A SEWAGE plant could be built at the existing Belle Greve site now - and for a fraction of the estimated cost. Public Services goes to the States at the end of the month recommending that a marine study be carried out over the next five years before a decision is made on whether to spend £50m. on full sewage treatment.
But former deputy Roy Bisson said the proposed survey would be a waste of time and that the States should instead concentrate on the area around the Belle Greve headworks in conjunction with a private operator. A solution could be achieved using local capital and costing householders £15 per quarter.
‘This issue was why I stood for the States in 1997, was elected to Public Thoroughfares and agreed to serve on Environment,’ said Mr Bisson.
‘I have had access to all the information available for the last decade, I have carried out a considerable amount of personal research and have held public meetings on the subject. My one aim all along has been to encourage the immediate introduction of waste-water treatment at an affordable cost.’
He said that the proposed survey and environmental impact assessment, to decide where to build a plant, would be a complete waste of public money.
‘The argument that suggests seawater is a treatment option was lost 100 years ago and it is merely a delaying action.’
In its report, Public Services estimates providing a suitable site for plant would cost up to £30m., even suggesting land reclamation.
There is about 11,000sq. metres of States-owned land around the headworks. Public Services is concerned about the lack of space there - it would cost more to build a compact plant - and the proximity of housing.
But Mr Bisson said an attached report by consultant WRc showed that the largest area required for any sort of treatment works was just 7,500sq. metres.
‘Some systems, but certainly not all, do generate some smells and others have other disadvantages,’ he added.
‘But there can be no doubt that a number of processes could be situated in the area either underground or heavily screened with banks and trees. If the main tank systems were underground the UV treatment equipment could be located above them, reducing even more the impact on the environment.
‘Independent engineers have confirmed that a plant of the required size, matching the output requirements demanded by Environmental Health, could be located underground on that site for £25m. or less.’
There are local investors willing to put up capital for a plant, he said.
‘Financially, it is an attractive prospect. For an investment of £25m., a 25-year contract could be secured and the charge rate per megalitre fixed through a regulator to offer a reasonable return on the investment.’
The regulator would ensure value for money for the island, he said.
‘I estimate that the additional cost to islanders of such a scheme would be about £15 per quarter, but could, in time, be reduced,’ added Mr Bisson.
‘It is quite possible for the States to go to tender now on the basis of cost per megalitre, effect on the environment, both visually and in terms of sludge production, and conformation to output standards. An EIA can be done on the site alone, without considering other locations, saving a considerable sum.’
Article posted on 16th October, 2007 - 12.00am
Loading ...
Most Commented: