.

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the commissioning party and unless otherwise agreed in writing by Babtie Fichtner Limited, no other party may use, make use of or rely on the con-

tents of the report. No liability is accepted by Babtie Fichtner Limited for any use of this report, other than for the purposes for which it was originally prepared and provided.

Opinions and information provided in the report are on the basis of Babtie Fichtner Limited using due skill, care and diligence in the preparation of the same and no explicit warranty is provided as to their accuracy. It should be noted and it is expressly stated that no independent verification of any of the documents or information supplied to Babtie Fichtner Limited has been made.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS.....................................................................................................................III 1  INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................1

1.1  Background........................................................................................................................1

2  PROJECT DRIVERS ...............................................................................................................2

1. The Current Incinerator at Bellozanne...............................................................................2
2. Solid Waste Management..................................................................................................3
3. Current European Practice.................................................................................................4

4. Technology Selection for the New Plant...........................................................................5
5. Plant Capacity....................................................................................................................7

3  PROJECT BENEFITS..............................................................................................................9

1. Sustainable Disposal of Jersey's Residual Waste..............................................................9
2. An integrated Bulky Waste Facility...................................................................................9
3. Recovery of Renewable Energy........................................................................................9
4. A Potential Channel Islands Solution..............................................................................10

4  SITE SELECTION..................................................................................................................11

1. Reasons for Selecting La Collette....................................................................................11
2. Visual Impact...................................................................................................................13
3. Impact on Development of Area......................................................................................17

5  COMPLIANCE WITH JERSEY'S PLANNING REQUIREMENTS.............................18

1  INTRODUCTION

1.1  Background

In May 2005, the States of Jersey Environment and Public Services Committee published their Solid Waste Strategy "Changing the Way We Look at Waste". The Strategy, which was supported by an overview document "Dealing with Jersey's Waste", reflected the internationally accepted Waste Hierarchy of Prevention, Minimisation, Reuse, Recycling/Composting, Energy Recovery and lastly Disposal. The Solid Waste Strategy (The Waste Strategy) was adopted by the States of Jersey on 13th July 2005.

While prevention and minimisation are ideally the most preferred of the options, there are limits to what can be achieved with these measures in practical, environmental and economic terms. Prevention  and  minimisation  are  only  likely  to  slow  down  the  rate  of  increase  of  waste production. Although the long term aim is to reduce waste, in the short to medium term the States of Jersey's Strategy is to focus on increasing the amount of material reuse, recycling and composting, and to improve the efficiency of energy recovery.

Accordingly, the Strategy identified the need for the following key additional services and facilities:

• Encourage home composting through suitable initiatives
• Expand the existing "bring" bank collection system to a wider geographical area and to include a wider range of materials
• Pilot a kerbside collection of recyclables in partnership with the Parishes
• Improve the "bring" collection systems for domestic green waste
• Establish a new Re-use and Recycling Centre (for collection of recyclables, end of life electrical and electronic goods and bulky waste)
• Develop an enclosed Composting Facility for green waste
• a new Energy from Waste (EfW) facility;

All of these initiatives have been pursued by Transport and Technical Services since the Solid Waste Strategy was approved. Home composting is being promoted with subsidised composting bins, an expansion of the "bring" bank system is programmed to take place in the Spring of 2007, a pilot kerbside collection of recyclables in partnership with the Parish of St John has been successful  and  expansion  to  other  Parishes  is  proposed  in  2007,  a  temporary  Re-use  and Recycling Centre will be established in January 2007 and an expression of interest for land for siting an enclosed compost facility was issued in December 2006.

The development of a new Energy from Waste facility forms an integral part of the States of Jersey Waste Strategy.

A formal planning application is being submitted, together with a complete Environmental Impact Statement which describes the Environmental Impact Assessment carried out on the proposed facility.

This supporting statement forms part of the planning application and is intended to summarise the main drivers behind the project, and the benefits of the proposal.

2  PROJECT DRIVERS

1. The Current Incinerator at Bellozanne

The existing incinerator at Bellozanne disposes of approximately 80,000 tonnes per annum of solid waste. The incinerator consists of two streams installed in 1974 and a third stream installed in 1992. The installation of the third stream was necessitated by the large increase in residual solid waste over the interim years. At the time of commissioning, the Bellozanne plant was best available technology. Over time, air quality requirements have become more stringent and Energy from Waste technology has improved significantly to match these requirements, meaning the existing Bellozanne plant no longer offers best practice.

