Environment - Approved Panel Minutes - 7 September 2006

Environment Scrutiny Panel Meeting Number 25

7th September 2006

Le Capelain Room, States Building

Present Deputy R.C. Duhamel (Chairman)

Connétable K. A. Le Brun of St Mary Deputy Le Hérissier

Deputy S. Power

Apologies Deputy G.C.L. Baudains (Vice Chairman) Absent

In attendance M. Robbins, Scrutiny Officer

I. Clarkson, Scrutiny Officer

thereby giving members a time-limited opportunity to trigger a debate on the brief if the content proved to be controversial.

Members also noted that Deputy I. Gorst of St. Clement had sent to Senator F. Cohen, the Minister for Planning and Environment, further correspondence and a series of photographs regarding Lezardrieux, St. Clement . This had prompted the Chief Executive Officer, Planning and Environment to conduct an investigation of the circumstances surrounding this application. An update was expected shortly.

It was intended that drafting of initial background sections of the Panel's report would begin on 11th September 2006 with a view to a first draft available by the end of September.

6. Design of Homes

(2I4te/0m8 /1006) A position paper dated 29th August 2006 was noted

The  information  gained  on  the  London  fact-finding  trip  was considered to have suitably met the objectives of sustainability, SP innovation and regeneration.   Deputy Power was  to prepare  a paper on this. The Panel agreed that further questions remained unanswered about the interior of buildings and how buildings met

the stated objectives in a waterfront setting or in more traditional settings.  As  these  issues  were  directly  relative  to  the  Jersey situation, the Panel agreed that these specific issues would best

be  examined  by  completing  the  second  half  of  the  initially MR proposed fact finding package, namely by visiting Malmo and Vienna. The  officer  was  tasked  with  the  preparation  of  a discussion  document  and  costing  and  dating  this  trip  with  a preference for either 26th – 28th October (26th is Austrian Bank

Holiday) or 16th and 17th November 2006. SP

An examination of Planning Advice Note Number 1 had been started  with  the  group  looking  at  street  layouts  and  village planning. The lead member intended to visit areas around Jersey to photograph good and bad examples of street design.

Deputy Power made reference to the decision of the Panel, as recorded  on  7th  September  2006,  regarding  a  proposal  for cooperative  working  with  the  Minister  for  Planning  and Environment. Deputy S. Power advised the Panel that he had notified Senator Cohen of the decision. The Chairman advised the Panel that he had invited the Minister to a working meeting to establish common ground. This meeting was arranged for the

29th September.

A discussion followed on working practices. It was agreed that discussions with Ministers on matters falling within the terms of reference of the Design of Homes review should be conducted by the  members  of  the  Design  of  Homes  Working  Group. Furthermore,  a  Scrutiny  Officer  should  be  present  at  such meetings  in  order  to  ensure  that  an  impartial  record  of proceedings would be made.

The Panel also noted a verbal report from the Chairman that interest in design issues had been expressed by Senator T.J. Le Main, Minister for Housing, who foresaw a need for a significant future  building  programme  in  order  to  cater  for  a  predicted increase  in  the  number  of  senior  citizens  living  in  Jersey. MR Connétable Le Brun, having noted that the reported meeting with

the Minister for Housing had not been minuted, encouraged Panel members to conduct future meetings on a formal, minuted basis

and to refrain from gathering hearsay evidence.

The Panel offered consideration to Architecture Week and how much it wanted to be involved. After considering several options, the Panel agreed that it would not be involved. It was further agreed that Mr D Mason could use the photographs taken on the London fact finding trip with the permission of the Panel and with suitable credits but that he would do so at his own expense. A letter was to be sent to Mr Mason to explain this criteria.

7. Work Programme – Waste Recycling

(Item 11 The Panel received a confidential (Exemption 3.2 (b)) memo from 24/08/06) the Greffier of the States entitled, Environment Scrutiny Panel –

Zero  Waste  Trial  with  Parish  of  St.  Helier'. It  subsequently reviewed its decision, as taken on 21st April 2006, to authorize expenditure up to a maximum of £5,000 in support of the St. Helier Zero Waste Trial.

The  Panel  received  an  oral  briefing  from   Deputy  Duhamel regarding the current status of the trial. He reported that there had been difficulties during the first six weeks of the project but that these were merely teething matters. The trial was now on track to produce the data required. The Chairman reminded the Panel  that  the  proposed £5,000  contribution  would  be  made purely  on  the  basis  of  payment  for  statistical  information generated by the trial, and that monies would not be released unless  the  data  generated  was  of  a  standard  acceptable  to Deputy  Duhamel. It  was  clarified  that  the £5,000  was  not considered  to  constitute  a  grant  to  the  Parish.  It  was  further clarified that documentation had been forwarded by Professor C. Coggins to the Parish of St. Helier in order to assist the Parish in setting up the trial, although the Parish had subsequently elected to  adopt  a  different  methodology  to  that  which  had  been recommended. Nevertheless, specific data, including a full log of the operating hours of and quantity of material processed by the Krystaline glass processing machine, was being compiled.

