Environment - Approved Panel Minutes - 10 May 2007

Ref Back

Agenda matter

Action

1.

Minutes of Previous Meetings

Minutes of the meeting of 26th April 2007 were approved and signed by the Chairman.

2.

Action Updates

The Panel noted the updates from the previous meetings.

Item 8 26/04/07

The Panel requested information be obtained relating to the new draft Transport and Technical Services Integrated Travel and Transport  Plan  subsequent  to  the  Panel  offering  comments. Details of the timetable were also required.

MR

Item 9c 26/04/07

The Panel agreed that the lecture by Sir David King, Scientific Environment Adviser to the United Kingdom Government, given at  a  presentation  on  Monday  30th  April  2007  at  the  Jersey Opera House was very worthwhile and contained much that would be useful to the Panel in the future. Transcripts of the event were required.

MR

RD. KB. SC. PLC.

3

Design of Homes

Item 26/04/07

3

In discussing the viability of the proposed Malmo Fact Finding Visit,  the  Panel  noted  that  the  Minister  for  Planning  and Environment,  Senator F. Cohen would not be  available until September.

The Panel decided that the proposed date was not compatible with the timetable for the review. The Panel decided that it would not undertake the visit as the Minister was unable to attend.

It was agreed that the review should be concluded and the report completed at the earliest opportunity. The Panel recalled that the review had been lead by Deputy S. Power until now and

ClQ

that the newly nominated lead member, Deputy P. Le Claire, had  not  had  the  opportunity  to  become  acquainted  with  the details of the review. He was requested to act as "Midwife" to the review and to oversee the production and launch of the report as soon as possible.

Further work could be done later in relation to the Waterfront with the Malmo visit still being very valuable next year in a review which might be entitled Design of Homes 2.

RD. KB. SC. PLC.

4.

Item 4 26/04/07

Waste

The Panel received an oral report from the Chairman that the second part of the waste report was being reviewed by him and that the fifth part was currently being drafted. A target date was called  for  in  relation  to  the  completion  of  the  report.  It  was agreed  the  report  should  be  ready  for  the  date  of  the  next

meeting, being the 24th May 2007.

MR

The  Panel  questioned  the  risk  assessments  and  strategic planning for the La Collette area. It was not satisfied with the response letters and e-mails received as they had not provided definitive responses. The Panel requested that an invitation be sent  to  the  Planning  and  Environment  Minister,  Senator  F. Cohen, the Chief Officer of Transport and Technical Services, Chair of the Hazard Review Group and a representative of WEB

for their attendance at the next Panel meeting on 24th May 2007. The matter would be discussed at that point and the Panel

would establish the long term incentives, plans and objectives for the area in addition to where the responsibility lay for the future of the area.

MR

RD. KB. PLC.

5

Environmental Taxes

Item 26/04/07

6

The Panel noted that letters had been sent to the Planning and Environment  Minister,  Senator  F.  Cohen,  the  Treasury  and Resources  Minister,  Senator  T.  A.  Le  Sueur  and  Mr  Chris Newton  requesting  the  current  position  of  the  proposed environmental taxes.

The Panel noted the difference between taxes that changed public behaviour towards a greener way of life and those which were simply green taxes, which lead to no behavioural change. The response to the letters was to be followed up.

MR

Comments were to be drafted and circulated to the Panel on environmental taxes, the specific ring fencing for environmental issues and targeting at behaviour change.

RD. KB. PLC.

6

EDAW Report,

Item 26/04/07

7

It was noted that the consultation period for this report ran until

Tuesday 12th June 2007. The report would be tabled until the next  meeting  to  give  Members  time  to  read  and  digest  the

contents of the report.

Panel Members

RD. KB. SC. PLC.

7

Update for Chairman's' Committee.

The  report  prepared  for  the  Chairman's  Committee  was accepted.

RD. KB. PLC.

8

Item  9 26/04/07

T & T S and Environment & Planning Business Plans

The Chairman reminded the Panel that he was to draft a bullet point report relating to the business plans for the Transport and Technical Services and the Environment and Planning Ministers. He invited Members to contribute to that document and would circulate a draft for consideration through the Scrutiny Office.

RD. KB. PLC.

RD

9

Item  6 08/03/07

Deep Ground Water.

The Panel considered a report relating to a submission by Mr G. Langlois relating to the drilling for deep ground water at the Ecrêhous Reef.

The Panel accepted that the Minister had made a decision on the issue. However it requested that a letter be sent to the Planning and Environment Minister, Senator F. Cohen, to obtain assurances  that  money  raised  from  the  Water  Resources (Jersey) Law 200- would be directed towards exploration of the water situation beneath Jersey and its offshore reefs.

RD. KB. PLC.

MR

10

Item  9d 26/04/07

Orchid

The Panel accepted that Orchid should be engaged when they offered best value for money.

It agreed that should it require assistance with communications it should  then  make  an  approach  to  the  most  appropriate individual for that issue. (SC left the meeting)

The Panel agreed that one member of the Panel should be selected  to  deal  with  the  Panels  communication  needs, represent the Panel and make and foster as necessary all media activity.

The Panel noted that at no time had it made use of Orchid and that serious concerns were voiced over the legality of the Public Engagement Group who appeared to be guiding Orchid.

The Panel accepted that meeting with Orchid to hear what they had to say was sensible. The meeting was scheduled for the

morning of Monday 14th May 2007. (SC Back in meeting)

Concern was expressed over the removal of 1/5th of the cost of employing  Orchid  from  the  Environment  Panels  budget.  The

Panel had made it clear that they did not wish to be involved with the contract but £5,000 had still been removed. The Panel considered that it had autonomy over its portion of the budget.

MR