Existing Incinerator at Bellozanne

The existing plant operates close to its capacity. Whilst the plant has a total design capacity of about 19 tonnes per hour, it normally operates at about 14 tonnes per hour if all streams are running. Energy from waste plants normally require a reasonable amount of maintenance, and

typically operate for between 80-88% of the year. Due to its age, the existing Bellozanne plant is operating below the lower end of this range, and at times cannot keep up with the amount of waste produced. During 2006, several thousand tonnes of waste were stockpiled whilst the plant was being repaired. As the Bellozanne plant becomes older, it is likely that the need for more extensive repairs will increase, and so it will not have sufficient capacity to deal with the increase in waste volumes expected on the island.

The current Bellozanne plant also has an extremely limited gas clean-up system, consisting of an electro static precipitator, which removes dust from the flu gas. If the plant was located anywhere else in the European Union, it would have been shut down in 1996 following the introduction of tighter regulations due to the unacceptably high emissions. The Bellozanne plant is the largest single source of airborne pollution on the Island. With limited abatement, emissions of acid gases, dust, dioxins and heavy metals all significantly exceed current European emission standards. To put the emissions in context, the Bellozanne incinerator is estimated to emit about twenty times as many dioxins and furans as are emitted from all the United Kingdom's municipal waste incinerators[1]. The Bellozanne incinerator is the only significant source of hydrogen chloride (an acid gas) on the Island, and emits about 60-70 times more than the permitted amount in Europe.

A detailed engineering review by Babtie Fichtner [2] in 2001 reviewed the possibility of bringing the Bellozanne plant up to modern standards, including adding a flue gas cleaning plant. The review concluded that this would be expensive and, due to the age and construction of the plant, would not offer good value for money. The conclusion was that it would be much more cost effective in the long term to replace the old plant with a new one.

Finally, the existing plant generates some electricity, up to 3 Megawatts per hour, of which about a third is used by the incineration plant. However, about half of the heat produced is lost as the existing steam turbine is too small for the amount of steam generated by the plant. A modern plant would be more efficient, with a larger steam turbine, and would produce up to 10.5 Megawatts of electricity for export to the Island's electrical network.

2. Solid Waste Management

Our society produces significant amounts of waste material. Whilst the majority of people would prefer this was not the case, the reality is that our way of living inevitably creates waste. As the body responsible for disposing of Jersey's solid waste, Transport and Technical Services (TTS) has to take a long term view of the requirement to safely and securely dispose of all waste materials generated on the Island. To do this, TTS is following established European practice and setting up an integrated waste management system to enable the Island to deal with the waste as beneficially as possible. The foundation of this is the internationally accepted "Waste Hierarchy", which promotes the most sustainable waste management practices, such as waste reduction and recycling before considering energy treatment for waste that is not recycled.

Jersey's Solid Waste Management Strategy promotes these activities, but acknowledges that as an Island, there is a limit to the amount of recycling which can be carried out in an economically sensible and environmentally sustainable manner. As Jersey has little industry, the majority of recyclable material has to be exported from the Island, and the environmental impact of transport and reprocessing can therefore become significant. The current Strategy indicates that an overall recycling and composting rate of at least 32% can be achieved by 2009 and sustained in the long term. TTS is committed to expanding recycling and composting whenever this is considered to be economically and environmentally advantageous.

It would be possible to increase recycling substantially above this level by collecting kitchen waste from households separately and composting this waste. However, this was ruled out within the Solid Waste Strategy for the foreseeable future, due to the lack of outlets on the Island for compost  produced  from  kitchen  and  catering  wastes.  Countries  with  high  recycling  rates generally achieve these by separating and composting kitchen and organic waste alongside other materials such as paper, glass and metal. However, larger European countries have much larger land  masses,  and  kitchen  waste  compost  can  be  used  in  less  sensitive  locations,  such  as restoration of landfills or contaminated industrial sites, or in forestry areas. Jersey, with a high proportion of prime agricultural land, and absence of biodegradable waste landfills, does not have this option.

The assumption within the Solid Waste Strategy is therefore that there will be around 68% of waste left for disposal. With the Island Plan predicting a small growth in households due to reductions in household size, and with potential for economic growth, and potentially increased tourism, the Strategy predicts that there is likely to be a continued growth in the total amount of solid waste arising every year for the foreseeable future.

