Environment - Approved Panel Minutes - 7 February 2006

Item

(Ref Back)

Agenda matter

Action

1.

Minutes

The minutes of the meetings held on 19th January, 24th January and 31st January 2006, having been circulated previously, were taken as read and were confirmed.

None

2.

Matters arising

There were no matters arising from the minutes of the meetings held on 19th January, 24th January and 31st January 2006.

None

3.

(24.01.06 item 10)

Web site

The Panel continued discussions regarding options for improving and / or replacing the existing Scrutiny Web site. Members were advised that officers were producing a draft specification document for  consideration  by  the  Chairmen's  Committee  and  individual Panels in due course. The Panel noted the position.

IC

4.

Advertising policy

The Panel considered a memorandum, dated 3rd February 2006,

together with associated correspondence, dated 9th June 2005, concerning the Advertising Bureau Contract for the period June

2005 – January 2008. Although the Panel expressed concern that the contract appeared to permit the contracted media company known  as  The  Idea  Works  to  charge  for  the  insertion  of standardized  banners  within  individual  advertisements,  it nevertheless noted that the contract tended to result in significant overall  savings  when  compared  with  the  cost  of  securing advertising space independently.

None

5.

(19.01.06 item 5)

Training

The Panel recalled that on 20th January 2006 it had attended a training  day  hosted  by  Ms  Francis   Taylor  of  Cumbria  County Council.  Members  agreed  that  the  training  session,  which  had focussed  on  work  programming  and  project  management techniques, had been broadly beneficial, particularly with regard to the techniques recommended for managing the latter stages of a review.  Nevertheless,  the  Panel  concluded  that  the  initial  topic selection methods recommended during the session were in fact somewhat  restrictive  and  that  it  was  not  minded  to  adopt  the

procedures as proposed.

6.

(24.01.06 item 1)

Water Resources (Jersey) Law 200-

The Panel recalled that it had invited Senator F.E. Cohen, Planning and Environment Minister, to brief the Panel on the progress made by his department in implementing the recommendations made by the then Shadow Scrutiny Panel in its review of the draft Water Resources (Jersey) Law 200-.

The  Panel  welcomed  a  delegation  consisting  of:  Senator  F.E. Cohen,  Planning  and  Environment  Minister;  Mr.  C.  Newton, Director  of  Environment;  Mr.  G.   Jackson ,  Assistant  Director – Environmental  Protection,  and  Mr.  T.  du  Feu,  Senior  Water Resources Officer. Senator F.E. Cohen reminded the Panel that the  Deep  Groundwater  Advisory  Group  (DWAG)  had  been constituted as an independent body and that it had been charged with resolving questions regarding the origins of deep groundwater in an objective and analytical manner. He further advised that the next meeting of the DWAG was scheduled to take place in mid February 2006.

The  Panel  drew  the  attention  of  the  Minister  to  the recommendation,  made  at  paragraph  3.1.10  of  the  relevant Shadow Scrutiny report, concerning the drilling of a test well at the Ecréhous.  In  response,  the  Planning  and  Environment  Minister confirmed that he would convey the views of the Panel to the DWAG at the next available opportunity, on the understanding that the final decision on whether it was appropriate to perform test drilling on the Ecréhous was a matter for the DWAG.

Mr. C. Newton, Director of Environment; Mr. G. Jackson , Assistant Director – Environmental Protection, and Mr. T. du Feu, Senior Water Resources Officer withdrew from the meeting.

The Panel agreed that the Chairman should write to the Planning and Environment Minister confirming that the Panel supported his decision to remind the DWAG of the recommendation made by the then  Shadow  Scrutiny  Panel  at  paragraph  3.1.10  of  its  report. Moreover, it agreed that the Minister should be advised that in the intervening period the Panel intended to conduct its own enquiries as to the cost and viability of performing the drilling operation.

IC / MR (monitoring)

RD

7.

(31.01.06 item 4)

St. Helier Waterfront

The Panel, having received a briefing from Senator F.E. Cohen regarding the progress of the Deep Groundwater Advisory Group, invited  the  Minister  to  comment  on  the  ongoing  consultation process concerning development of the St. Helier Waterfront.

Senator  F.E.  Cohen  reminded  the  Panel  that  two  documents, namely the report produced by Sandover Associates entitled, Draft Supplementary  Planning  Guidance on Tall Buildings for the St. Helier Waterfront' and the Department's own draft supplementary planning guidance for the Waterfront, had been published and put out to consultation. He explained that no decisions had yet been made on live applications for development of sections of St. Helier Waterfront  and,  further,  that  no  decisions  had  yet  been  made regarding  the  criteria  for  assessment  of  such  applications.  In addition, the Minister clarified that the services of Mr. C Shepley, former  President  of  the  Royal  Institute  of  Planners,  had  been secured in order to review consultation responses arising from the consultation. An invitation to the Panel to attend and participate in a public forum, to be held on 3rd March 2006, was extended. In addition,  the  Panel  was  invited  to  assist  with  the  consultation process by way of producing, or assisting in the production of, a

pictorial  publication  highlighting  examples  of  quality  local architecture and architectural features.

Senator F.E. Cohen, having been thanked by the Panel for his attendance, withdrew from the meeting.

The  Panel,  having  noted  that  the  consultation  on  St.  Helier Waterfront was due to close on Monday 27th March 2006, deferred further consideration of the matter to its next meeting.

