| |
Discussion |
Actions |
| 1 |
Present: R Robertson (Scottish Executive), D
Forrest (UKPIA), P Loggie (NFUS), S Freeland (SESA), D Blue (Scotsh
Whisky Assoc.), I Stewart (CIA), SEPA: C Bayes (Chair), J W Burns,
R Burke, J Shaw, F Weir
|
|
| 2 |
Apologies: D Morgan (CPI), A Mitchell (CBI), D
Elliott (SEA)
|
|
| 3 |
C Bayes: Welcome & introductions. Main
focus of group over next 2 years will be charging scheme review,
but general PPC issues still included. |
|
| 4 |
J Burns: Make-up of group, charging scheme
principles, project timescale –changes to current scheme structure
by April 2008, new structure by 2009, although some elements may
not be available by then |
|
| 5 |
P Loggie: Disappointed that new scheme would
take until 2009 to implement
JW Burns: 1 key reason is lack of subsistence
phase data until that time.
|
|
| 6 |
J W Burns: Recap on project principles,
progress to date on review - previous workshops (internal &
stakeholder) |
|
| 7 |
C Bayes: Reporting burdens & compliance
are parallel projects to this one. Compliance is major aspect of EA
PPC charging scheme, but debatable if meet project principles –
transparent? Objective? Auditable? |
|
| 8 |
C Bayes: Please send in any further comments
on;
- Good/ bad aspects of EA scheme
- Previous workshops
- Project principles
|
All |
| 9 |
Transparency workshop
Factors to make current scheme more transparent:
- provide ‘building blocks’ of costs
- implications on the ground (number of inspections & ‘value’
of inspections - benefits v. environmental risk)
- Air monitoring fees – justification/ explanation to operators and
SEPA inspectors
- Issue of unjustified complaints – how charged
- Information on recoverable cost and non-recoverable cost of SEPA
activities (chargeable v. grant-in-aid)
SEPA to send out existing base data and draft “Pig & Poultry
Transparency Document” prior to next meeting
|
k pdf
F Weir |
| 10 |
Inclusion of Part B’s in Part A Charging Scheme:
- Direct transfer into scheme?
- Charge for Part B activities on Part A sites (probably reduced
charge)?
Agreed to leave detailed discussion until associations representing
Part B activities can comment
R Robertson: Scot Exec will look at possibility of
GBRs for some Part B activities and discuss with SEPA.
|
All - esp. associations with Part B members
Scot Exec
|
| 11 |
J Shaw: release of Benchmarking report.
Available on SEPA website. PPC section most difficult to benchmark
against EA due to different charge calculation method.
Should SEPA move towards consistency with EA scheme? Is this
desirable? Required? Possible? (given different cost recovery and
enforcement regimes). D Forest & I Stewart personal response
that not want complexity of EA scheme.
R Robertson: Scot Exec will respond formally to
SEPA on benchmarking report. Recognised that few conclusions/
recommendations presented in report – likely next steps will be to
draw up action plans.
|
All
Scot Exec |
| 12 |
J W Burns: PPC Progress report (paper to be
circulated) –
- likely 80-90 intensive agriculture
- unknown number of waste sites (sector 5.3); 30-80?
- current backlog of ~140 Part A applications
- will require SEPA to determine ~50% of total Part A applications
in next year
- SEPA currently revising determination working methods, e.g.
creation of dedicated permitting unit for agriculture sector
Update on Intensive Agriculture sector – Paper circulated to
group
|
JW Burns |
| 13 |
C Bayes: Also want to consider the wider
burden of ‘servicing’ a PPC permit. Garth Broomfield currently
drawing up paper on reducing reporting burden – will include in
next meeting?
P Loggie commented on ADAS report on costs to
agric sector of ~£20 million. C Bayes noted concern that some of
the costs listed were not associated with PPC.
S Freeland commented that reporting burden etc
may be reduced by improved liaison between Local Authorities and
SEPA at planning application stage
|
|
| 14 |
Date of next meeting: 15th January (SEPA Riccarton office)
Provisional dates for further meetings: 29th March (TBC, venue
probably Riccarton) |
F Weir |