Environment - Approved Panel Minutes - 19 October 2006

Ref Back

Agenda matter

Action

1.

Item 1. 21/09/06

Minutes

Minutes for the 24th August, 7th September and 21st September were confirmed and signed.

2.

(Item 5, 07/09/06)

(Item 2 21/09/06)

(Item 6 21.09.06)

(Item 6 21.09.06)

Matters arising

In  relation  to  the  Planning  Review  correspondence  with  the Attorney General, the Panel noted that a comprehensive answer had been received which fully answered the questions. The issue would be dealt with in the review report.

The  letter  previously  required  from  the  Chairman  to   Deputy Baudains  was  no  longer  required  as  the  issues  had  been resolved. Deputy Baudains informed the Panel that although he was frustrated by certain Panel working practices, mainly the lack of a contract with the Parish Of St Helier relating to the Zero Waste Trial, he wanted to continue working with the Panel. The Chairman thanked him for his valued work and continued support. Deputy Baudains withdrew the e-mail Panel – Management of Issues'.

The  letter  to  be  sent  to  supermarkets,  regarding  the  use  of composted food waste on farm land, had not been sent as the Chairman had secured a document outlining the requirement that PAS100 was being met which seemed to satisfy the requirements of the supermarkets. The supermarkets would be contacted to seek confirmation of their position.

The Panel agreed that all members would accept the invitation to visit the Prison in relation to composting. A discussion took place on the extent of advice that the Panel should be offering to other departments and members of the public. The Panel was of a mind that it should not have to be involved in such work, but that it would remain involved until the Transport and Technical Services Department adopt that role. The Panel considered that it was essential  that  someone  take  the  lead  role  in  presenting information to the public relating to composting.

RD MR

3.

Items to note.

The  Panel  noted  that  as  a  result  of  an  approach  from  the Chairman,  Ministerial  decision  documents  would  now  be accompanied by the background documents which formed the basis for the Ministerial decision. It was accepted that this was a great improvement and would allow a deeper understanding of why decisions had been made.

4

P/2005/175: Field 40, and La Trielle, Rue du Maupertuis, St Clement  

In  consideration  of  a  ministerial  decision  relating  to  the development of Field 40 and La Trielle, the Panel noted a clause requiring, "the developer to contribute the sum of £50,000 for the purposes of infrastructure, public art and/or public amenity in or within the vicinity of the site, to be determined by the Minister, instead of a specific requirement to contribute the same amount of  money  for  the  purpose  of  highway  safety  initiative,  as determined  by  the  Planning  Applications  Panel."  It  was considered that this money would be recovered by the developer through an additional burden on the first time buyer homes within the  project.  Comments  were  to  be  drafted  in  relation  to  this decision.

GB/MR

5

P75/2006:Fields 190 – 192, St Brelade – Minister's Response.

The Panel noted the response for presentation to the States by the Minister for Planning and Environment relating to P75/2006.

6

(Item 10 16/02/06)

Deep Ground Water.

The Panel considered a presentation by Deputy Baudains relating to deep ground water, in which he showed charts, he explained that he had followed underground streams, by means of water divining from Jersey to the French coast. He had plotted the direction of the flow and could show how it left the French coast at a point near Point D'Agnon (about ten miles north of Granville) and flowed approximately north-west to a point in the Royal Bay of Grouville near Le Hurel Slip. All GPS waypoints were supplied.

Deputy Baudains also submitted a paper outlining the flaws he had noted, with the test drilling of the bore hole at La Rocque, including  issues  with  the  flow  rate  measurements,  and differentiation between French and Jersey water.

The  Panel  noted  that  no  response  had  been  received  from Sénateur Legrand Président Conseil Général de la Manche, in reply to a letter sent on 9th March 2006 requesting information on deep ground water in the Bay of Mont St Michel. This matter was to be followed up to establish a response. A response may have been sent to Deputy Ferguson in error confirmation would be sought..

MR

7

(Item 3 01/06/06)

Homes and Lifestyle Exhibition.

Following a Panel decision on 1st June 2006 to run a stall at the Homes  and  Lifestyle  Exhibition,  a  discussion  paper  was presented to finalise the arrangements for the stall. It was noted that £988 had been paid for the stall. The Panel decided that the stall would present information relating to the Waste and Design of Homes reviews along with copies of previous Scrutiny and

Shadow Scrutiny reports.

The Panel confirmed that the wording for the advertisement was in  order  and  that  stick-on  badges  were  to  be  obtained.  The wording was to be finalised via email. The sum of £115 was agreed  for  badge  printing..  A  further  £500  was  approved  for professional printing.

The Panel deferred the arrangement of the rota for manning the stall. The officer was to contact Members at a later date to resolve that issue.

MR MR MR

8

Planning Process Review

The Panel noted a progress report relating to the review. The heads of report had been drafted and were under consideration. Work would continue on the report upon the allocated Officers return. The Scrutiny Manager would to be contacted to ensure that the officer was provided with the necessary time to complete the Panel report.

RD

9

Design of Homes Review

The Panel received a written progress report and presentation relating to the fact finding visit to London, from the Lead Member of the Design of Homes review, Deputy S. Power. It was agreed that the visit had produced valuable information for the review although there was discussion regarding the relevance to Jersey of sites visited. The Panel discussed modular construction and roofs.

The  Panel  considered  a  paper  entitled  Evaluation  of  Panel evidence-gathering sessions', which addressed the information gathered from the London visit and what further information would be needed for the review.