Panel

8.

(24.01.06 item 4)

Energy policy

The Panel considered correspondence, dated 30th January 2006, from Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire concerning energy policy and the United Kingdom government funded energy company known as The Carbon Trust.

The Panel, having recalled that the Executive was already taking steps to formulate a draft energy policy, agreed that no further action was required in the short to medium term.

None

9.

(24.01.06 item 2)

Work programme - waste

The Panel continued consideration of a proposal, submitted orally by Deputy R.C. Duhamel, to conduct a review of aspects of the Solid Waste Strategy. Members agreed that there was a case for revisiting the issue of whether recycling targets could be increased and the resulting implications for the selection of an appropriate energy  from  waste  plant  and  composting  facility.   Deputy  R.C. Duhamel advised the Panel that he had provisionally organized independent visits to composting plants in Belfast, Manchester and Preston.

The Panel was invited to note a report, dated 3rd February 2006 and produced by I.Clarkson, Scrutiny Officer, concerning decisions taken by the States in connexion with the Solid Waste Strategy. Although  the  Panel  noted  the  appendices  contained  within  the report, it considered that the conclusion reached regarding the 32% recycling target was incorrect. In fact, the Panel remained of the view that there was evidence to suggest the policies of the then Committee and the current Minister were being constrained by the need  to  make sufficient  quantities  of  refuse available  to  fuel  a conventional energy from waste plant.

The  Panel  agreed  that   Deputy  R.C.  Duhamel  should  draw  up appropriate terms of reference for a further review of the Solid Waste Strategy, with particular emphasis on recycling targets.

RD

10.

(24.01.06 item 3)

Work programme – planning process

The Panel  continued consideration of a proposal,  submitted by Deputy  G.C.L.  Baudains,  to  conduct  a  review  of  the  planning process.

Deputy G.C.L. Baudains advised the Panel that he had met with Scrutiny Officers to discuss draft terms of reference. The Panel, having considered several drafts, agreed that any review of the planning process should address the following issues –

a) the pre-application process with particular regard to–

1. departmental efficiency and the subsequent involvement of officers charged with in the planning process,

2. the value of the process to potential

applicants, and

iii) the degree of neighbour / public involvement;

2. the efficiency and effectiveness of the existing planning application process and the implications arising from the forthcoming introduction of the new Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002;
3. the degree to which decisions taken by the Planning and Environment Minister and / or the Applications Panel might be constrained by -

1. the content, or the interpretation of, the Island Plan,
2. precedent or the issuing of pre-application advice, and / or
3. the threat of litigation.

4. the extent to which officers within the Planning and Building Services Department exercised delegated powers; and,

5. whether the situation whereby the Planning Minister is unable to be directed by the States was justifiable and appropriate.

Officers were instructed to produce a draft scoping document for consideration by the Panel pending submission to the Chairmen's Committee for formal endorsement.

IC

11.

(24.01.06 item 6)

Work programme – room sizes and parking standards

The Panel recalled that it had, during the course of the training session held on 20th January 2006, identified a need to conduct a review of domestic room sizes and domestic parking standards as defined in supplementary guidance issued by the Department of Planning  and  Building  Services.  Moreover,  it  also  recalled  that Deputy  R.G.  Le  Hérissier  had  submitted  a  proposal  to  review policies  governing  building  in  the  countryside,  with  particular emphasis on the matter of whether existing policies concerning the construction of new, and change of use of existing, agricultural sheds was being manipulated.

The  Panel  agreed  that draft terms  of  reference  and a  scoping document for a further review, covering the aforementioned topic areas, should be produced by Deputy G.C.L. Baudains, with officer assistance, for consideration at the next meeting.

On  a  related  matter,  the  Panel  agreed  that  it  should  aim  to commence all three proposed reviews immediately.

GB / IC/ MR

12.

(31.01.06 item 3)

Work programme – public input

The Panel recalled that it had held a public meeting on the evening of Thursday 2nd February 2006 at St. Clements Parish Hall to discuss topics for inclusion within the draft work programme.

The Panel considered a report, prepared by M. Robbins, Scrutiny Officer, concerning topics raised at the public meeting. It noted that the  planning  process  had  been  raised  as  part  of  general

None

discussions  on  population  levels,  inappropriate  residential developments and the possible erection by telephone companies of additional  transmission  masts  around  the  Island,  following liberalization of the mobile telephone market. Other topics raised had included parking, public transport and energy policy.

The Panel having noted the topic areas raised, considered that its existing review proposals were of particular relevance to the public. Furthermore, it noted that forthcoming proposals arising from the presentation to the Council of Ministers of the Strategic Travel and Transport Plan might well be the subject of a future review.

13.

Meeting policy

The Panel was advised that concerns had been expressed by the Scrutiny Manager regarding the private informal meetings held by the Panel in recent weeks. The Panel confirmed that it reserved the right to hold private informal meetings without officers of the States Greffe  being  present  whenever  it  considered  that  there  was  a legitimate need to do so.

None

14.

Items to note

The Panel noted recent ministerial decisions, as published on the States of Jersey Web site, concerning –

1. increased parking charges in public places,
2. publication of a draft fish farm concession application, and

3. an increase in fees for planning applications.

None

15.

Next agenda

No items were proposed for inclusion on the next agenda.

None

16.

Date of next meeting

1.30 pm on Thursday 16th February 2006 in Le Capelain Room.

None