Environment - Approved Panel Minutes - 30 March 2006

Ref Back

Agenda matter

Action

1

Minutes

The Minutes of the meeting held on 16th March 2006, having been  circulated  previously,  were  taken  as  read  and  were

confirmed.

2

21/03/06 Item 2

Matters Arising

With regard to the proposition entitled, Composting Facilities at La Collette II (P.31/2006) lodged au Greffe' on 14th March 2006 by Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier , the Panel noted an account from the Chairman that the Bailiff , on receipt of advice from  the  Chief  Executive  Officer,  Transport  and  Technical Services, had declared the proposition out of order. Deputy R.C. Duhamel  expressed  concern  that  the  aforementioned  Chief Officer had been permitted to attend what was clearly a political meeting and that he had apparently been permitted to influence proceedings.

The Panel then held a general discussion on alternative waste management policies. Matters raised included: the existence in the United Kingdom of operational green and food waste plants; the viability of creating three separate composting sites in the Island (rather than the twelve suggested in P.258/2005, as lodged au Greffe' by Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire), and the general concept of 100 per cent recycling. The Panel contended that a recycling rate of 75 – 80% was an achievable and realistic aim and that a decision  of  the  States  to  embrace  food  and  green  waste composting would help to achieve this higher rate. In turn this would leave enough fuel for Energy from Waste Plant to operate, although any such plant was likely to be much smaller than that which  the  Minister  for  Transport  and  Technical  Services  was expected to recommend to the Assembly.

The Panel subsequently discussed a number of other possible alternative policies relating to the remit of the Minister for Planning and Environment and the Minister for Transport and Technical

Services. These included: traffic management issues relating to the  current  La  Collette  site  and  the  possibility  of  further  land reclamation in that area; the lack of a Mineral Strategy in Jersey; flooding Ronez Quarry to create a deep water port, and the need for  strategic  planning  to  be  carried  out  on  a  20  to  30  year timescale.

3

Combined Scrutiny Meeting.

Deputy R.C. Duhamel reported that the Chairman's Committee had asked the Panel to discuss the concept of combined public meetings  involving  all  Panels  and  covering  the  full  remit  of Scrutiny.  The  Panel  considered  that  such  meetings  might  be lengthy, unwieldy and that they might be less productive than the current practice of holding individual panel meetings. Favour was nevertheless  shown  to  the  idea  of  each  Panel  having  a  stall where  people  could  walk  about  and  stop  to  discuss  matters relating to that particular Panel. Deputy R.C. Duhamel undertook to report the views of the Panel to the Chairman's Committee.

RD

4

16/03/06 Item 5

Work Programme – Planning Process

The Panel noted that three advertisements had now appeared in the Jersey Evening Post. Three submissions from members of the public had been received. Over 40 individual letters had also been sent inviting professionals and organisations with experience of the planning process to make a written submission. Arrangements to observe a meeting of the Planning Applications Panel had been made and Senator F. E. Cohen, Minister for Planning and the Environment, and the Director of Planning had agreed to brief the working group on the implementation of recommendations made by Mr. C. Shepley in his report of November 2005 entitled Review of Planning and Building Functions'.

Deputy G.C.L. Baudains apprised the Panel of a recent meeting between a Mr. G. Noel, developer of the Category A housing sites known  as  Hodge  2  and  Rue  de  Jambart,  St.  Clement,  and himself. He reported that he had become aware of concerns that development briefs produced by the Department of Planning and Building Services were constraining developers to an excessive degree and that the planning process was resulting in economic irregularities on first time buyer and social rented housing sites. Deputy  G.C.L.  Baudains  explained  that  he  had  instructed  the Scrutiny Office to establish possible dates for a visit to the Hodge 2 site in St. Clement , which was now nearing completion. The Panel was advised that it would be possible to visit the site during the course of the following week, although the developer required 48  hours  notice  of  the  Panel's  preferred  date.  Officers  were instructed  to  write  to  Panel  members  by  e-mail  following  the conclusion of the meeting seeking confirmation of their preferred date for a site visit.

The  Panel  then  considered  the  degree  to  which  ongoing developments concerning the St. Helier Waterfront fell within the published terms of reference. Deputy R.C. Duhamel submitted that the working group should consider as part of its ongoing review the long term impact on St. Helier of the policy being pursued in respect of the St. Helier Waterfront. The Panel was advised that the terms of reference had been constructed at the lead member's request in such a manner as to exclude, as far as was considered practical, planning policy matters. It was reported

Planning Sub Group / IC

that a specific e-mail sent by Senator F.E. Cohen to the Council of Ministers  (in  which  he  had  reportedly  complained  that  the Waterfront Enterprise Board had acted inappropriately) had been called  for  on  the  basis  that  the  incident  concerned  a  major scheme that a developer had apparently publicised in order to assess  public  opinion  were  such  a  scheme  to  be  formally submitted as an application. Notwithstanding the foregoing, it was suggested that the Panel should consider carefully the limitations of its terms of reference. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains contended that consideration  of  planning  policies  affecting  the  St.  Helier Waterfront and the wider town centre would impact heavily on the time frame set for the review. He invited the Panel to consider conducting a dedicated review of that matter.

5 16/03/06 Item 4

Work  programme – Design  of  Homes  (Room  Sizes  and Parking)

The Panel, having recalled that the working group charged with progressing the Design  of Homes review had  met  only once, expressed disappointment at the lack of progress made to date.

Although  the  Panel  considered  that  the  review  was  not  time critical, it noted that the Minister for Planning and Environment was  due  to  miss  his  own  deadline,  as  published  in  his Departmental Business Plan, for publication of a consultation draft of  Planning  Advice  Note  No.  1  entitled The  Design  of  New Homes'.

The Panel, having been informed that officers were fully engaged in progressing two other reviews, agreed that the lead member should call a meeting of the working group in early course and, further, that the working group should aim to meet on a weekly basis thereafter.

Design of Homes Sub Group / IC / MR

6

16/03/06 Item 6

Work Program – Waste.

Deputy  R.C.  Duhamel  invited  the  Panel  to  authorize  the engagement of Professor C. Coggins in relation to certain aspects of  the  review  and,  in  particular,  for  assistance  with  Term  of Reference 3, "To investigate European and International markets for  recycled  goods  and  recyclable  materials" and  Term  of Reference 4, "To examine existing technology for the treatment of food waste with the green waste in a composting facility." The Panel agreed in principle that it should appoint an adviser and that Professor C. Coggins should be the preferred choice on the basis of  his  previous  detailed  involvement  in  scrutinizing  the  Solid Waste Strategy. It further agreed that the working group should compile a project brief and draft budget concerning the proposed appointment for subsequent endorsement by the Panel and the Chairmen's Committee.

Deputy  R.C.  Duhamel  reported  that  he  had  engaged  in discussions  with  a  company  that  manufactured  rubber-hosed goods.  He  advised  that  the  company  was  prepared  to  come forward with a bid for all recycled tyres. In addition, the Deputy apprised the Panel of opportunities for recycling glass.

In relation to Term of Reference 1, "To quantify the composition of waste within the residential and commercial collections", the Panel noted  that  the  figures  used  by  the  Transport  and  Technical Services Department were directly taken from the UK. The Panel

Waste Sub Group / MR

had previously determined that it disputed the validity of UK data in determining an appropriate way forward for Jersey. Accordingly it  had  determined  that  work  needed  to  be  done  to  establish statistical data showing the specific composition of waste arising in  Jersey.  As  this  work  had  not  been  carried  out  the  Panel concluded that it would need to obtain the necessary data itself. To that end Deputy R.C. Duhamel reported that the Connétable of St Helier had agreed that one of the seven St Helier refuse rounds should be analysed to ascertain the contents and establish exactly what percentage of those contents could reasonably be recycled. A  letter  was  to  be  written  to  the   Connétable  inviting  him  to formalize his offer.

On a related matter the Panel gave further consideration to the proposition lodged au Greffe' by Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire, entitled Composting  Facilities' (P.258/2005  refers).  The  Panel,  having considered  the  views  expressed  by   Deputy  R.C.  Duhamel regarding  the  scope  of  the  terms  of  reference  for  the  waste review, concluded that the comments submitted by the Minister of Health and Social Services and by the Minister for Transport and Technical Services in respect of P.258/2005 could be considered during the course of that existing review. It determined that public hearings would be necessary in order that the Ministers and the Medical Officer of Health were afforded an opportunity to justify their submissions. It was agreed that the Chairman would make a statement to the House at the next States meeting to explain how the Panel intended to progress the matter.

RD.

7

Items to Note.

The Panel discussed the ministerial decision concerning a capital bid  for £0.5  million  over  and  above  the  monies  previously allocated  to  the  Urban  Task  Force.  It  requested  that  further information  be  obtained  regarding  the  status  of  the  funding arrangements  for  the  Urban  Task  Force  and  the  related comments made by Senator P.F.C. Ozouf to the States on 28th Feb 2006.

IC / MR

8

Time and date of next meeting

The  Chairman  advised  that  the  Minister  for  Planning  and Environment intended to invite members of the Panel to attend a series of site visits on Thursday 13th April 2006. Accordingly the Panel agreed that the Chairman would set the time and date of the next meeting once details of the proposed site visits had been confirmed.

MR