Incincerator move rejected
Thursday 26th February 2009, 8:38AM GMT.
AFTER a day and a half’s debate, the States rejected the move to stop the incinerator by a two to one majority yesterday.
Deputy Daniel Wimberley’s proposition to rescind the previous decision and break the contract was rejected by 35 votes to 17.
The £50m cost of walking away from the contract signed at the end of last year was too high for Members in the end, despite Deputy Wimberley’s claim that they could pay off the contract, build an alternative technology plant and still have £12m left over.
• Picture: Deputy Wimberley arriving for the debate
• Full report in today’s Jersey Evening Post
Read the full story in the Jersey Evening Post. Click here for subscription details. Individual editions are also available online.
Travel
To, from and around the Island
Airport Arrivals/Departures
Harbours Arrivals/Departures
Bus Information/Timetables
JOIN US ON...
Facebook and Twitter
Follow us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
Got a story? Get in touch
KIT 4 CLUBS
Win a share of £10,000
2012 is the year of the London Olympics and to celebrate this great event the Jersey Evening Post, in association with sponsors Ogier is giving all sporting clubs a chance to win a share of £10,000.
This is Jersey
Jersey Evening Post
Useful links
Perhaps the states should have looked closer when researching incinerators in the first place!
Yet another bungle… How many more before all of these wasters are ousted?
Report abuse
A rare thing
a sensible decision from our leaders.
Report abuse
Seeing as States pay is topical – how much did this cost the tax payer in man hours?
Report abuse
What I want to know is how the £50 million figure was arrived at. The cost of cancelling a contract would be compensation for expenditure to date by the contractor which cannot be substantial yet and lost profit. Are the CoM saying the contractor is making close to £50 million profit on this contract ? That would be almost a 100% profit on top of actual costs of c £50 or £60 million.
I suspect the figure is much much smaller and the £50 million was put out as scaremongering by the CoM so that Islanders and other States members would not think twice about rejecting Deputy Wimberley’s proposition.
Report abuse
Sensibility won the day! I am sorry to say that if this is an example of the new deputies in the States I dread what they will dream up next.
Report abuse
Common sense prevails thank goodness! Where did Wimberley think we were going to put our rubbish when the existing incinerator broke down, in his back garden?
Perhaps St Mary should think more carefully before they elect a deputy….
Report abuse
Whilst I don’t agree with the plans, how can anyone justify paying £50m to cancel the contract. That’s over £1,000 we would each have to stump up.
This is the problem with such naive and inexperienced politicians.
Report abuse
Wait until the taxpayer gets the final bill for this monstrosity – then you might reconsider whether it was worth all the effort to fight against it.
Well done Daniel – at least you tried and kept the faith!
Report abuse
As usual our stubborn politians ignore the voice of reason. I wonder how many of them would like this incinerator close to their homes as the majority of states members appear to believe that St Helier and the shoreline of Havre-des-pas is a nothing more than a dumping ground for their rediculous ideas.
Report abuse
good, perhaps now this 1 trick pony has had his 15 minutes of fame and will let the real politicians get on with running the island
Report abuse
I am sure that this is not the last debate on the incinerator that we will enjoy.
I am looking forward to debates on cost over runs, pollution of the RAMSAR site, disposal of toxic fly ash and many other issues.
They could become like that classic Jersey perennial, the casino debate.
Report abuse
I can’t believe some of the above comments.
It is not Deputy Wimberley that should be the recipient of public criticism…
it’s the states assembly who agreed to spend £106,000,000 when, as Deputy Wimberley has shown conclusively, £35,000,000 would have given Jersey a much better waste management scheme.
Our states have overspent over £60,000,000 on an inferior scheme!!!
Now tell me again… who are the real plonkers here?
Report abuse
I don’t see any plus factors in putting the Incinerator at la colette. Except to save the 50 million the states have already wasted. Does anyone else know of other benefits?
There are so many reasons not to have it there:
Tourism which apparently Jersey was trying to boost! Most ferries pass that point , great for the visitors “and on your right we have Jersey’s 110 million 2nd hand Incinerator” yay get out the cameras! .
Harve de Pas is probably St Helier’s best beach especially if you compare it to what’s at the waterfront
Commercial Traffic (trucks) along coastal area. Again, great for tourism.
Environment Issues – Impact on aquatic Life.
Waste of Money…short term fix to get the problem solved quickly and not effectively for the long term.
We live on an island our Coastal areas are important…All this tightening up on planning and they go put that there?????
Report abuse
Dear Richard, Plaebo, FP, PJG and Paul,
Please read the transcript of the debates, or inform yourself properly before making such judgements. This was a thoroughly researched and intelligent proposal to rescind the contract, that offered real solutions for the future (Deputy Wimberley was never suggesting that we don’t need an incinerator, just that we should start planning for a sustainable future).
Fact is that too many politicians didn’t want to loose face and admit that they had made a mistake. If only they had the bravery and honesty to make decisions led by compassionate, sensible values. This debate was a chance to take a new direction, and it saddens me that these values continue to be ignored.
What kind of future do you want.
Report abuse