Comments on Draft Howard Davis Farm (Abrogation of Covenant) (Jersey) Law 200- (P.95/2008): amendment.

Information about the publication of Ministerial Decisions

A formal published “Ministerial Decision” is required as a record of the decision of a Minister (or an Assistant Minister where they have delegated authority) as they exercise their responsibilities and powers.

Ministers are elected by the States Assembly and have legal responsibilities and powers as “corporation sole” under the States of Jersey Law 2005 by virtue of their office and in their areas of responsibility, including entering into agreements, and under any legislation conferring on them powers.

An accurate record of “Ministerial Decisions” is vital to effective governance, including:

demonstrating that good governance, and clear lines of accountability and authority, are in place around decisions-making – including the reasons and basis on which a decision is made, and the action required to implement a decision
providing a record of decisions and actions that will be available for examination by States Members, and Panels and Committees of the States Assembly; the public, organisations, and the media; and as a historical record and point of reference for the conduct of public affairs

Ministers are individually accountable to the States Assembly, including for the actions of the departments and agencies which discharge their responsibilities.

The Freedom of Information Law (Jersey) Law 2011 is used as a guide when determining what information is be published. While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.

A decision made (14/07/2008) regarding: Comments on Draft Howard Davis Farm (Abrogation of Covenant) (Jersey) Law 200- (P.95/2008): amendment.

Decision Reference: MD-T-2008-0061
Decision Summary Title :	Comments on Draft Howard Davis Farm (Abrogation of Covenant) (Jersey) Law 200- (P.95/2008): amendment		Date of Decision Summary:	14th July 2008
Decision Summary Author:	John Richardson – Chief Officer		Decision Summary: Public or Exempt? (State clauses from Code of Practice booklet)	Public
Type of Report: Oral or Written?	Written		Person Giving Oral Report:
Written Report Title :	Comments on Draft Howard Davis Farm (Abrogation of Covenant) (Jersey) Law 200- (P.95/2008): amendment		Date of Written Report:	14th July 2008
Written Report Author:	John Richardson – Chief Officer		Written Report : Public or Exempt? (State clauses from Code of Practice booklet)	Public
Subject: Comments on Draft Howard Davis Farm (Abrogation of Covenant) (Jersey) Law 200- (P.95/2008): amendment
Decision(s): The Minister approved the comments from the Department which outlined the reason why a two year period to move the Animal Carcass Incinerator as outlined by Deputy Gorst was not acceptable.
Reason(s) for Decision: The two year period is insufficient time given the current uses at Bellozanne, the Liquid Waste Strategy and the Strategic Master planning exercise required for La Collette.
Resource Implications: Additional consultancy costs if the project is to be accelerated.
Action required: Formal comments to the Greffe for publication to States Members.
Signature:		Position:
Date Signed:		Date of Decision (If different from Date Signed):

Comments on Draft Howard Davis Farm (Abrogation of Covenant) (Jersey) Law 200- (P.95/2008): amendment.

Comments on Draft Howard Davis Farm (Abrogation of Covenant) (Jersey) Law 200- (P.95/2008): amendment

When the location for the new Animal Carcass Incinerator (ACI) was being considered, the most appropriate location transpiring to be Howard Davis Farm, the management and trustees of Acorn Enterprises raised concerns about how such an installation, adjacent to their operation, could affect the services they provide to their clients.

Following lengthy negotiations between Acorn Enterprises and their trustees, it was agreed that, subject to agreement from the Howard Davis family, provision would be made in the new trust arrangements for the ACI to be located at Howard Davis Farm until such time as a new and more permanent location could be found for the facility.

Initially, a period of occupancy at Howard Davis Farm was agreed for two years as being long enough to find an alternative site. On investigation it became apparent that the two alternative sites that were being considered, Bellozanne and La Collette, both had a number of construction projects underway at present or planned for the near future and in all likelihood, to be able to complete a relocation of the ACI within two years was unlikely. As a consequence, in negotiating with the Howard Davis family a period of three years was requested and subsequently agreed.

Bellozanne

One option for the relocation of the ACI is to Bellozanne. At present the site is completely full due to the amount of solid waste that has to be processed, the public access required for the re-use recycling centre and the unknowns in terms of land use requirements for the liquid waste strategy. Until the liquid waste strategy has been completed to assess whether Bellozanne remains the focal point for the Island’s liquid waste treatment, the re-allocation of land for any new facility is not possible. Given the timescale for the liquid waste strategy and the planning and construction requirements for relocating the ACI, a three year period is the minimum in which this could be accommodated.

La Collette

The La Collette I reclamation site is virtually full in terms of developable land and the only vacant site has been identified for a new breakthrough to the La Collette II site.

The La Collette II site has one current occupant, Connex and the second, the Energy from Waste plant, is about to commence. A third potential area on La Collette II is earmarked for the in-vessel compost project however, given that the current strategic master planning underway for the potential move of the port, any in-vessel compost plant that is built at La Collette II will be built in a fashion that will allow it to be moved if required in the longer term.

If the ACI were to be constructed at La Collette II the only land that would not be impacted upon by the potential move of the port would be adjacent to the new Energy from Waste plant and it will also allow TTS to concentrate its operations in that one area. The area set aside for the contractors’ site compound could be used for relocating the ACI however, this will not be available until after the 2011 completion of the Energy from Waste project.

To use another area of land at La Collette II whilst there is a strategic planning exercise being undertaken as part of the Island Plan review appears to be very short sighted to move the ACI at a high capital cost when it might have to be relocated again in the near future.

In the longer term, if La Collette area is to be developed for a new commercial / passenger port, the location and land value of the current abattoir has to be questioned. It is possible that a new location for a modern fully functional abattoir and ACI with appropriate segregation might be the best operation in terms of land use planning.

These options need a thorough appraisal and feasibility study before an investment in the order of £970,000, as identified in the capital programme for 2010, is made for moving the ACI to a site that in the long term might not be the best option for the Island.

Financial and Manpower Implications

Currently the allocation of £970,000 to move the ACI is included in the provisional capital programme for 2010. This allocation will allow for the necessary planning and construction to relocate the ACI within the three year timescale allocated. If the timescale is reduced to two years as suggested in the amendment, this money will be required in the 2009 capital allocation.

In terms of manpower requirements, to fast track this project within a two year timescale will require additional manpower to undertake the necessary planning and feasibility study work. Whilst this manpower does not exist from within existing resources, consultants will have to be engaged to undertake the full feasibility study which will add costs in the order an additional £30-50,000.