STATES OF JERSEY
r
Energy from Waste Facility: Public Enquiry
Lodged au Greffe on 15th October 2007
by the Connétable of St. Helier
STATES GREFFE
PROPOSITION
THE STATES
are asked to decide whether they are of opinion -
to request the
Minister for Planning and Environment not to determine the Planning Principle
application for a new Energy from Waste facility at La Collette II,
St. Helier (Application reference PP2007/0050) until a public inquiry has
been held into the project.
CONNÉTABLE OF ST. HELIER
REPORT
Some time ago I asked the Minister for Planning and
Environment to agree to require a Public Inquiry to be held into the current
planning application for a replacement incinerator. The Minister has now
replied to me in the following terms –
I have now received the advice from
the Law Officers on the issue of whether a Public Inquiry is required for the
Energy from Waste Planning Application. The arguments are complex but
essentially a PI is not required. The key factor is that the States have
already made a decision on the location. Also the States have already taken the
decision to adopt the Solid Waste Strategy. The decision on whether to hold a
PI is down to the Minister but the balance of factors in this case weigh
against one in my opinion.
I disagree with the Minister’s opinion.
Article 12(1) of the Planning and Building
(Jersey) Law 2002 ‘Public inquiries’ provides that a public enquiry may be
held –
(1) This Article applies in respect of an
application for planning permission where the Minister is satisfied that if the
proposed development were to be carried out –
(a) the development would be likely to have a
significant effect on the interests of the whole or a substantial part of the
population of Jersey; or
(b) the development would be a departure (other
than an insubstantial one) from the Island Plan.
As far as meeting the requirements of
sub-paragraph (1)(b) of the Article is concerned, it would seem that the
incinerator project is a departure from the 2002 Island Plan, as at the
time of the Plan, it was assumed that the replacement facility would be built
in Bellozanne Valley –
14.22
Two sites in Bellozanne Valley were
initially considered for a new plant and, following public consultation with
local residents in November 2001, a third and preferred site has been
identified by the Public Services Committee. This is located within the
existing waste management complex in the area presently occupied by refuse
handling plant. That Committee’s consultants have confirmed that the site is
appropriately located and of sufficient size to accommodate the new plant.
Accordingly, it is important that the site is safeguarded for the purpose.
Policy WM4 – Safeguarded Waste
Site
A site for a new ‘Energy from Waste’
Plant is safeguarded in Bellozanne Valley, as shown on the Island Proposals
Map, subject to a satisfactory Environmental Impact Assessment.
The decision to move the new plant to La Collette was
made following an amendment to the 2005 Waste Strategy. It was influenced by a
number of considerations including the possibility of the Island taking waste
from Guernsey for incineration. In contrast to the prolonged, comprehensive and
independently reviewed consultative process that produced the 2002 Island Plan,
the amendment was a relatively late addition to the Waste Strategy, which for
much of its development had remained consistent with the choice of Bellozanne
as the preferred site. There was, as a result, little public consultation
carried out, and little attention paid to the fact that for a considerable
period of time the States of Jersey had pursued a policy of buying up
properties within an agreed nuisance zone around the various waste treatment
plants in the valley. (The Public Services Committee of the day had already moved
the composting site from Crabbé down to La Collette, a move which was later
admitted to have been carried out without any consultation with the Parish of
St. Helier, or residents and businesses that would be affected by odours
and dust from the process, and which was, I think, carried out without planning
permission, so perhaps it is not surprising to find the States taking a
decision on moving the Island’s waste treatment plant to the same area.)
If the Island Plan process is to remain the major tool
of land-use planning in our Island and if Jersey is to continue to benefit from
the application of its policies, especially in terms of preserving the Island’s
natural beauty, it is, I believe, important that due importance is given to the
Plan. Granted the States have taken other decisions since 2002 in respect of
waste disposal facilities, but none of them has been informed by the levels of
public engagement that go into the development of the Island Plan.
