10th June 2002

A MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY AND ENVIRONMENT BOARD

WAS HELD ON 10 JUNE 2002

The Mayor (ex-officio); Chairman of the Policy and Organisation Board (Councillor Cully)(P); Mrs Angus (P), Mrs Binfield (P), Bone (P), Mrs Cully (P), Mrs Elshaw (P), Francis (P), Hayward (P), Hook (P), Kimber (P).

It was reported that in accordance with Standing Orders, notice had been received that Councillors Cully and Hayward would replace Councillors Wright and Burgess respectively for the meeting.

[Councillor Mrs Angus (Vice-Chairman) in the Chair]

6. MINUTES

RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the meetings of the Board held on 19 November 2001, 6 February 2002 and 16 May 2002 be approved and signed by the Chairman as true and correct records.

PART II

7. CONTAMINATED LAND STRATEGY

The Board considered a report of the Leisure and Amenities Manager (a copy of which is inserted in the Minute Book as Appendix "A") which sought approval for the adoption of a draft strategy on contaminated land within the Gosport Borough Council area.

It was reported that the Council had a duty under Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to produce a strategy for dealing with contaminated land. Responsibility for the regulation of contaminated land was shared with the Environment Agency with the Borough Council being the enforcing authority for many contaminated land sites but land designated a 'Special Site' was the responsibility of the Environment Agency.

In order to identify and prioritise the sites within the Borough which were contaminated, it would be necessary to carry out a survey of both present and historical uses of land. The priority would be to target those sites where 'environmental receptors' were under threat from contamination and it was vital that those sites were surveyed and proper risk assessments carried out on them. Delays had occurred in carrying out the initial survey due to other funding priorities, and the work had therefore been deferred until the 2003/4 financial year, subject to budget.

It was further reported that contaminated sites could usually be dealt with through the planning process. Whilst this did not obligate a developer to undertake remediation, this would remain the primary route for securing remediation of contamination. In fulfilling its responsibility, the Borough Council would, if necessary, enforce remediation schemes to ensure the land was fit for its intended use where agreement could not be reached by other means. A register of land which was contaminated must be maintained as required by legislation and made available to the public.

A consultation draft was issued in February 2002 to a number of agencies and the responses received had been carefully considered with the strategy being amended accordingly.

Key decisions could be reported back to the Board for consideration; however, this would lengthen the process and, therefore, the most efficient way of progressing the procedure would be by delegating the various decisions to nominated officers.

With regard to the proposed timetable, Members expressed concern at the proposal to use external consultants to carry out the initial survey. It was felt that this could be undertaken in-house. However, it was pointed out that if this were to be the case, part of the costs would go towards paying for third party provision of information. Some of the analysis could be undertaken in-house although this would be to the detriment of other projects.

Assurances were given that external consultants would only be used if necessary and as a last resort. It was, therefore, -

RESOLVED: That -

(i) the strategy be adopted;

(ii) decisions in relation to the inspection of potentially contaminated land, determining whether the land was contaminated, identification of the appropriate person(s), service of appropriate notices and apportionment of the costs of relevant works be delegated to the Head of Environmental Health (Residential and Pollution); and

(iii) the Head of Environmental Health (Residential and Pollution), in consultation with the Financial Services Manager, be delegated to make applications for Supplementary Credit Approval in respect of defraying the capital expense of the remediation work on "orphan sites" where necessary.

8. PROJECT INTEGRA - ANNUAL BUSINESS PLAN 2002/03

The Board considered a report of the Director of Development and Environment, which sought endorsement from the Board for the Project Integra Annual Business Plan 2002/03.

The Director of Development and Environment reported that the Health and Leisure Committee, at its meeting on 11 June 2001, had endorsed the formation of a Management Board for the future administration of Project Integra and agreed that a Member from the Community and Environment Board and a Member from the Policy Overview and Scrutiny Committee should be nominated, together with respective deputies.

It was noted that the adoption of an Annual Business Plan was a requirement of the Constitution for Project Integra, as it specified the activities to be undertaken, together with a full assessment of the financial, resource service legal and contractual implications.

The Business Plan was as set out below and combined both short term objectives and a long term framework.

Mission Statement

Vision & Long Term Strategy
(5 Year Programme)
Objectives for the Period
(April 2002 - April 2003)
Executive Officer
Strategic Review
Secretariat Legal & Financial Support
Financial Plan
Best Value
Collection - Processing - Disposal

The Key "building blocks" within the Business Plan were:

· Best Value
· Marketing Development
· Communications and promotions
· Collection, Processing and Disposal. These have been further sub-divided into:
· Infrastructure
· Composting
· Recycling
· Pre-disposal options
· Waste Minimisation
· Consultancy Research and Development

Project Integra was funded through financial contributions made by its partners to the Waste Strategy Fund and for secretarial support. The Borough Council made an inflation linked contribution. It was proposed that an agreed percentage of the annual income from the sale of materials be diverted prior to distribution (15%) to avoid the need to increase the annual membership fee.

Members were of the opinion that a Working Group should be established to actively consider recycling in Gosport with particular reference to kerbside collections.

RESOLVED: That the Project Integra Annual Business Plan 2002/03 be approved.

9. BUILDING CONTROL SERVICE - DELEGATED AUTHORITY

Consideration was given to a report of the Director of Development and Environment, which sought the Board's approval of the joint provision of a Building Control Service with Fareham Borough Council.