Jersey  has  no  biodegradable  landfill,  where  organic  waste  can  be  buried,  and  this  is  not considered to be environmentally beneficial in any case, as organic waste in landfill releases methane - a powerful greenhouse gas. Therefore, the conclusion of the Solid Waste Strategy is Jersey should manage its own waste in a responsible manner, and the best approach is to recover some energy value from the residual waste through an Energy from Waste facility.

3. Current European Practice

European practice is quite variable, with some countries such as Germany, Holland and Austria taking a lead in waste management. These countries decided in the 1990s that landfill was not a suitable way to deal with waste, and through legislation and public pressure developed structures to recycle, compost and recover energy from waste. Other countries, such as the UK, Ireland and Spain, have been slow to introduce more sustainable waste management processes and have been heavily reliant on landfill. Partly due to a greater public awareness, and partly to European legislation such as the Landfill Directive, this situation is rapidly changing and all European countries are now developing more sustainable waste management systems.

Data on waste management is gathered in the European Union database, Eurostat. The most advanced  countries  in  waste  management  have minimised  landfill  by  expanding  recycling, composting and energy recovery. Sweden and Denmark landfilled less than 10% of their waste by  recycling  44%  and  41%  respectively  of  their  waste  in  2004.  The  residual  waste  was incinerated to recover its energy, 47% and 55% respectively. Holland achieved the highest recycling rates in 2004, about 64%, and with energy recovery rates of 34%. This compared with the less advanced countries where landfill was preferred, with Italy landfilling 57% and the UK 69% in 2004. Recycling and composting in these countries was 32% and 22% respectively, with only around 10% used for energy recovery.

It is important to note that different countries adopt different definitions of waste treatment, and this can lead to fairly large differences in comparing recycling performance. For example, in the UK if metal or ash is recycled after processing the waste in an energy from waste plant, this is

classified as energy recovery. However, in Germany, this would be counted towards recycling figures. In Germany, where 24% of the waste goes for energy recovery, and about 50% of the ash is recycled, this means that the German recycling figure will be about 3% higher than the comparable UK one.

Comparing Jersey with other European countries, it can be seen that Jersey's current recycling rate is better than many, but significantly lower than the most developed. As the Solid Waste Strategy develops, the intention is to move Jersey's combined recycling and composting rate to at least 32%. The main reasons for the acceptance of a lower recycling rate than elsewhere in Europe are:

• Currently  Jersey  is  not intending  to  compost  kitchen  and  catering  waste.  This  could increase overall recycling/composting rates by up to 10%, if the material produced had a beneficial use. Current evaluation of Jersey's requirement for this type of compost is that there is no demand for up to 10,000 tonnes per annum of such material.
• Recycling of the ash as secondary aggregate would further increase recycling rates. If 60% of the ash, and the ferrous metals separated, are re-used, this would increase recycling rates by about 12%. Currently the loadings of heavy metals in the incinerator ash are too high to allow re-use, but separation of materials containing heavy metals, such as batteries and electrical equipment is set out within the Solid Waste Strategy and programmed for the period before the proposed facility would become operational. This would raise Jersey's recycling rates to similar levels to countries like Sweden.
• As  an  island,  Jersey  is  not  as  well  placed  as  it  lacks  any  recycling  reprocessing infrastructure and transport to such facilities adds significant costs and potentially counter- productive environmental burdens.

Jersey is different from most other European countries in that it already has no biodegradable landfill. European waste management development is being driven away from landfill into recycling and energy recovery through financial and legislative instruments. Currently Jersey burns its residual waste in the Bellozanne incinerator. The combination of on-going promotion of waste reduction and re-use, the expansion and optimisation of recycling and composting services and energy recovery for all residual waste, is identified within the Solid Waste Strategy as an integrated and sustainable waste management solution.

Therefore, considering the best practice in other European countries, and the restrictions of an island community, energy recovery is considered to have a key role in dealing with Jersey's residual waste.

4. Technology Selection for the New Plant

As European waste management has moved away from landfill, new technical solutions have been developed. These can be categorised under the following headings:

• Conventional  Energy  from  Waste  –  in  this  type  of  facility,  waste  is  converted  by combustion into heat in the form of steam, and the steam is used either directly or to generate electricity. There are hundreds of such plants operating in Europe, and this type of plant continues to be built throughout Europe, with several new plants built each year.
• Gasification and Pyrolysis – in this type of plant, the waste is converted thermally into a gas. This gas can then be used, potentially as a feedstock, or to generate electricity either from a gas engine or in a conventional steam cycle. If a conventional steam cycle is used, the plant is very similar to a conventional energy from waste plant. Conversion to a feedstock or use with a gas engine remains largely unproven. There are only around 10 examples of commercial gasification or pyrolysis plants operating in Europe.
• Note : For the purposes of this planning application, the term "Energy from Waste" is used to  collectively  describe  conventional  and  gasification  energy  from  waste  treatment facilities.

• Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) plants. There are approximately 50 of such plants operating in Europe and several new ones are built each year. In this plant, incoming waste  is  processed  mechanically  and  biologically,  normally  producing  several  output streams. The biological treatment process can also reduce the amount of waste by up to 30% largely through water loss. Typical output streams are refuse derived fuel, metals, glass and stones, an organic residue and residual material which is normally landfilled. Each of the output streams needs to be dealt with to provide a complete solution. There are some limited markets for refuse derived fuel, such as cement kilns, but it is normal to pay the off-taker to take this material. The organic material can be treated in a composting facility, but because it is derived from mixed waste, its quality is not good enough for widespread use as a quality compost. Such material would be difficult to use in Jersey in any great amounts.
• Mechanical Heat Treatment (MHT) or Autoclave systems. Whilst there are no current examples of such plants yet operating commercially in the United Kindom, although demonstration plants have shown that these plants can work. The raw waste is treated by heating with steam or hot air. This sanitises and breaks the organic material such as paper into a fibre. The waste is then separated mechanically into various fractions, such as organic material, plastics, metals, glass and stones and rejects. As with MBT above, the key issue with this type of plant is how to dispose of each of the various separated fractions.
• Anaerobic Digestion (AD). Anaerobic digestion is a technology used to treat organic material. The current Jersey sewage treatment plant has an AD system to treat sewage sludge. AD could only ever be used to treat the organic fraction of Jersey's solid waste. The process produces a digestate, in the form of a solid sludge. There is no significant outlet for this sludge on the Island.
• Fuel production. There are a number of processes being marketed which claim to convert part of the waste stream, such as organic material or plastics, into a fuel such as ethanol or diesel. Such systems could be interesting in producing some of Jersey's fuel requirement. However, use of mixed waste streams has not yet been demonstrated technically, and there are no commercial schemes operating converting mixed municipal waste into transport fuel that are available to Jersey.

As part of the planning application, significant amounts of work have been carried out reviewing the available technologies for residual waste treatment. At an early stage, key constraints were identified to aid this review process:

• The  process,  or  processes,  must  be  demonstrated  to  be  reliable,  with  identifiable performance and operating costs. This means that commercial reference plants must be operating of a reasonable size, processing similar waste as is produced in Jersey. This is considered to be an absolute requirement, because as an island, Jersey could not accept any significant risk with its main residual waste treatment process.
• The process, or processes, must be capable of dealing with all of Jersey's residual waste. Where a process produces output streams, there must be an overall solution to deal with these streams. This is the main reason behind the rejection of MBT or MHT solutions. These facilities split the waste into other waste streams. Whilst this type of solution may suit a much larger community where several facilities can be distributed throughout a region, it is not suited to a small island.

• Suppliers of processes must be able to demonstrate they have sufficient experience and capability to deliver the proposed solution. It would not be advisable for Jersey to enter a contract with a small company, or one with a lack of waste management experience, as the risk of problems of delivery of the project would be too high.
• Companies must be willing to deliver a project on Jersey – clearly Jersey is not in a position to demand that companies supply equipment. To establish the potential suppliers list, an advertisement was placed in the Official Journal of the European Community. This is an established route for waste management companies to advertise projects, read by all experienced waste suppliers. A number of companies responded to this advert, and whilst some have been eliminated as unsuitable using the criteria above, a sufficient selection of companies remains.

The outcome of this procedure is that there are four companies being considered who are able to supply the residual waste treatment plant for Jersey. All these companies are offering either a conventional energy from waste plant or a gasification plant combined with a conventional steam cycle.  The  proposed solutions  are  sufficiently  similar to  enable  a  generic  outline  planning application to be made.

5. Plant Capacity

The Environmental Impact Assessment includes a full assessment of the plant capacity, and the main analysis is therefore not repeated here. However, it is important to stress the background to this analysis, as it is an argument that if the plant is too large, it will displace environmentally more suitable alternatives, such as recycling.