Further information would be required in relation to waterfront areas, tower blocks and issues relating to social housing. The Panel discussed whether the information was available in the island and was of the opinion that it was not. It considered that attempting  to  examine  housing  via  the  internet  or  through brochures  was  not  satisfactory  and  that the  London  visit  had demonstrated the value of the Panel undertaking a visit.

The Panel considered that a further visit would meet the following objectives:

1. To examine sustainability and regeneration in waterfront, social and private housing.

2. Establish current practises elsewhere for room sizes, and car parking issues.

3. To examine the use of utility areas.

4. To understand  the  innovation  mindset  within  social housing.

The Panel examined the proposal for visiting Malmo in connection with the waterfront issues and an innovative tower block, then Vienna  to  view  social  housing  and  innovative  regeneration  of buildings. The costings provided to the Panel for the visit were based on one day in each area but the Panel decided that two

days  in  each  would  be  required.  The  cost  of  the  visit  was discussed and considered to be essential to the review and cost effective  if  the  visits  were  combined.  An  invitation  would  be extended  to  the  Ministers  for  Housing  and  Environment  and Planning to join the Panel on the visit.

The Panel decided that the visit should proceed and £1000 per Panel Member and Officer was authorised. The full arrangements were to be made and invitations were to be sent to the Ministers who would be required to meet their own costs. The visit was scheduled for the 15th to 20th November 2006.

The Panel noted the level of preparation required to the visit and authorised  the  expenditure  of  £1000  for  a  dry  run  to  be undertaken by Mr. D. Mason.

The Panel agreed that Mr Derek Mason had the required subject knowledge and the experience to arrange a productive visit. Mr. Mason had confirmed that he would accompany the Panel and prepare the visit on an expenses basis, the Panel accepted his offer.

MR

MR

10

(Item 9 21/09/06)

Waste Review Airport Display

In response to the Panels decision of 21st September 2006, a static exhibition had been held in the Departure Hall of Jersey Airport between Monday 25th September and Sunday 1st October. The Panel considered a written report explaining that the display had comprised of three sections, glass, rubber and textiles with one side of the display showing the waste product and the other showing the recycled product. Numerous documents had been created and displayed with information on the respective waste streams. A book for comments had been available and the entries had been very favourable. The Panel considered that this had been a worthwhile venture and thanked the officer for the work undertaken to produce the display. The photographs taken of the display were to be placed on a disc and circulated to the Panel.

Deputy Power suggested that a similar display be presented in shipping containers, in the Royal Square at some time later in the year.  The  Officer  was  tasked  with  establishing  the  cost  and practicalities of such an exhibition.

MR MR

11

(Item 6 29/06/06)

Waste Review Glass Implosion Machine

The Panel received a verbal update from the Chairman on the Krystaline glass implosion machine.. The Lieutenant Governor, Lieutenant General  Andrew  Peter  Ridgway  had  been given  a demonstration of the machine which was used by the Parish of St Helier within their Zero Waste Trial. The Parish was using the glass product within its Parks and Gardens Scheme.

The Panel was advised that the hire period for the machine had expired and that the company had a purchaser for the equipment, the company approached the Chairman to release or extend the hire period of the machine for a further months. The Chairman took the decision to hire the machine for a further month at a cost of  £250.  The  Panel  received  advice  relating  to  retrospective payments  of  this  nature  and  agreed  that  best  practice  for

accounting purposes had not been followed. The Panel decided however,  that  the  further  hire  of  the  unit  was  justified  and authorised payment of the £250 fee.

RD

13

Waste Review Fact Finding Visit.

The  Panel  considered  documentation  relating  to  a  Material Reclamation Facility which was operating in Cardiff. The machine sorted recyclable products from the general waste stream. It cost £6m to build and was reported to be returning £100,000 from recycled  goods  each  month.  It  was  part  of  a  computerised collection system and was of considerable interest to the review.

 The Panel agreed that a fact finding trip to this facility would offer evidence to terms of reference 2,3 and 5 for the review and that the expected value could not be gained through brochures or other means.

It decided to invite the company to Jersey to make a presentation however; the Panel would visit the plant first to confirm exactly what it offered,.

The  Panel  agreed that  £300  per  person  should  be  allocated. Participation would be decided at a later date.. The necessary arrangements were to be made.

MR

12

(Item  7 18/05/06)

Waste Review Advisor Contract

The Panel noted that the contract engaging Professor C. Coggins had expired and authorised a letter to extend the time within the contract to February 2007. There were no cost implications or other alterations to the contract from this decision.

MR

13

Any other business

Waste Strategy Steering Group Meeting.

Following an invitation for the Panel to attend a meeting of the Waste  Strategy  Steering  Group  (WSSG),  it  was  decided  that more information on the meetings agenda was required. It was understood that the WSSG wished to discuss a report submitted by Deputy Le Claire on Composting in Jersey and a document that had previously be requested by WSSG from Deputy Duhamel relating to the use of specific companies for Composting in the Island. The Panel considered attendance and decided that the Chairman should make the decision when the agenda had been confirmed.

Petty Cash for Panel

Following  on  from  the  discussion  about  the  Krystaline  glass imploding machine, the Panel gave consideration to the lack of availability of small amounts of cash for Panel related business without referral to a Panel decision. It was considered that this restriction was a hindrance to the work Members were trying to undertake and whilst understood to be "best accounting practice", it made the process very cumbersome.

The following items were deferred to the next meeting -

A letter from the director of Planning relating to the letter of 20th September relating to Weighbridge area.

A report on Archaeology and Planning from the Planning and Environment Department.

14

Date of Next Meeting

The next scheduled meeting for 26th October was cancelled and the date of the next meeting now set for 9.30pm on Thursday 2nd November 2006 in the Le Capelain Room.