Planning brief before inert waste expansion

This will look into constructing a breakwater, extending the reclamation site south by about 500 metres using inert waste.

Although it was stressed that accepting the proposition would not mean the work would go ahead, many members expressed concerns about the environmental impact.

Environment & Infrastructure and the States’ Trading Supervisory Board were behind the proposals.

E&I president Barry Brehaut stressed that this was the start of the planning process which would be ‘extremely thorough and exhaustive’.

Deputy Peter Roffey said he would vote to go ahead with the planning brief ‘safe in the knowledge’ that the planning inspector would look at whether this was the best option.

Deputy Charles Parkinson said that before any final decision could be made, input was needed from the ports review and the energy policy, including the hydrocarbons strategy.

Using inert waste to expand St Peter Port Harbour was raised by Deputy John Gollop, who was concerned about the impact of the Longue Hougue plan on the rare scaly cricket and eel grass.

The harbour idea was also brought up by Deputy Al Brouard, who said that it would be better to use the waste to expand the harbour for the ships that will be likely to use it in future.

Deputy Barry Paint spoke of the unique St Peter Port gabbro rock that would be buried forever if the work went ahead, a comment echoed by Deputy David De Lisle, who said the site was of great interest to ecologists and geologists.

The geological interest was also highlighted by Deputy Chris Green, who said he had been approached by a geologist who hoped that before any work went ahead, a full geological survey would be allowed.

Costs had increased from about £30m to £45m, and that worried Deputy Jennifer Merrett, particularly since no strategic use had been identified for the site.

Wherever inert waste was put would lead to environmental problems, said Deputy Jeremy Smithies, who was concerned that further delay would be too costly.

Those who were against the use of Longue Hougue South needed to come up with a viable alternative, said Deputy Matt Fallaize.

‘It’s a waste of land, a waste of money and a waste of time,’ was Deputy Neil Inder’s opinion.

After STSB president Peter Ferbrache replied to the debate, members approved preparation of a planning brief by 25 votes to 13 with one abstention.