The plant capacity proposed is intended to handle Jersey's residual waste for thirty years. As it is assumed that waste growth will continue, the plant capacity is larger than required in the early years. However, there are some important points to note:

1. Jersey is an island with no other residual waste disposal route. If the plant is not available, or is too small, Jersey will either need to stockpile waste or to export it. Export is very expensive, and would require purpose built facilities to bulk and bale the waste prior to transport. It is also unlikely to be allowed under international treaties for anything other than an emergency.
2. The original plant was built as a two stream plant with spare capacity. Within 15 years it was too small, and a third stream was added on. This was a very difficult operation, and resulted in a plant that was not optimised in layout and therefore difficult to operate and expensive to maintain. Whilst the addition of further capacity would be possible in a new plant, the likelihood of continued waste growth means this is not likely to offer a cost- effective solution and leaves the Island at risk.
3. There are additional waste streams for which Jersey may require disposal. For example, currently digested sludge from the sewage treatment plant is used on land. Whilst this is

currently the most sustainable solution, it is not certain whether this practice will be sustainable in the longer term. In this event, the most viable alternative is likely to be to burn the sewage sludge in the new incinerator, as has occurred in the past where outlets to land  were  not  available.  Around  10,000  tonnes  per  annum  of  digested  sludge  are generated. There are also other waste streams such as waste oils which are currently stored for export to the UK for disposal. In a new plant with gas clean-up, it may be better to burn this material in controlled quantities in the new energy from waste plant provided that the emission standards required by the Waste Incineration Directive can be achieved.

4. The proposed capacity of the plant is 18 tonnes per hour, which is very similar to the design  capacity  of  the  existing  plant.  However,  the  existing  plant  has  a  continuous

operating capacity of 14 tonnes per hour, so the new plant will be 29% larger. The new plant will be carefully specified and tested to ensure that its actual operating capacity is 18 tonnes per hour. A plant working at its maximum capacity has a shorter operating life and therefore some spare capacity ensures a higher "availability" for waste. This is a key factor in Jersey where there is limited storage for waste in the event of plant downtime and the cost of exporting waste is prohibitive.

5. There will be potential in the early years to use additional capacity in the energy from waste plant to process waste from other Channel Islands, if this is determined to be beneficial to both parties.

Despite the above, and the strong belief that the proposed capacity is the right one for the Island, it is important to demonstrate that the Island develops the right sized residual waste treatment facility. Therefore, in line with the commitment given during the States debate on the Solid Waste Strategy on 13th July 2005, plant suppliers will be asked during the tendering process, to provide two proposals: one for an 18 tonnes per hour plant, and one for a plant with a reduced capacity. This will allow a cost benefit analysis to be carried out to demonstrate whether it is better to build a plant with over-capacity in the early years, or opt for a smaller cheaper plant, at the risk of significantly increased costs if additional capacity is added later. The proposed plant capacity of 126,000 tonnes per annum is therefore the maximum to be considered in the outline planning application, but it is possible that a smaller plant would actually be built, if the States Assembly determines this is the preferred approach following the tender process.

3  PROJECT BENEFITS

1. Sustainable Disposal of Jersey's Residual Waste

The main benefit of the proposed facility is that Jersey will continue to have a long-term sustainable method of dealing with its residual waste. Selection of reliable, proven technology means that the selected solution will work, and that future operating and maintenance costs can be established.

Questions are sometimes raised over whether Energy from Waste is an "old" technology, past its sell-by-date. Modern Energy from Waste plants are far from this. Over thirty years, constant design improvements have been made in designs to improve efficiency, reduce emissions and reduce maintenance costs. Better selection of construction materials, together with advanced computerised  design  of  combustion  zones,  has  meant  that  the  performance  of  plants  has increased  and  maintenance  has  been  reduced.  Modern  energy  from  waste  plants  are  now designed  to  operate  for  8,000  hours  (11 months)  between  major  outages  for  maintenance, whereas for earlier plants it was commonplace that parts of the boiler were cleaned or replaced every 4,000 hours. The type of plant envisaged for Jersey is that in operation and of proven performance throughout Europe.

The other key impact of the proposed plant will be a large reduction in air pollution. The Jersey incinerator is the most polluting municipal waste incinerator currently operating in Western Europe.  Modern  flue  gas  clean-up  systems  are  extremely  well  designed,  and  will  reduce emissions to negligible levels. In addition, to control emissions and to demonstrate compliance, emissions will be monitored continuously, which is not the case with the existing Bellozanne plant, where emissions are only measured occasionally by sampling carried out by external bodies.

