Time ‘running out’ to stop £93.5m. incinerator
Wednesday 9th December 2009, 2:29PM GMT.
TIME is running out to stop the planned waste plant going ahead, a deputy has warned.
Rhoderick Matthews (pictured) believes more than seven States members would support a requete against the £93.5m. project, which the Assembly backed in July. That would be enough to get the issue on a States meeting agenda, but it would still face an uphill struggle so late in the day.
‘I don’t know who would lead a requete,’ he said. ‘I know I would want to feel that other deputies would take note of the public concern, which I think is immense, because it’s going to be pointless if seven to 10 sign a requete but you can’t budge the rest of the States from its position.’
He said changing members’ minds depended on how much public feeling was getting through.
More than 3,500 people have signed a petition against the current plans.
‘One thing that is worrying me is the timetable.’
It is a 60-day procedure for requetes to come through, he added.
- To read Guernsey Press stories in full click here for subscription details. Individual editions are now available online.
Island Life
All about Guernsey
Ambassador of the Year 2011
History & Heritage
Visitor Information
Guernsey's government
Campaigns
Voice For Victims
Voice for Victims is a campaign aimed at promoting the rights of those affected by child sexual abuse.
This is Guernsey
Guernsey Press
Useful Links
Personally I think time has already run out as I just can’t see the present States backtracking on their decision now.
The only hope now is to delay it long enough to elect a new States that will overturn the plan….however again I think that’s a forlorn hope.
Report abuse
The healthcare costs obviously arent being considered.
Report abuse
———————————————–
Paul and Andy you both have a good point.
“Health is more important than Wealth”
It looks like this incinerator will go ahead but what happens in 2039 when there are health issues and consequences because of it, than how much will that cost.
Or sooner if it is realised that it is a pontential danger to health and it has to be shutdown and scrapped, then the 93.5 million and the rest as no doubt it will overrun on budget will have been a massive waste.
———————————————-
Report abuse
Andy and Bill
The misinformation is that the cost is £93 million.
We know the real cost is more like a quarter of a billion pounds.
This excludes potential contingency costs if the incinerator breaks down after the guarantee period, clauses that vary the contract price, potential health costs, replacement costs etc .
Report abuse
Stephen John – don’t forget that the guarantee period is a measly two years – less than buying many new cars!
What amazes me is that, irrespective of all the other concerns, the States couldn’t negotiate a better warranty on £93million worth of equipment. Negotiation skills of that standard would earn you the sack in the business world.
Report abuse
The island simply can’t afford this. It is going to present massive problems in the future.
Moreover the planet can’t afford these contraptions. I would feel a whole lot easier about the proposal if it was used at its maximum capacity.
The truth of it is the best part of the whole deal is missing. The fact it could heat all the islands homes & businesses & provide hot water.
We have half a solution that is spewing out energy into the atmosphere for no other reason than short sightedness and lack of faith in trying other technologies.
Jersey have made it clear they would be happy to help out if we are in need of their plant.
We are basically allowing the island to purchase a new vehicle that can’t tick over. It must scream at full throttle, stationary, with little in return for the outlay and massive running costs.
I fear this has been a done deal long before anybody other than a select few knew about it. Was the emergency powers & procedures committee formed at the time of this tender selection process?
Arnald needs to stick his boot in here I think!
Report abuse
For goodness sake!
Let’s just get on and get the incinerator up and running. It has been investigated and investigated and investigated again at prodigious cost and the professionals and politicians have made the decision – if belated. Please no more delaying tactics.
Report abuse
Stephen John
Using your logic (!) it would appear that the true cost of St Sampson’s High is far far higher than the initial £40-£45 million.
Over the next 25 years I estimate that the true cost will be (using my entirely unreliable method of calculation) in the region of £500 million. What an outrage!!!
Does the Isle of Wight not have any problems that would benefit from your wisdom?
Report abuse
Paul and Paul Le Page
Thanks for trying to have an intelligent discussion.
Yes, the guarantee is a measly 2 years. Have either of you heard what might happen if the worst happened and the incinerator packed up? Is there any allowance for the costs of such a contingency?
Paul I suspect that there might well be something is your concern “I fear this has been a done deal long before anybody other than a select few knew about it
Report abuse
Phil
Stick to what you know best, defending the secret finance industy. If that is the level of your argument towarde S J then i`m not surprised Arnald can run rings around you.
Paul
I can tell you i was told before it was voted through it was a done deal, in fact i was offered a bet it would which i declined, being a close family member of one of the contractors involved i felt he knew something i didn`t. Weather he was just over confident or actually knew i can`t say for sure.
Hasen`t Flouquet already suggested he may not stand at the next election?.
