Reg’s Skips Ltd – Planning Applications(R.118-2010)-comp & further action(P.130-2010)–4th&5th amds–coms

STATES OF JERSEY

REG'S SKIPS LIMITED – PLANNING APPLICATIONS (R.118/2010): COMPENSATION AND FURTHER ACTION (P.130/2010) – FOURTH AND FIFTH AMENDMENTS –

(P.130/2010 Amd.(4)&(5)) – COMMENTS

Presented to the States on 27th October 2010 by the Minister for Planning and Environment

STATES GREFFE

2010   Price code: A  P.130 Amd.(4)&(5)Com.

COMMENTS

I proposed a Committee of Inquiry to investigate all of the planning issues in this case.

The Committee of Inquiry has now completed their first report and this has been presented to this Assembly as R.118/2010.

Whilst the Committee of Inquiry was broadly commendatory of my actions in relation to Reg's Skips and, whilst the error that was at the source of the problems occurred before  my  appointment,  I  am  nonetheless  responsible  for  the  actions  of  my Department. Consequently, I again reiterate my wholehearted and unreserved apology to Mr. and Mrs. Pinel, the owners of Reg's Skips, for the distress this episode has caused to them, and for the role that the Planning Department played.

I can confirm that I have signed a Ministerial Decision to effect the two ex gratia payments  as  recommended  by  the  Committee  of  Inquiry  and  I  have  lodged  an amendment  to  this  proposition  seeking  States  approval  for  these  proposals. Specifically, I received advice that the payments cannot be made under the provisions of the current Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002 and therefore the approval of the States Assembly is required.

I have instigated an external review of all the planning processes, with an objective of reviewing every element of our decision-making. Specifically, the review is looking at the mechanisms and controls surrounding the writing of planning conditions, which is of course at the core of the problems identified by the Committee of Inquiry. The review is presently underway, and I expect to be implementing improvements based on its findings before the end of the year. This review is being undertaken by the consultancy section of the Planning Officers Society for England and Wales.

The main proposition

In relation to the specific points of Senator Shenton's proposition, I can comment as follows.

I have already agreed to make the ex gratia payments as outlined in the Committee of Inquiry Report and have lodged an amendment to effect the approval of the States to make these payments. Parts (a) and (b) of Senator Shenton's proposition are thus satisfied.

I have asked my Department to re-profile existing revenue budgets for 2010 for this purpose and this addresses part (c) of the proposition.

This  Assembly,  in  accepting  P.97/2010,  has agreed  to  undertake  a study  of land suitable for waste recycling operations.

In addition, the emerging Island Plan already includes a policy framework to allow private sites to be assessed for this type of use. This policy has not been challenged by the waste industry. However, no private sites have been proposed as part of this review for inclusion within the Island Plan for these uses. It is therefore the case that part (d) of the proposition has been satisfied.

Part (e) of the proposition requests that the actions of the officers involved are referred to the States Employment Board.

Page - 2

P.130/2010 Amd.(4)&(5)Com.

The key events in this case took place 5 years ago. Although some staff remain, most of the officers identified by the Committee of Inquiry are no longer employed by the Planning and Environment Department.

Appropriate  management  actions  have  already  been  taken  within  my  Department under the guidelines laid out in civil service procedures under the direction of the Chief Officer of Planning and Environment.

Whilst the effects of the errors on Mr. and Mrs. Pinel were very significant, the errors will not be repaired and the hardship endured by the Pinels will not be reversed by seeking to focus on individual officers, as this was a systemic failure.

This error must be placed in the context of the 2,500 applications that are processed annually. The process improvement review presently underway will reduce errors further, but because of the very nature of planning there will always be errors, albeit we will continue to seek every method to reduce their number.

I  cannot  see  that  reference  to  the  States  Employment  Board  will  deliver  further improvements and therefore do not support part (e) of this proposition.

Amendments for additional payments

In  terms  of  additional  payments  over  and  above  the  recommendations  contained within the report, I can comment as follows.

I  would  respectively  ask  Members  to  refer  to  the  Committee  of  Inquiry  Report, especially  in  paragraphs  16.13  to  16.16.  The  Committee  did  not  feel  that  my Department was responsible for the costs incurred by the owners of Reg's Skips from the Appeal stage onwards, i.e. from February 2008.

In the strict legal sense, the Planning Department is not legally liable for any of the costs as ruled by the Court of Appeal in 2008. From the advice I have received, the Committee of Inquiry Report is unlikely to provide any further evidence which will make the prospect of overturning that decision likely. I do, however, agree with the moral arguments in this case and that is why an ex gratia payment is recommended.

The costs incurred by Reg's Skips largely emanate from legal bills and I will leave it to members to consider whether or not these were justified and reasonable. This comment is not in any way a criticism of Mr. and Mrs. Pinel.

I would respectively ask the House to accept the findings of the Committee of Inquiry as they stand.

Financial and manpower implications

The financial implications for increasing the payment as outlined in the amendments do need consideration. I have asked my Department to reprioritise the revenue budget for 2010 to enable the recommended payments to take place. It is clear to me that within such a small departmental budget, the likelihood of finding further funds at this point  in the financial  year  is severely  limited. The  Department  has  already  been severely  stretched  in  finding  the  necessary  £160,000  from  its  remaining  revenue budget. Any further additions to this amount will therefore need funds to be identified centrally for this purpose.

Page - 3

P.130/2010 Amd.(4)&(5)Com.