2. An integrated Bulky Waste Facility

The facility proposed will integrate a Bulky Waste Facility with the Energy from Waste plant, leading to operational improvements. At present, bulky waste is collected on a constrained site at Bellozanne and is shredded in the open, leading to emissions of dust and noise and additional water in the waste. The shredded waste has to be stockpiled in the open, and then transported to the incinerator. These issues will be resolved at the proposed new Bulky Waste Facility, as waste will be received in a covered area and waste will be delivered directly into the Energy from Waste plant bunker by conveyors. The operation will be completely enclosed, containing dust and noise. The Bulky Waste Facility will also be designed to allow recyclable material to be separated.

3. Recovery of Renewable Energy

The new plant will export up to 10.5 Megawatts of electricity. Of this, around 60% is estimated to come from biodegradable sources, and is therefore considered "renewable" energy. Once in full operation, the plant will export over 50,000 Megawatt hours of electricity, equivalent to 8.5% of the Island's electricity requirements in 2005. This means that 5% of the Island's electricity will be generated from renewable sources due to the proposed plant. The new plant will be the only significant renewable electricity generator on the Island.

Whilst it may be argued that the majority of Jersey's electricity is imported from France, and is therefore generated from nuclear power, another non-fossil fuel energy source, in fact France's nuclear power stations will operate at the same loads, generating the same amount of electricity whether or not Jersey uses this electricity. The electricity would otherwise be exported to other countries, thereby displacing other forms of electricity generated from coal or gas-fired power stations. Therefore, the new energy from waste plant will reduce the net amount of greenhouse gases generated in Europe.

4. A Potential Channel Islands Solution

Jersey is the only Channel Island to currently incinerate and generate electricity from its residual solid waste. Guernsey currently landfills the majority of its waste and is currently considering how to dispose of its waste. Other islands, for example Alderney, do not have sustainable waste management solutions and are considering options such as incineration without energy recovery or export.

An  investigation  into  a  joint  Channel  Island  facility  was  carried  out  between  Jersey  and Guernsey. This concluded that such a facility was possible, and would be best located at La Collette in Jersey, as Jersey has larger waste arisings than Guernsey, and easy access for Guernsey's waste would be possible from the docks. Guernsey is not currently pursuing this option, as the combined cost of transporting its waste by sea and paying for disposal in a Jersey- based facility was not considered value for money. However, when Jersey's new facility is operational, its use by Guernsey or other Channel Islands remains a potential option.

4  SITE SELECTION

1. Reasons for Selecting La Collette

During  the  development  of  the  Solid  Waste  Strategy,  several  sites  across  the  Island  were considered for the possible location of a residual waste treatment facility. As would be expected on a small island, there are only a limited number of suitable locations. Ten potential sites were evaluated, with two sites emerging for detailed evaluation as potential locations for a new energy from waste facility; these being the site of the current refuse handling plant in Bellozanne and the area south of the Jersey Electricity Company power station at La Collette.

Refuse Handling Facility at Bellozanne

La Collette with proposed site located on green waste reception area

The  two  sites  were  considered  in  detail.  The  La  Collette  site  has  clear  advantages  over Bellozanne. These are:

• Reduced cost. An evaluation comparing the differences between the two sites indicates that the La Collette site will be cheaper overall, despite additional design and foundation costs. This is largely due to the cheaper use of sea water cooling at La Collette, together with no requirement to relocate the Refuse Handling Plant (RHP), which is currently at Bellozanne, during the construction period. In either case, the intention would be to locate a Bulky Waste Facility near to the new Energy from Waste plant.
• Use of Jersey Electricity Company facilities. Potential exists to share Jersey Electricity Company facilities, using existing equipment which is no longer required. This includes the use of the Jersey Electricity Company chimney, which will mean the Island has only one large chimney. This would also lead to cost savings at La Collette.
• Potential to import other Channel Island's waste in the early years of operation when the Jersey plant is not operating at full capacity. This would only be viable at La Collette, due to proximity to the docks. This would have a major financial benefit for Jersey.
• Construction Issues. Whilst it is possible to build a plant at Bellozanne, during construction there  would  be  significant  disruption  in  the  local  area  and  to  the  existing  waste management operations and additional costs due to the narrow access and lack of space at Bellozanne.