There was a second and consequential departure from
the Island Plan in the 2005 decision in terms of the use of La Collette
reclamation site which had been safeguarded as valuable land for the
development of the Island’s light industry, and for the relocation of ‘bad
neighbour’ businesses from residential areas. Siting the waste disposal
facility and its concomitant infrastructure at La Collette instead of on the
existing safeguarded site in Bellozanne Valley means that there will be
significantly less land available at La Collette, itself an area safeguarded in
the Plan. The relevant section of the Plan is as follows –
IC7
Provision of Industrial Land
10.25 During the life of the 1987 Island Plan it has been difficult to
ensure an adequate supply of new land and buildings due to a lack of
information on the true level of demand. The new Island Plan will identify
sufficient land to meet the estimated requirements for the first five years of
the Plan and put in place criteria for bringing forward additional land, as the
economy requires, in future years.
10.26 The light industrial and warehousing sector includes a diverse
range of activities: manufacturing, storage, garage and workshops, distribution
and transportation businesses. Most industrial activity that takes place in the
Island can be described as light industry (for example, manufacturing and light
engineering), storage or distribution.
10.27 The land-use requirements of industry present a particular
challenge given the competing pressures on land in the Island. If sufficient
land is not provided, however, the growth and development of the manufacturing,
storage and distribution sectors of the economy will be stifled. Emerging
industries will not be developed due to lack of premises. This will also
restrict opportunities to relocate businesses from sites where they have a high
impact on residential areas, or can release land for homes.
10.28 The requirements for industrial land over the Plan period will
arise from: the relocation of businesses from their current locations, through
expansion and improved operations; businesses which may be regarded as ‘bad’ or
inappropriate neighbours, many of which occupy sites in areas subject to
regeneration and environmental improvement; and the emergence of certain
industries with particular land-use requirements, such as e-commerce, marine
traders and the media.
It is anticipated that of these
categories, the relocation of bad neighbours will give rise to the greatest
demand for industrial land.
10.29 Information to try to define future requirements has come from
consultation with the main commercial agents about outstanding requirements for
sites and floor space of various sizes; and the estimated floor space
associated with businesses seeking to relocate or included within the
assessment of urban capacity as bad neighbours or sites with potential for
other uses.
10.30 These sources reveal that there is a requirement for over
25,000 m2 (270,000 sq. ft) of industrial floor space
which remains unsatisfied (12.4 acres, 27.9 vergées or five hectares
of land, at a normal ratio of floorspace to site area of 1:2); demand includes
small (50 to 250 m 2/500 to 2,500 sq. ft), medium (250 to 600 m2/2,500
to 6,000 sq. ft) and large space users (up to 4,000 m2/40,000 sq. ft).
The small business sector of light industrial units is particularly restricted
in supply; and to assist in the relocation of businesses from the town centre
as well as the release of land for housing, there may be a requirement for
approximately 17.4 acres (39.2 vergées or seven hectares) of industrial
land.
10.31 It is the policy of the Industries Committee to assist
diversification of the economy and a strategy group has been formed to deal
with ‘emerging industries’. These include industries such as crafts, marine and
aviation-related businesses, e-commerce, and media/film. The growth and
development of these industries will lead to various requirements for floor
space, in addition to those identified above.
10.32 The site requirements for the different types of users will vary.
Purpose-built starter units or redundant agricultural buildings (as defined in Section
Five – Countryside) could suit most small size occupiers. Larger users
are likely to require specific sites developed for individual purposes. Most
industry will require good road access, particularly for distribution
businesses. Marine and aviation related industries mainly require locations close
to St. Helier Harbour and Jersey Airport respectively. Certain types of
employment uses may also be suitable within the town of St. Helier, provided
that they are compatible with neighbouring uses, such as media/cultural
industries.
10.33 All of this has identified a need to bring forward land for
industrial use at La Collette 2. Other requirements for industry may be met by
using redundant agricultural buildings for light industry and storage.
Agricultural buildings will be particularly important in providing small
workshops but the Committee is clear that not all redundant agricultural
buildings will be suitable: they will have to comply with the policies in
Section Five – Countryside
(Policies C18
and C19).
