(a)

the report sets out the known and potential impacts of the UK leaving the European Union that related to natural environment and the Council’s environmental health regulatory role; the focus of the report was as follows –

?

broad direction of Government policy around the environment, as set out in the 25 year Environment Plan and the draft Environment (Principles and Governance Bill) 2018;

?

the potential impact on planning policy and practice in relation to the environmental assessment of development projects and policies;

?

changes to the current regulatory framework for air quality and related corporate work streams, eg the plan for trees and the Council’s policy around electric vehicles and relevant pledges made by the Administration;

?

the impact on the natural environment, in particular areas and species with protected status under EU law;

?

the impact of the delivery of the City’s Port Health Authority functions and relevant environmental health regulatory functions eg catch certificates and export health certificates;

(b)

at the time of writing the report it is anticipated that more than 600 statutory instruments would be laid before Parliament in the forthcoming months;

(c)

the ongoing uncertainty regarding the outcome of the Government’s negotiations added significant complications; the draft withdrawal agreement negotiated with the EU included a principal of non-regression in relation to existing EU environment law; it was unclear whether this would be applied unilaterally in the event of a no deal outcome;

(d)

in the event of a no deal, there would be no subsequent interpretations by the Court of Justice of the European Union and the only way to amend the law was through domestic measures;

(e)

in the situation of a soft exit, the majority of European Union environment law would continue to apply; however the law would not apply to the common fisheries, common agricultural policies and the Birds, Habitats and Bathing Water Directive.

(f)

sought clarification relating to -

?

what would be the legal redress relating to the draft Environment (Principles and Governance) Bill regarding the principle of public participation in environmental decision making and the principle of access to justice in relation to environmental matters;

?

following the issue of a policy statement in respect of each principle for the draft Environment (Principles and  Governance) Bill,  who would need ‘to have regard to the policy statement’ as currently people with environmental decision making powers were not required to have regard to the Bill;

?

how environmental regulations, management and justice would apply following exit day;

(g)

whether the impact of any changes to environmental law, would impact on the future plans for the development of Plymouth’s National Marine Park;

(h)

sought clarification as to what stage (of the parliamentary passage of bill process) the draft Environment (Principles and Governance) Bill sat;

(i)

the impact of the loss of approximately 1500 vehicles coming through the port, as a result of it not being designated as a Boarder Inspection Post (BIP) and the potential impact on Brittany Ferries;

(j)

information on the air quality within the City, particularly Barn Barton and St Budeaux due to the incinerator;

(k)

as a result of a no deal, what would be the impact on the Port Health Authority, of having to check cargo entering the port from the European Union;

(l)

whether the Port Health Authority would be required to undertake inspections of pharmaceuticals, under the same regime for that of meat, fish and dairy products;

(m)

sought clarification as to whether the Department of Transport had contacted the Council to ascertain whether with the contract awarded to Brittany Ferries (in order to alleviate the extra pressure on the BIPs) would be successful;

(n)

what were the economic implications of the Plymouth Health Authority not being designated as a Boarder Inspection Post;

(o)

if the port became a BIP, what implications would there be on the transport infrastructure, such as increased traffic on the Tamar Bridge and regional transport links;

(p)

the feasibility of the Plymouth Port  Health Authority being designated as a Boarder Inspection Post;

(q)

whether the update training for Environmental Health Officers was being funded through Government funding (£34,000) or whether Council resources were being used, and the impact that this training would have on the planned food hygiene inspection programme.

(1)

that in consultation with Kevin McKenzie (Policy and Intelligence Advisor) and the Chair a letter is written to the Chair of the Efra Board outlining the Committee’s concerns;

(2)

to recommend to Cabinet that it investigates and supports the designation of the Plymouth Port Health Authority as a Boarder Inspection Post;

(3)

to recommend to Cabinet that it endorses and supports the reassessment for Plymouth to become a strategic port;

(4)

that air quality management is included on its work programme for June 2019 meeting.