Report abuse
Guernsey’s armchair consultants always know better than the 6 separate firms of acknowledged industry experts, each brought in by different parts of the States to check the homework of the other consultants who were brought in before them (each of them keen to show up their competitors, but each finding that the other consultants’ reasoning and homework was correct)! Have any of you stopped to consider that the existing old Power Station is pumping out 300 times more pollution than the proposed modern incinerator? How about you start a campaign against the 30 year old Power Station and also start buying candles?
Report abuse
bcb
I have heard pretty much the same thing that you seem to be alluding to, which is very worrying indeed. Every more worrying is that I’ve heard it from several sources, although the way that the Guernsey grapevine works that doesn’t necessarily mean anything at all.
I also heard that a certain locally-based businessman with an impeccable record in construction offered to resurface the airport runway and to cap the cost, being prepared to absorb any excess cost himself and thereby removing all risk to the States of an over-spend. But that offer never got taken up and I understand was not even considered before the States committed to something far more expensive. And yes, there’s a clear common link there between the two projects. We can draw our own conclusions but its fair to say that certain attractive alternatives appear to have been discarded all too easily.
Report abuse
David
I’ve heard all the same things, and agree wit h everyone else who smells a large, burning rat in all of this. Dumping a huge multinat right into the middle of our infrastructure can only lead to very certain conclusions. Read up on them: Sita/Suez and various.
They have an anti-following. We should not be promoting it.
We are being led by the trunk by a white elephant. Too big, too costly and unnecessary.
Why were the findings of PSD’s own set up of local knowledge ignored.
It is simple.
Waste is a lucrative business
There are willing and able entrepreneurs that want to tackle the issue.
It would employ a great deal of people and keep the economics local.
It would give us pride in Guernsey.
It would promote and prove sustainability of our own destinies. This is everything the likes of Trott and Jones spout on about.
There has always been something suspect of how tenders are set out, simply because of the way we do business with the outside world. I wish the likes of David could see the connection between these sorts of deals and the Arnald presumed deals he works with.
There will be a small number of local ‘leaders of men’ that will profit greatly from this Suez deal, whilst the others are left, literally, to pick the bones from its behind.
Local enterprise is more than willing and equally as able to sort this out. Much more than the sewage debacle that is conveniently forgotten about.
We have workforce, we have desire. Use it. Don’t ship it in. Times ARE tight, use resources sensibly and with sustainability.
Grand deals with the rich cannot save us indefinitely. Stand on the Donkey’s back for too long and it breaks.
Let the donkey have a bit of the cud to chew.
On its dusty road.
Report abuse
Arthur
Please take the time to read the consultants reports (Available to donwload on SOG website)and then reconsider your post.
You may well become an armchair expert yourself, after reading them.
They, after all, only answer the question asked.
Report abuse
Arnald
I’m going for a lie down and then probably to the doctor’s – I’m actually in agreement with you on something (apart from the unnecessary jibe which spoilt it). This whole Suez deal stinks in every respect. Its simply not right for Guernsey and our politicians have, very simply, got this totally wrong. (I also quite like the other alternative of shipping our waste to Jersey).
Report abuse
I’m on holiday, readers, don’t call the cops!
David
I wouldn’t be Arnald without a ‘jibe’!
To the point.
I don’t like the idea of transferring the problem to Jersey. We could easily sort it out here with a modicum of outside help.
If people can live off the waste in the slums and inhumane, forgotten open wounds around the world, we should be able to get our head around it somehow, without the incursions of takeovers from hugely organised and dodgy subsidiary, locally owned (who them directors, hmm?), secret holding companies, that are no doubt waiting for the sigs in our award winning law firms.
jibe jibe
Report abuse
Arnald
How sadly true about the jibe…
I wasn’t suggesting that it was a good or better idea to ship our waste to Jersey. I just like the sound of it !
Report abuse
Arnald – you’re right and perhaps we should take a leaf out of the charity sector:
Every decent development charity now knows that the best way to help the poor is empowerment – give them a pick me up and the tools and they’ll do the job. History has judged the policy of getting outsiders in to help the “poor lazy ignorant natives” as a farce. What people need is help and empowerment to do the job themselves.
To apply that principle here – I agree that there are perfectly competent people locally who could do the job – all they need is a bit of specialist help to get it off the ground….Rodney Brouard’s plan seems to fit the balance nicely and for the money is worth a go. We don’t need expensive corporations coming in “colonial stylee” and making a fortune out of us – especially not a corporation that has hoodwinked our States into agreeing on a 2 year warranty for a £90million plant!
Report abuse
PS Arnald – no need to call the cops….you’re on 24 hour surveillance now ;-)
Report abuse
Paul Le P and Arnald
those are two of the best posts i`ve read on this subject.
Some very local companies helping to promote this monster just because they have a massive financial interest in it is disgusting.
Report abuse