La Collette 2
|
10.34 |
The
development framework for La Collette 2 includes the designation of an area
for industry, storage and warehousing. The area designated for industrial
purposes is indicated on the Town Proposals Map and comprises 21 acres/
47 vergées. This potentially will provide for 40,000 m2
(430,000 sq. ft) of industrial, storage and distribution floor
space. |
|
10.35 |
There is a
pressing need to release industrial land at La Collette 2 in the short term.
Informal commitments have been made and land allocated. This is an obvious
site for bad neighbour businesses, which will free-up valuable areas
elsewhere. La Collette 2 may also be required to take uses relocated from
elsewhere in the Harbour as the Port Master Plan is developed. |
|
10.36 |
The first
phase of industrial land at La Collette 2 may be available for occupation by
2005 and could be released progressively until completion of the filling of
the site. Within the Plan period to 2011, as much as three quarters of the
site (6.4 hectares (16 acres or 36 vergées)/32,000 m2
(323,000 sq. ft) of floor space) could be released. The first
phase of available land should be identified for the existing commitments to
companies and to provide for the needs of the larger industrial users, for
whom there are limited alternatives. An area of the site could also be
identified for purpose-built starter units for light industry. |
|
Land
comprising 21 acres/47 vergées is designated at La Collette 2 for
industry, storage and warehousing. A development brief will be prepared for
the site to ensure that development takes place in a co-ordinated manner and
that proposals come forward that are satisfactory in terms of design, layout,
landscaping, service infrastructure, access and parking. Proposals for other
commercial uses, including retailing, will not normally be permitted on the
site unless related and ancillary to the primary industrial, storage or
warehousing use and provided they are in accordance with other principles and
policies of the Plan. |
I would argue, therefore, that Application PP2007/0050
departs from the Island Plan in two ways and for this reason alone a Public
Inquiry into the application is called for.
The second grounds for a Public Inquiry in
Article 12 of the Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002 is –
‘in respect of an application for planning
permission where the Minister is satisfied that if the proposed development
were to be carried out the development would be likely to have a significant
effect on the interests of the whole or a substantial part of the population of
the Island
I find it difficult to imagine how the development
outlined in the planning application PP2007/0050 cannot but ‘have a significant
effect on the interests of the whole or a substantial part of the population of
the Island.’
Reason one: the proposed development will have an
enormous visual impact on the approaches to St. Helier and the southern
parishes. The montage provided in the colour brochure accompanying the Planning
Application is completely misleading, and it is disingenuous for the writers to
claim that the Island will benefit in aesthetic terms by only having one
incinerator instead of two. The chimney at La Collette could be removed if the
oil-fired electricity generating equipment becomes redundant – using it
for the incinerator flue will mean it will continue to dominate the Island’s
skyline for the next 3 decades. It is also the case that there are some
waste treatment technologies that would require either no chimney or a much
smaller one than presently exists at Bellozanne.
Much public opposition has been levelled at the
Waterfront Hotel and there has been considerable debate about the visual impact
of tall buildings on the St. Helier waterfront. This debate has yet to
focus on the proposed incinerator, which will be clearly seen right the way
along the coast from Noirmont to Le Hocq. It will be one of the first things
seen by visitors arriving by sea. In particular, it will mean that the linear
park stretching down from Fort Regent to La Collette will be unable to screen
the light industrial activities from view. It is, therefore, entirely
appropriate that the public are provided with an honest assessment of what the
proposed development will actually look like, as would be provided during the
course of a Public Enquiry into the application.
Reason two: the proposed development will impact
negatively on the Island’s recycling efforts and commitments. The leaflet
issued by the Transport and Technical Services Department says that this is not
the case, but does not address the question – if the Island can
successfully reduce the amount of waste it creates, and extract the majority of
recyclables from the waste stream, what will there be left to burn? Both the
Minister for Transport and Technical Services and the Chief Minister have
stated on a number of occasions that people who think we can recycle more than
the target figure agreed in the 2005 Waste Strategy and will, therefore, be
able to make do with a smaller waste disposal facility or disposal facilities
of a non-combusting type are living in cloud-cuckoo land.