The Director of Development and Environment reported that the Planning and Transportation Committee and Personnel Sub-Board had each considered reports dealing with the joint provision of Gosport and Fareham's Building Control Service. Approval for the joint provision had been given and negotiations authorised to conclude the necessary legal agreement and working arrangements. The negotiations were nearing completion and the joint working arrangements would commence in June/July 2002 as soon as the necessary IT links were in place.

Heads of Terms for the legal agreement had been agreed, and it was anticipated that the Agreement would be signed in the near future. The joint provision of the service would necessitate Building Control staff undertaking work in both Boroughs. This would require Fareham staff to work in Gosport and the Board would, therefore, need to authorise officers from Fareham Borough Council to undertake Building Control services within the Borough of Gosport. Legal powers to cross delegate this authority was given under Section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972.

Staff would remain employees of their own Council and would retain their current pay and conditions, although the possibility of some harmonisation would be explored at a later date. A Joint Panel consisting of a Member and an officer from each Council would manage the service and would meet annually with the Head of Building Control to review progress and deal with Policy matters, service performance, etc. An officer panel consisting of a senior officer and a financial officer from each Council would meet quarterly and as required to monitor the service.

The service would be based at Fareham Civic Offices, being the central location of the joint Boroughs; however, a Building Control office would be located within Gosport Town Hall which would be used as a base for the surveyors dealing with Gosport and would be manned at all times during office hours. The service would be funded jointly and it was anticipated that both Councils would make savings from their current Building Control budget provision. It was suggested that a commitment be made to a three year arrangement to ensure that the full benefits could be accrued.

RESOLVED: That approval be given to the joint provision of a Building Control Service with Fareham Borough Council and under Section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972 give authority to officers from Fareham Borough Council to exercise Building Control services within the Borough of Gosport.

10. USE OF JET SKIS IN LEE-ON-THE-SOLENT - CONSIDERATION OF BYELAWS

The Board considered a report of the Corporate Legal Adviser in connection with the use of jet skis in Lee-on-the-Solent.

It was reported that the Health and Leisure Committee at its meeting on 3 September 2001 had considered a report outlining the problems incurred at Lee-on-the-Solent with regard to the use of jet skis and resolved that a local byelaw be introduced to govern the permitted usage times for personal watercraft.

The Maritime Coastguard Agency, who was responsible for the issuing of byelaws in coastal areas, had confirmed that, due to recent case law, it was no longer possible to issue byelaws regulating a time restriction for use of jet skis, but it was possible to regulate either their speed or effective silencers. However, DEFRA had recently concluded a review of coastal byelaws, and it was now possible to issue byelaws regulating the time that certain areas could be used. However this would not possible until further legislation had been introduced and there was no guarantee when that will be.

Under Section 76 of the Public Health Act 1961, it was possible for the Council to introduce byelaws which would cover jet skis as pleasure boats. This could regulate the speed, require the use of effective silencers and regulate their use so as to prevent their navigation being in a dangerous manner. However, there were already Council byelaws and Portsmouth Harbour byelaws (which extended for that purpose beyond Lee-on-the-Solent) which regulated speed and navigation in a dangerous manner.

Under Section 231 of the Public Health Act 1936 there was a byelaw that permitted the regulation of 'vessels' and would have permitted the Council to introduce time restrictions. However it was recently decided that a jet ski did not qualify as a vessel. That, however, was still under review.

Whilst there were a number of options open to the Council, most were hampered by current byelaws and further legislation. While it was possible to pursue byelaws on speed and noise emissions, it seemed unlikely that there could be a quick solution to time regulations as that was not currently possible legally. Furthermore, there was the extra difficulty of enforcing the byelaw once it was in place.

Having considered the matter, it was -

RESOLVED: That the application for any byelaws be deferred until such time as it was possible to issue byelaws governing the permitted usage time.

11. APPOINTMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES TO SERVE ON OUTSIDE ORGANISATIONS

Consideration was given to a number of vacancies that had been deferred from the meeting of the Board held on 16 May 2002.

RESOLVED: That the following Members be appointed to the undermentioned Working Groups -

(A) RELATE

Councillor Mrs. Elshaw

(B) BENEFICIAL FOUNDATION MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

No nomination - deferred to next meeting of the Board

12. CYCLE STANDS/FERRY GARDENS

[NOTE: The Board was of the opinion that this matter should not be dealt with in exempt session and it was, therefore, agreed to consider the matter in open session.]

The Board considered a joint report of the Leisure and Amenities Manager and Head of Economic Regeneration (a copy of which is inserted in the Minute Book as Appendix "B") which sought approval to the relocation of the cycle stands at the Falklands Gardens.

It was reported that cycles were frequently left at the Falklands Gardens overnight. During the refurbishment of the High Street and Falklands Gardens, a purpose built cycle stand and seating was installed. At the same time trees were planted and these had now matured to such an extent that they had begun to impinge on the surveillance of the cycle stands by CCTV.

Police had reported that there had been a steady increase in the number of cycles that had been stolen from the cycle stands and it was clear that some form of action needed to be taken. Three options were available, namely, do nothing, fell the trees or relocate the cycle stands.

Given the location of the trees and the fact that they provided shaded cover for the seating area, it was agreed that felling was not an option. This left the relocation of the cycle stands as the only option and after consideration of this matter, it was agreed that the cycle stands should be relocated from south of the ferry ticket office to the area shown on the plan attached to the report.

Although no specific funding was available, £150,000 had been set aside within the Borough Council's Capital Programme for High Street improvements and it was estimated that the project would cost £5,000.

RESOLVED: That the relocation of the cycle stands at the Falklands Gardens be approved.

CHAIRMAN