“As a result, neither Guernsey Waste, nor its parent body the STSB, has any idea what sort of application would be likely to succeed,” Deputy Roffey said. 

He indicated that he would prefer to “instantly appeal this myopic decision” as there is insufficient time to prepare a new application before the existing void at Longue Hougue is filled and the reclamation project completed. 

Even if the States hadn’t failed to agree a future permanent location for inert waste “significant temporary stockpiling” would be unavoidable in the interim period, he added.  

Guernsey Waste officials met this morning to discuss the next steps. 

“In meantime the DPA has just put a massive spoke in the local construction industry’s wheel and the whole community will suffer as a result,” Deputy Roffey said.  

Pictured: The application was rejected 3-1 at a public meeting.

Planners had recommended to the members of the DPA that the application should be approved as it conformed with planning laws but did attach conditions asking that stockpiling was limited to three years only, with a further three years to remove the waste to its final location. 

But three members – Deputies Sasha Kazantseva-Miller, Chris Blin and John Dyke – all expressed concern in the open planning meeting over the length of time the waste would occupy part of the site and the impacts of double handling the waste, which was revealed could cost up to £900,000. 

Deputy Kazantseva-Miller said stockpiling would impinge on the future development of the site and surrounding area, while also noting that environmental impacts couldn’t be considered minimal due to a double up of trucks moving rubble in and out over the six-year period. 

She and Deputies Blin and Dyke thought the approved time for stockpiling should be shortened so the land could be freed up for industrial and storage uses faster. 

But later Deputy Dyke, who labelled the application “ludicrous” argued that Guernsey Waste should instead look at uniformly raising the height of the land at Longue Hougue with the waste as an alternative, but accepted this would require a rejection and sending the department back to the drawing board. 

The States considered that option several years ago as part of investigations in future inert waste disposal, but it was discounted. 

Deputy Roffey, who sat in the audience of the meeting and joked to a Guernsey Waste official of the consequences of rejecting the application, was incensed after the direction of travel was clear. 

“STSB has been constantly warning that this car crash was coming towards us. As a non-policy making committee, we couldn’t move forward the process of identifying or preparing a new inert waste site. Rather we just handle the stuff. But we frequently told the States that space was running out and it had reached the stage where stockpiling would be required,” he said. 

Pictured: Longue Hougue is just weeks from being filled.

“There was zero opposition to the planning application. Not one representation. The expert planning officers advised that the application should be supported. But a majority of the political members voted the application down, thereby plunging inert waste disposal – and with it the local building industry – into chaos. 

“What was worse is that it was clear to all in the room that rather than simply doing their job – and deciding if the application could be permitted within planning policy – DPA members had decided to set themselves up as a shadow Guernsey Waste and suggested alternative schemes. 

“This would have been bad enough if they spoke with one voice but the alternatives they were promoting varied from a shorter period of stockpiling to permanently raising the level of the site. Where on earth did that idea come from?"

He laid out to Express his view of a catalogue of errors which has led to this week's events. 

“In the last Assembly there was a painful process to identify the next inert waste disposal site after Longue Hougue was full. Multiple options were considered and finally the difficult decision was taken to earmark a new reclamation project [Longue Hougue South] as the preferred site. However, it needed to be zoned for the purpose, so a planning inquiry was required. 

“Early in this Assembly it became clear that two members of the new P&R were strongly opposed to this decision – which had been made after exhaustive consideration of all of the options. Of course, it was their democratic right to disagree with established States policy. But where good governance started to unravel was that they did not try to change that agreed policy but rather they undermined it via secondary means. 

“If they wanted a rethink then a fresh States debate would either have confirmed the previous states decision or overturned it. Presumably with a new preferred site being identified. But instead, P&R simply denied E&I the cash required to set up the required planning inquiry. This meant that LHS remained the States preferred option for inert waste disposal [it still does] but that it couldn’t be progressed.” 

READ MORE... 

Inert waste plans in chaos as DPA reject scheme

Relocating stockpiled inert waste could cost between £400k - £900k

Planners say inert waste stockpile should be approved

Inert waste could be piled nine-metres high at Longue Hougue