All of these factors strongly support locating the new plant at La Collette.  The site comparison indicates that there is no great difference in environmental impact between the two locations reviewed. La Collette is preferred because the plant will be located further away from residences, making it easier to minimise disruption from traffic and noise. Disruption during construction will also be much less, as access to the Bellozanne site is quite restricted and special access provisions would be required. The main disadvantage of La Collette is it is more open, so the plant will be much more visible once it is built.

2. Visual Impact

The proposed Energy from Waste plant is a significant facility. The height of the cranes above the bunker and the boilers means that a building height of about 35m is likely to be required. At Bellozanne, the plant would be located in a narrow valley and visual impacts will be small. However, at La Collette, the plant will be on the coast and visible from several locations.

The current preferred design has been developed from a series of possible designs, shown in the following picture, with the Jersey Electricity Company power station to the left.

A review was held to consider potential architectural treatments for the proposed facility. The review was undertaken on behalf of the Cabinet of Ministers and the Waste Strategy Steering Group, which includes politicians and senior officers from several States Departments. Based on the various potential options, the preferred design was selected as the second picture down (highlighted), which minimised the overall size of the plant. It was also agreed that it was important to minimise the visual impact of the plant, and so a light blue cladding colour was chosen as the most suitable. Landscaping in common with the surrounding area has been selected to screen the plant and allow trees and shrubs to be used to break up the overall impact.

This architectural treatment and colouring selection was developed using building and landscape architects  to  produce  the  current  outline  design,  shown  below. The  views  are  computer generated taken from various directions around the site, and show the landscaped mound with some vegetation.

View from South East

View from South West

View from North West

View from North East

The architectural treatment of the proposed facility will be dependent upon the technology used, (which will be determined through the tendering process) and following an integrated approach to design quality during the tender process, considering the impact, functionality and build quality requirements for the facility.

An  Outline  Design  Statement  within  the  Environmental  Impact  Assessment  describes  the fundamental design principles which will be incorporated in the final detailed design. This will be used as the design basis for the plant. The detailed design of the plant will be carried out by the preferred supplier for the plant, who will be selected by competitive tender. The detailed design of the plant will be submitted to the Planning Department for detailed planning consent.

3. Impact on Development of Area

The proposed development is located within the wider East of Albert Pier regeneration area, which includes the entire La Collette reclamation area. A master-plan is being developed for the East of Albert area by a Steering Group led by the States Chief Executive coordinated by Property  Holdings  and  with  representation  from  the  Harbours,  Transport  and  Technical Services,  Planning,  Economic  Development,  the  Waterfront  Enterprise  Board  (WEB), Treasury, Chief Minister's Department and the Parish of St Helier.

. The master-plan is being conducted in two stages. Stage 1 (feasibility stage) will cover:

• · Background Research
• · Land Assembly Proposal
• · Traffic Report/Scheme Proposals Development
• · Risk Analysis
• · Provisional Land Use Concepts
• · Provisional Viability Appraisals
• · Strategic Supplementary Planning Guidance
• · Strategic Options for Implementation

Stage 2 will develop a detailed development master-plan.

The Waterfront Enterprise Board has been charged with coordinating research and identifying outline  development  options.  The  initial  feasibility  stage  report  is  expected  shortly.  This feasibility study will be brought to the Council of Ministers and published for public consultation prior to decisions being taken on which options should be the subject of more detailed study in the second stage.

Once Stage 1 has been completed and agreed, Stage 2 will develop the preferred option(s) to the stage of a detailed master-plan that could be submitted to planning for outline approval and also used to secure external investment and funding. Before committing to that stage there will need to be detailed consideration of the development process. The other consideration will be the relationship of this land to the other waterfront developments and the regeneration of St Helier.

The approval by the States of the proposed location of the Energy from Waste facility at La Collette 2 on 29th June 2006 is being taken into account within the feasibility study being

prepared by the Steering Group.

5  COMPLIANCE WITH JERSEY'S PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

Jersey Island Plan 2002 – Assessment of Proposed Energy from Waste Facility against all Planning Policies

Careful consideration has been given on whether the proposed application fits with Jersey's Planning Policies. The following tables describe how this has been achieved.

General Policies

Countryside

Built Environment

Marine Environment

Housing

Social and Community

Industry and Commerce

Tourism and Recreation

Travel and Transport

Natural Resources and Utilities

Waste Management