Environment Board Minutes – Draft
12th October at 10:00
Room C, Nobel House - Smith Square Conference Centre, Smith Square, London SW1P 3JR
Summary of actions
DD to make results of Brexit survey available / 30/11/2016CM to circulate paper by Kent County Council and The University of Kent on Brexit / 30/11/2016
IF and TC will discuss Brexit implications for waste servicesin the next workshop which is waste / 12/01/2017
DD will collate the policy positions on Brexit of other organisations / 31/12/2016
All to send any information on other organisations’ policy positions on Brexit to DD for collation. / 31/12/2016
PH and PC to discuss and PC to finalise Natural Capital and Heritage position statement and circulate prior to the November conference. / 18/11/2016
SW to send SP link on flood risk assessment. / 30/11/2016
JB and SW to invite Paul Cross to the next water meeting. / 30/11/2016
SW to circulate link to Lincolnshire’s work on highways standards and flooding. / 30/11/2016
SW to contact RC and provide info on shortage of planners and FRM specialists, to feed into Skills Commission work. / 30/11/2016
AH to send CM list of energy group members. / 31/10/2016
CM to draft response from ADEPT to the ofgem consultation and PH to sign off by 3 November. / 3/11/2016
AH and DD to draft and circulate a forward plan template for each working group / 30/11/2016
Conference:
DD and PH to discuss with speakers and come up with suggested questions.
HB to share the list of LEP’s that are attending.
HB asked that all members promote where they can. / 18/11/2016
AH to canvas availability for July and October 2017 meeting dates. / 31/10/16
DD & Peter W to amend draft response on shale wealth fund to reflect comments at the meeting / 31/10/2016
HB to send to Lancashire and East Yorkshire for comment on Shale Wealth Fund / 31/10/2016
AH to circulate details of Natural Capital Conference which Natural England are running and is free to attend. / 14/10/2016
SP and JB to put together a short sentence on ADEPT’s position with Neighbourhood planning and infrastructure bill. SP and JB to send to HB. / 30/11/2016
DD and AH to circulate snapshots of reports created by HIRAM / 30/11/2016
Attendees and initials detailed at end of minutes
Note of meeting
Introductions and apologiesCM has agreed to take on the role as Energy Chair for the working group.
TC, chair of the Waste Panel, has sent her apologies.
NR was unable to attend due to calendar clashes. PW attended in his place.
CP was unable to attend and sent her apologies.
JD was unable to attend.
PH thanked everyone for attending, and for sending representatives where possible.
Board administration
Minutes from previous meeting agreed and actions completed.
HB checked whether everyone was receiving the monthly newsletter.
EU Referendum
DD sent out a survey following the last Environment Board meeting. The survey was seeking initial feedback from all ADEPT members. Seven responses were returned. The lack of response was due to people still feeling very uncertain about the future as it was only two weeks after the referendum. DD to make the results of the survey available. DD said that the key themes were uncertainty, economic confidence, public funding, too early for private sector investment, long term labour market, procurement, home tourism and agriculture.
Agreed that chairs will have the EU Referendum as a standing item in meetings and will use the survey as a basis for the questions to ask.
PH continued the discussion by saying that there is still a lot of uncertainty about the impact Brexit will have. The LGA is still involved, with ADEPT is trying to feedback through them. ADEPT’s priorities include EU legislation, opportunity of Brexit, funding and local economy money which will remain until 2020, community cohesion and place based interest. The LET network can also contribute to this. Rupert Clubb has written to David Davies. The conference in November will be flavoured by Brexit.
GS is moving into a new role in Natural England which will lead their EU exit work under Director Rob Cooke, whose counterpart in Environment Agency is Tony Grayling. GS explained that Defra had set up an overarching EU Exit Programme Board which reports to the Permanent Secretary (Clare Moriarty). There are four analysis projects under this Board looking at: environmental strategy and regulation, future agriculture and land use policy, animal and plant health, and marine fisheries. Natural England and the Environment Agency are working closely to support this work. The Government has announced two key aspects of EU exit: that the Article 50 process will be triggered no later than end March 2017, which suggests a departure date two years thereafter, and also the introduction of a Great Repeal Bill to repeal the European Communities Act and save relevant regulatory provisions to ensure a smooth transition on Day 1. Defra has already begun an exercise to identify where gaps may arise in their area of responsibility. The Environmental Audit Committee has initiated an inquiry into the implications for the natural environment of EU exit - .WB confirmed that the Environment Agency established a similar structure. Group agreed that it is a great opportunity for ADEPT.
The question was asked about what the early impacts and ‘wishlist’ were for ADEPT post Brexit. CM mentioned that Kent County Council had completed a paper alongside Kent LEP and the University of Kent. CM to circulate the paper.