However, during a recent hearing of the Environment
Scrutiny Panel the Minister admitted that were a significant amount of the
Island’s waste arisings to be diverted from the incinerator, and under certain
circumstances, there might be a case for a smaller plant.
Further, the Minister admitted that his bid for the
required budget for recycling initiatives had not been successful – ‘until
more funds are available for recycling we are now severely restricted in how we
can roll it from here’. Here we find evidence that the Department’s commitment
to procuring a new incinerator is already taking precedence over their
commitment to recycling. This is in stark contrast to the approach of Cardiff
City Council whose recycling centre has been visited by members of Scrutiny.
Here a major investment (albeit more than ten times less than the cost of the
proposed incinerator) has been made in advanced kerbside collections of
recyclables and in mechanised separation technology, so that the Council can
see how much they can take out of the waste stream before they go down the
incinerator route.
Reason three: the proposed development will have a
significant economic impact on the Island. Aside from the enormous capital cost
of the development, in excess of £80 million, there will be the ongoing
revenue costs of running the plant, which will rise as the plant ages. The
Chief Executive Officer of the Department told the Scrutiny Panel, ‘The
operating costs for the new plant are envisaged to be very similar to the
existing plant …’ and provided the following figures –
2006: £1.797 million,
with £350,000 additional expenditure,
2007: similar,
i.e. £1.797 million, with £350,000 additional expenditure,
2008: £1.83 million,
with £540,000 additional expenditure.
We must add to these costs the ‘opportunity cost’ of
the land occupied by the incinerator and its infrastructure i.e., the value
that could be otherwise realised from this area of land, which has not been
calculated, as far as I know.
Reason four: the proposed development could prejudice
the future development of La Collette. There are currently a number of studies
being carried out on this area, notably by the ‘East of Albert’ group which is
examining the long-term requirements of the harbour and marine traders, as well
as the potential for regenerating Commercial Buildings. A draft Mineral
Strategy exists but, as far as I know, has not been completed, while the work
on the potential hazards of the ‘fuel farm’ is ongoing – and may be
influenced by changes in Health & Safety requirements following the
Buncefield explosion, and, as recently as March this year an explosion at a
waste oil storage depot on the Isle of Grain led to the pollution of a site of
special interest in the Medway.
Reason five: the proposed development borders the
Island’s RAMSAR site, or marine national park. When La Collette was chosen as
the site for the new waste disposal plant little attention appears to have been
paid to the fact that five years earlier the Island had designated the
intertidal areas bordering La Collette as a ‘RAMSAR site’. The Island Plan is
clear about the importance of this area and sets out a clear policy framework:
M6 Marine Sites of Special Interest
|
7.28 |
Several of
the inter-tidal areas have been recognised as being of national and
international importance for their cultural, scientific and visual
characteristics and require a special degree of protection and/or type of
management. |
|
7.29 |
The
south-east coast, including bays and inter-tidal reefs, is an internationally
important marine area already confirmed as a Ramsar site. A Ramsar site is a
wetland of international importance especially as a waterfowl habitat,
designated under international convention. Waterfowl are defined as birds
ecologically dependent on wetlands. The Ramsar site extends from La Collette
around the coast to Gorey Pier and in a south-easterly direction. |
|
7.30 |
The Ramsar
site could be promoted as a part of a potential Jersey Marine Reserve with
appropriate interpretation. Similarly, Les Écréhous and Le Plateau des
Minquiers have been identified as potential Ramsar sites or as part of a
Marine Park (see Figure 7.1). |
|
7.31 |
The St.
Ouen’s Bay Planning Framework considers that this part of the marine
environment is of sufficient value to merit future protection. Scientific
information is required to confirm this. |
|
7.32 |
In view of
the above, areas of the marine environment that are of exceptional merit and
distinction should be given protection by designation as Sites of Special
Interest. Policy M6 should be read in conjunction with Policy G11. |
|
The
Planning & Environment Department will safeguard and help manage the most
valuable marine environments by designating them as Sites of Special Interest.