Concerns were expressed regarding the minutes of Zero Waste Trial  Political  Steering  Group meetings.  It was  noted that  the minutes tended to suggest that Deputy Duhamel was involved in overseeing, and even exercising an element of direct control over the trial. Deputy Duhamel noted the concerns expressed and he reassured the Panel that the trial was being managed by the Parish of St. Helier . He further confirmed that the Panel did not have authority from the Parish of St. Helier to publish Political Steering Group minutes. With regard to the ongoing cost of the trial, Deputy Duhamel reported that a small element of overtime had been incurred but that the trial was operating within budget. RD He invited Panel members to consider raising any future concerns regarding the operation of the trial in a timely manner.

The Panel, having acknowledged that it was not in possession of a service level agreement with the Parish of St. Helier , reaffirmed its decision of 24th August 2006 that Deputy Duhamel should write to the Parish confirming the exact nature of the statistics expected and also that the Panel would only forward payment if those statistics were forthcoming within an appropriate period of time. It further agreed that the letter should specify that the Panel did not wish to exercise any degree of positive control over the St. Helier  Zero  Waste  Trial for fear  of compromising its impartial status. Safeguards were also required to ensure the integrity of the data. The Panel considered that Professor Coggins should be entitled to oversee the data collation and analysis stages of the trial. All Panel members were to receive a copy of the draft letter for endorsement. MR

The Panel reflected on the contents of the memorandum from the Greffier  of  the  States.  It  agreed  that  payment  for  relevant statistical data generated by the St. Helier Zero Waste Trial fell within the terms of reference of Scrutiny. It nevertheless reserved its opinion on the matter of whether the £5,000 as previously

approved represented value for money and whether the trial in its MR current form was the best possible way of getting the required

evidence, until the terms of the arrangement with the Parish of St. Helier  had  been  confirmed  in  writing  and  the  specified  data produced. The Panel confirmed that it intended to publish and utilise  the  evidence  received  from  the  Parish  in  its  entirety, irrespective of the outcome of the trial. The officer was tasked

with replying to the Greffier of the States.

Regarding  the  forthcoming  Composting  Exhibition,  the  Panel noted  a  progress  report  dated  1st  September  2006  from  the

Scrutiny Office. The Panel noted that the exhibition would take

place  on  Friday  15th September from  3  pm  until  7  pm  and

Saturday 16th September from 10am until 3pm. The hall was to be open by the officer and available for setting up from 6.30 am

on Friday morning until end of show and from 9am on Saturday MR until clearing up was completed. Ten companies had expressed interest in attending and letters of engagement had been sent. 15

local companies had been invited to display at the show.

Looking at the legalities of holding the show, as this was an MR undertaking on behalf of the States, no licence was required for

the show itself. United Kingdom companies were not permitted to

sell in the island without a licence under the Hawkers and Non- Resident  Traders  (Jersey)  Law,  1965. It  was  been  noted  in correspondence with Alexander Forbes Insurance Company that MR the Panel was covered for Public Liability Insurance to hold the show.

The Panel considered the hire of screens for the stalls and noted that there was less than one hundred pounds difference between the company being responsible for transportation and erection of the screens and the Panel Members doing it themselves in a

hired van. The Panel decided to use the services of the company MR concerned.

Waste and Recourses Action Program (WRAP) had stated that they were sending a speaker at no cost and contact was being kept with them to establish who that was to be. Dr John Mullet of CR Services had been away on holiday. An e-mail to establish if he was back had been sent.

The  group  had  required  the  officer  to  put  together  an advertisement for approval along with a press release. Its release would be co-ordinated with contact with 103FM and BBC radio stations. Hamish Marett-Crosby was also to be contacted by the officer to make an appointment with Deputy Duhamel.

The private room had been booked for the Friday afternoon only. Invitations had been agreed to be sent to Politicians, to Senior Officers of connected States Departments, to Parish Secretaries, and  to  waste  contractors.  Agriculturalists  and  the  Hospitality Association were also due to be sent invitations. All invitations were to be RSVP and buffet arrangements were to be dealt with when numbers were known.

A chart outlining the time line for the review was presented which

showed that the review completion was expected by the end of

2006.

8. Waste Fact Finding Trip

The Panel noted a paper relating to the Recycling and Waste

Management  Exhibition  that  was  being  held  in  Birmingham

between the 12th and 14th September 2006. The Waste Review

Working Group considered that a visit to the show would create

valuable connections relating to the terms of reference of the

Waste Review. The Panel agreed that such a visit added value to

the review in creating contacts and gathering information and

agreed £750 for the trip. It agreed that both Deputy Duhamel and MK RLe/ BIC / RD / Connétable  Le  Brun  should  attend,  as  there  was  no  officer

support available.

9. Financial Report

The Panel noted the financial report for the period 1st January to 30th June 2006, together with an updated financial forecast for the remainder of the current year. In particular it noted that Panel expenditure to 30th June 2006 equalled £1468.51. An end of year balance of approximately £30,000 was anticipated, although the predicted balance was based on anticipated expenditure and on the assumption that the Panel refrained from commissioning any further reviews during the course of 2006.

10. Any Other Business

The Panel noted an e-mail from Deputy Baudains entitled Panel – Management  of  Issues'. Consideration  of  the  e-mail  was deferred to the next scheduled meeting due to the absence of Deputy Baudains.

11. Date of next meeting

The next meeting would be held at 9.30 am on Thursday 21st September 2006 in Le Capelain Room, States Building.

Signed Date ..

Chairman, Environment Panel