DD discussed that the nature and extent of impact will depend on the nature and extent of exit.
HB mentioned working groups and what it might mean for that subject. IF and TC will discuss this in the next workshop which is waste. PW discussed the concern around supply chain issues and what the implications were of the UK withdrawing from Europe. PH talked about the Hinkley decision delay which are related to Brexit and the change of government and Prime Minister. People are beginning to see the impacts with a weaker pound etc. PH questioned where the labour supply for Hinkley would come from and that it will be interesting to see how it plays out.
It was agreed that the EU Referendum subject will be kept on the Environment Board agenda going forward.
Members had a discussion around ADEPT discussing the EU referendum with other partner organisations and the LEP network. DD will collate the policy positions of other organisations. All to send any information on other organisations’ policy positions on Brexit to DD for collation.
The discussion came to a close with GS saying that Natural England had expected to have a chunk of topics that aren’t affected by Brexit. This has not been the case. There will not be an answer and opportunities for change will not be known for many years. / DD
CM
IF
TC
DD
All
Group Development
Natural Capital and Heritage
No progress has been made since the Natural Capital and Heritage workshop in July. PH and PC to discuss and PC to finalise Natural Capital and Heritage position statement and circulate prior to the November conference.
CM to send info to PC and suggestions for people to join Natural Capital and Heritage group.
Flood and Water Management
Actions from last meeting: SW and JB working on a ‘skills matrix’ where Local Authorities had not done their flood risk assessment. Currently understanding barriers to this and working out what can be offered to other Local Authorities. The aim is to offer assistance to Local Authorities for the flood risk assessment. SW and JB don’t want a ‘sheep dip’ process. SW to send SP link.
SW discussed the 4 October Water working group meeting. 24 attendees which shows an interest in the subject. Chief Executive of Flood RE was invited hope that they will attend the next group. Highlights from the meeting were: sewers lead developing, Devon and Exeter legal challenge to removing assets off the register and the implications on the assets.
JB explained the process of removing assets. There is no legal requirement to notify that the asset has been removed from the register. There is no process in terms of communicating the removal of assets. FDGIA process is sharing best practice, Licolnshire put in bid for defences. SW to circulate link to Lincolnshire’s work on highways standards and flooding.
EA and Defra will be attending the next Water meeting which will benefit everyone. Engaging EA and Defra with a slightly different approach.
FDGIA new higher education programme developed by Paul Cross, suggestion that JB and SW could invite him to the next water meeting.
There is some additional funding for flood risk management and the government is keeping funding at the same level.
ADEPT is meeting with Defra and the DCLG to discuss a SUDS review.
Actual cost of divergence of surface water; Defra did an assessment, £80; ADEPT meeting with Defra and DCLG before December to discuss a review of SUDS it’s unclear whether it needs to be done by March or starts in March.
The next Water meeting will be late December or early January.
SW to contact RC and provide info on shortage of planners and FRM specialists, to feed into Skills Commission work.
Discussion with SW and JB that Water will be the April workshop.
Resilience
PH suggested that as the workshop was on resilience we should discuss this at the workshop. All members agreed.
Waste
JL and HB attended the last waste meeting. They fed back to the board. There was an academic presentation regarding landfill and stocktaking of the Terms of Reference.
HB had a discussion with IF and TC regarding the workshop which will take place at the January Environment Board meeting.
PH also mentioned doing DIY in your home and whether you can be charged for disposal of the waste. There is an issue over whether doing DIY in your home would come under construction or household waste.
Energy
CM started the discussion around what the focus of the group would be. The key areas that were highlighted; enabling growth, fuel poverty and links to Adult Social Care, energy security, technology and saving.
PH discussed the shale wealth fund and the implications of this for other energy sources. Unconventional fuels need to be a focus and could fall under the energy security banner.
PC mentioned community energy and it was confirmed that this will be picked up under technology and saving.
In terms of utilities there is an issue about not being a statutory consultee re development of the community, to help predict long-term infrastructure. The setting up of a scrutiny committee would be useful to engage a lot more interactively and is a good opportunity to get some weight behind this. ADEPT have done a large amount of work with the LEP around this subject.
SW mentioned that Cambridgeshire Council have set up and energy investment unit and are taking energy strategy through the member system. SW asked what the ADEPT view was about this. CM said that this was a big issue with utility and development community. SP said that the energy group had come around to the idea of a renewable energy strategy through the community system.
Energy from waste conversation. PW discussed that Gloucestershire County Council had had lots of success around grid capacity for battery storage. Kent County Council was looking to fund research to be completed by the University of Kent on this subject.
AH to send CM list of energy group members.