Development
proposals affecting these environments will be considered under the
provisions of Policy G11. Those sites
of international importance for waterfowl will be notified for designation as
Ramsar sites. The Planning & Environment Department will consider the
designation of these special areas as a Jersey Marine National Park to
highlight their importance and the need for sustainable management. The
Planning & Environment Department will consult with other Committees,
agencies and stakeholders in the course of designating Marine Sites of
Special Interest. |
Although the area covered by Application PP2007/0050
does not extend into the RAMSAR site, there is a risk that the latter will be
prejudiced by the development.
Reason six: the proposed development, if undertaken
with no further opportunity for the public to meaningfully influence the
States’ decision in 2005, will by reason of its various significant impacts,
damage further the relationship between the States and the public of Jersey. Few
Islanders, today, have any real idea what this building will look like or how
it will affect their lives. If the Council of Ministers is serious about
‘reconnecting’ the States with the public it ought not to oppose this
opportunity for a Public Inquiry.
Arguments against the holding of a Public Inquiry into
the incinerator project are likely to include the following:
1 the Island has already chosen to build a
waste disposal facility at La Collette as part of the debate on the Waste
Strategy in 2005, and, therefore, should not reconsider its decision
What if the decisions taken in 2005 – such as
basing the size of incinerator on a recycling target of 32%, and on the
assumption of steady growth in waste arisings – were wrong? The United
Kingdom has recently revised its Waste Strategy and while it still includes
‘energy recovery’, it places far greater emphasis on waste prevention, re-use
and recycling, and, most importantly, states that economic growth should be
decoupled from growth in waste arisings. There has been an enormous growth in
public awareness about the effects of greenhouse gases on climate change, and
there is a growing desire by individuals to ‘do their bit to save the planet.’
Few would find this desire satisfied by seeing recyclable materials going to
incineration.
2 the cost of incinerator plants has
increased several fold and, therefore, the longer the Island delays in placing
an order, the more expensive it will be
If, as an outcome of a the work being done by the
Environment Scrutiny Panel and other bodies, the Island’s Waste Strategy is
revised to include higher recycling targets and other measures to promote waste
prevention and minimisation, it is possible that the size of the current
application could be considered excessive. A smaller plant would occupy a
smaller footprint, have less visual impact and cost less to build, run and
repair. Developments in waste treatment technology may also meant that Jersey
could have the option of choosing to be in the vanguard (as it used to be) in the
field of waste treatment, rather than embracing old technology.
3 the current incinerator is ‘probably
the dirtiest in Europe’ and must be replaced without further delay
The brochure accompanying the Planning Application,
with its pictures of children flying kites and families on the beach, states
that the new incinerator will be ‘clean’. There is no doubt that it will be
much cleaner than the present incinerator, but we should remember that it will
still produce some toxic gases, will still generate toxic fly ash, not all of
which can be recycled and which will therefore need to be landfilled in
engineered pits, and will still be an emitter of CO2.
It is indeed important that the existing incinerator
is replaced but we need to be sure we have the right solution, both the right
technology and the right size of treatment plant. We need to know that the
solution is economically sustainable – the recent Hearing by the
Environment Scrutiny Panel showed that there is currently a mismatch between
the funding of the incinerator and of recycling centres. In the meantime it is
worth noting that the Department of Transport and Technical Services has made
great progress this year in taking out some of the most polluting items from
the waste stream. A recent visit to the recycling centre at Bellozanne
impressed the Environment Scrutiny Panel with clear evidence that items such as
computers, televisions and other electronic equipment are no longer being
incinerated. The more plastics and rubber that can be removed from the waste
stream now, the less polluting the emissions from Bellozanne chimney will be.
In conclusion, I believe that the planning application
by the Minister for Transport and Technical Services fulfils the requirements
of the Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002 and that the Minister for
Planning and Environment should reconsider his decision not to hold a Public
Inquiry before the application is determined.
Financial
and manpower implications
There are no significant manpower implications should
this proposition be accepted. The cost of a Public Inquiry is difficult to
forecast as the Island has not held one before. I am advised that it is likely
to run into five figures in order to cover the remuneration and disbursements
of the independent planning inspector, the preparation of relevant documents
and the holding of public hearings.