Ofgem letter around charging arrangements. ADEPT should have a view. PW mentioned linking business rates with the review into the response. CM to draft response from ADEPT and PH to sign off by 3 November.
Working Groups
HB asked whether a template work plan could be drafted for all groups. This should include: five things that the working group are aiming to do, ambition for the work area and a standard commentary that doesn’t change. AH and DD to draft and circulate. / PC
PH
CM
SW
SW
JB
SW
SW
AH
CM
PH
AH
DD
Conference
Conference information is now on the website.
Ministerial presence has been difficult to arrange due to the Autumn statement.
The environment plenary has been agreed as Natural Opportunity for Growth. There is a strong environment theme with speakers lined up. HB asked for suggestions on how the workshop is going to be run. Suggestions included; setting questions to being with and then opening up for discussion, case studies, speakers to give ideas and then open up.
DD and PH to discuss with speakers and come up with suggested questions.
GS mentioned that the concept of natural capital and heritage is unarguable but what is the best way of putting it into practice? The benefit of the session is not about getting into an agreement but how we can translate the information to make a difference to the community. Suggestion that the approach is evidence based and around public health.
HB to share the list of LEP’s that are attending.
HB asked that all members promote where they can. / DD
PH
HB
All
Meeting programme
January Environment Board will be held on 12.01.2017 at Nobel House in London.
IF has drafted agenda for January’s waste workshop.
April’s workshop will hopefully be water, with July’s being energy.
AH to canvas availability for July and October 2017 meeting dates. / AH
AOB
Shale wealth fund DD and PW to amend draft response to reflect comments at the meeting. HB to seek any further comments/input from ADEPT contact in Lancashire and East Yorkshire. HB to check with RC that it is OK for NR to sign-off the ADEPT response.
GS mentioned that it was good approach to getting away from 'bribing individual householders'; more tiered approach to target community benefits a better way of going about it. Need to build on existing priorities rather than reinvent the wheel. There are already a number of mechanisms whereby local priorities identified, eg landfill tax exemption boards, heritage lottery fund (Natural England with local partners on agriculture-environment scheme). Danger of setting up a new structure spending a lot of time looking at priorities for local area; better to pool knowledge to inform what should be for the area - strategic question on how identify these priories rather than reinventing the wheel. Perhaps use of local community foundations? Suspect the industry will want their name attached to the funds paid.
PH discussed that community foundations tends to know that already exist. PC favoured the approach towards community foundations. JP said that commercial companies will want the opportunity to acknowledge what they are doing and what they are contributing. They will want acknowledgement for the good deeds. Other questions that were raised around this:
- Are there any caveats on what local funding can be used for, eg local bus service to serve several parishes?
- How does it link to neighbourhood planning? These capture priorities from community consultation.
- Potentially significant sums of money - use money to attract money; raise more the profile to use as a pump-primer, match funding with heritage lottery.
- Need to ensure the different tiers talk to each other.
- Geographic spread is a challenge - what you see on the surface and who feel are affected are 2 very different things
- HB to send to Lancashire and East Yorkshire for comment.
Neighbourhood planning and infrastructure bill, need the Government commitment that Local Authorities are able to impose conditions or restrictions for environment and heritage, rather than having to deal with an appeal, which costs Local Authority money. This would also impact on ability to raise fees.Want to see actual clarification of the wording, that can impose planning conditions where feel necessary.Could lead to more refusals, where not able to impose conditions. 'Necessary' and 'absolutely necessary' - already got planning process to test. It may just be a case of adding to decision template that 'is considered absolutely necessary'. This needs to be looked at. Discussion whether ADEPT should be commenting on this.SP and JB to put together a short sentence on ADEPT’s position with this. SP and JB to send to HB.HB will then raise this at HR board. / DD
PW
HB
HB
AH
SP
JB
HB
Afternoon workshop: Resilience
In the afternoon the workshop focused on Resilience and on how ADEPT can add value to the discussions on this subject. Amongst those attending were the Committee on Climate Change, London Climate Change Partnership, South Gloucestershire County Council, LEDNet, the LGA and Defra. The workshop had two presentations, one on the climate change risk assessment process and the other on a system called HIRAM which maps highways infrastructure.
Topics discussed during the climate change risk assessment presentation were as follows:
- Recognise adaptation and long term gain in legislation
- The team have built on the first assessment and have outlined what more needs to happen now to avoid the impacts arising
- Defra have funded looking at long term lists
- Six priority areas;
- risk of flooding and coastal change risks to communities, businesses and infrastructure
- risks to health, wellbeing and productivity from high temperatures
- risk of shortages in the public water supply, and for agriculture, energy generation and industry
- risks to natural capital
- risks to domestic and international food production and trade
- risk of new pests and diseases
The presentation is available via the following link: