Government of Jersey

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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 25 February 2013:

Decision Reference: MD-PH-2013-0037
Decision Summary Title:	Joint Ministerial Response: S.R. 19/2012 and Addendum – Relocation of Police Headquarters to Green Street.		Date of Decision Summary:	20 February 2013
Decision Summary Author:	Assistant Director, Jersey Property Holdings		Decision Summary: Public or Exempt?	Public
Type of Report: Oral or Written?	Written		Person Giving Oral Report:	N/A
Written Report Title:	Joint Ministerial Response: S.R. 19/2012 – Relocation of Police Headquarters to Green Street and Joint Ministerial Response: S.R. 19/2012 Addendum – Relocation of Police Headquarters to Green Street.		Date of Written Report:	26 February 2013
Written Report Author:	Assistant Director, Jersey Property Holdings		Written Report : Public or Exempt?	Public
Subject: Joint response from the Minister for Treasury and Resources and the Minister for Home Affairs on the review of relocation of Police Headquarters by the Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel.
Decision(s): The Minister approved for presentation to the States the joint response to the Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel review of the relocation of Police Headquarters.
Reason(s) for Decision: The Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel undertook a review of the relocation of Police Headquarters in two parts. A commentary in response to the initial report and its addendum is found in the attached Written Reports.
Resource Implications: None.
Action required: The Greffier of the States to be requested to arrange for the attached responses to be presented to the States for their information on the 26 February 2013.
Signature:		Position: Deputy E Noel* Assistant Minister for Treasury and Resources
Date Signed:		Date of Decision:

Police Headquarters - Re-location to Green Street: Scrutiny Report (S.R. 19/2012) Addendum: Joint Response of the Minister for Treasury and Resources, and Minister for Home Affairs

SR.19/2012 – Joint response from the Minister for Home Affairs and the Asst Minister for Home Treasury and Resources

Minister for Home Affairs and Assistant Minister for Treasury and Resources

Joint Ministerial Response to S.R. 19/2012

Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel

Relocation of Police Headquarters to Green Street

26th February, 2013

Introduction

We would like to thank the Panel for undertaking this review in a short space of time so as to inform the original debate of P92/2012. This response follows on from the joint interim response that was published shortly before the debate in November 2012. We have made comments separately on the Addendum to SR 19/2012, which deals with the comments made by the Police Association and Civil Servants.

In setting out our response, we think it is important to make clear the status of the current plans and the work that needs to be done before the design is completed. Whilst the plans for the new Police HQ have been subject to considerable development and internal consultation, they are for the purposes of making a planning application (stage D of the design process), which determines whether the scheme is acceptable in planning terms. Should the scheme achieve planning consent, considerable further design work and consultation with users will be undertaken to finalise the design (stage E of the design process) for the more detailed Bye-Laws submission and the construction process. With this in mind, some of the issues identified by the Panel would naturally be the subject of more detailed design and development as the scheme is refined.

Findings

Comments

Key Finding 1 – Future expansion: The Panel remains unconvinced that there will not be a need at some point in the future to look for additional accommodation for the Police Force as new operational needs emerge. While this may not be an argument against the current plans at Green Street, the Panel believes that the major disadvantage that the site does not offer any possibility of future expansion ought to be acknowledged.

The Panel believes that, while the current plans will undoubtedly improve the working conditions for police officers and civilian staff, pressures on the office accommodation may increase in the future. There being no apparent opportunity to extend the planned building at Green Street there will be a risk of overcrowding in the new building. The inevitable solution will be that the States of Jersey Police will require at some point in the future additional premises.

It is not accepted that the need for additional accommodation in the future would be ‘inevitable’. The Panel has provided no evidence to support this statement.

The Panel’s report identifies the evidence provided by the States of Jersey Police about the nature of future policing, in particular the emphasis on embedding officers in the community, the use of technology in the future and falling crime rates, which will result in a reduced requirement for traditional accommodation in the future.

The Panel also received evidence about the flexibility and expansion capabilities built in to the new building which are designed to support a workplace strategy which will continue to promote more flexible working and facilities.

Far from suggesting the need for additional accommodation in the future, the above supports the current building design which is flexible and adaptable to meet the changing demands of a modern police force.

In the unlikely event that expansion was required in the next 30 years, the new Police HQ would adjoin Green St. car park, which is owned by the public and is scheduled to be redeveloped sometime over the next 10 -15 years. The site does therefore provide scope for expansion space in the future.

Key Finding 2 -The Panel notes that the 10% expansion allowance mentioned above provides, not for any additional extension to the building, but for yet more intensive use of the internal office space. Members would be concerned that this might mitigate against the principle of providing a pleasant yet efficient working environment.

The Panel notes that the 2009 review resulted in a significant reduction in the size specifications for the building. Whilst it is clear that the new planned accommodation will provide much improved working conditions for the police, the Panel believes that there would be a risk of compromising some of these gains if too much pressure was placed on the working environment by further reductions in spatial arrangements.

The suggestion that new technology will lead to a reduction in the numbers of officers requiring office space to write reports is also regarded with some scepticism. The Panel is not convinced that the provision of new technology in police cars will significantly alter the preference for police officers to return to the Police station to write reports.

Working in a crowded and cramped environment, should the need to provide additional workstations become apparent in the future as operational requirements change and expand, would not be conducive to good morale within the police force nor effective working

Evidence provided to the Panel about the built-in flexibility and capacity along with the design parameters used do not suggest there would be a compromise to working conditions in the future. The office areas have been designed by professionals with vast experience of police buildings and reflecting best practice guidelines for UK police buildings and British Council of Offices (BCO) recommendations.

The 2009 review was undertaken before the Green St site was identified and the evidence provided to the Panel identified that this work was necessary to address an over-specification of the area brief and to take account of developments in modern policing.

In its report, the Panel recognises that this work is in accordance with BCO guidance, but states it has reservations about the Police having specific requirements beyond commercial office buildings. It has been made clear to the Panel that the plans include both office areas designed to modern office standards and many purpose-designed specialist spaces include a custody suite, forensic laboratory, control room, lockers, armoury, training facilities and incident rooms.

The Panel’s ‘scepticism’ about the use of technology in the future is unfounded and not supported by evidence. The evidence provided to the Panel was based on current practice within a UK Police Force seeking to keep officers in the community as much as possible, whilst reducing the use of expensive accommodation. The Panel was also informed that the Jersey HQ had not been designed assuming the use of this level of technology. Such a development would further reduce pressure on accommodation in the future, rather than increase it. Finally, it is the needs of the community rather than the preference of Police officers that will dictate future developments in policing.

The Panel provides no evidence to support the view that operational changes would result in a ‘crowded and cramped environment’ in the future. The evidence provide to the Panel has demonstrated how the building meets standards and the flexibility and expansion space provided by the design. Impact of technological change and adoption of modern working practices should not be underestimated.

As noted in the Panel’s report, the proposed scheme meets the internal area requirements set in the 2009 brief and would not be constructed any larger if it were to occupy an alternative site.

Key Finding 3 – Parking provision: The Panel believes that there are significant issues with regard to parking provision, both for visitors and for police officers and civilian staff, which have not been fully considered.

We set out a response to the issues of visitor and staff parking below.

Key Finding 4 – The Panel believes that the current planned provision in Snow Hill is inadequate and too distant from the Police station. The Panel is particularly concerned that members of the public who arrive at the Police Headquarters in a distressed state (for example when they have been the victim of a crime, reporting criminal damage or injury or to collect family members from detention) will find access arrangements difficult, particularly at times of the day when nearby car parks are full or late at night and in the dark.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that a significant number of distressed visitors to the current Police station at Rouge Bouillon regularly park as closely to the Reception as they can regardless of inconvenience of other drivers. This problem is likely to be exacerbated at the Green Street site and may cause traffic problems on Route du Fort or clog up the designated disabled provision in front of the building.

The Panel believes that current visitor parking provision is inadequate and the lack of convenient nearby parking in an area with congested parking provision will cause considerable frustration.

We note the Panel’s concerns about visitor parking and its reference to ‘anecdotal’ evidence about the need for visitors to park close to the building. Based on the actual number and profile of visitors to Police HQ, it is believed the visitor parking arrangements to be appropriate and the same as arrangements that are widely accepted at many public buildings in St Helier.

The new building is close to the town centre, closer than the current HQ and just minutes away on foot. Green St car park has availability from early afternoons until the following morning, though it is accepted that this car park is generally full from 9:00am to early afternoon and would have limited availability for visitors over this time. This is why it is proposed to allocate three spaces in Snow Hill car park specifically for visitors to the States of Jersey Police. In addition, the La Route du Fort/Cleveland road car park, which is some two minutes away from the new building, typically has more than 20 spaces available throughout the day.

Nonetheless, we believe the Panel’s thoughts on this matter to be very helpful and a further review of visitor parking arrangements will be undertaken as part of the next design stage with the aim of improving the current arrangements. However, this is not a reason to delay the progress of the project.

Key Finding 5 – The Panel believes that the impact of the additional parking demand created by the new police headquarters may have been downplayed. This will create additional pressure on the Green Street Car Park which is the most convenient parking provision for the new building. Police officer parking will displace commuter parking.

The Panel also believes that there are special considerations for police officers which might make it appropriate to provide some dedicated parking. For example, officers work rotating shifts and may have difficulties finding vacant space close to the building at particular times of the day. The Panel noted that the Police Buildings Design Guide recognised that overlapping shift patterns should be considered.

In addition members believed that officers being recalled at short notice to respond to a Major Incident might find difficulties in parking locally. Also consideration should be given to officers who might encounter safety issues in leaving the building at night to get to their cars if these are parked in public spaces.

Detailed evidence has been provided to the Panel setting out staff parking requirements through a Transport Assessment, which was based on a States of Jersey Police travel survey.

The States of Jersey does not generally provide dedicated staff parking and the removal of a significant amount of staff car parking from the original specification of requirements in 2009 was appropriate. It is also debatable as to how acceptable the provision of dedicated staff car-parking in Green St would be to the public.

We do, however, recognise that this is one of the key issues raised by the Police Association and some Civil Service staff, which has been identified as part of the Panel’s addendum to this report, which we have responded to separately. We also recognise the need to work with the States of Jersey Police staff in terms of travel to work and to identify solutions to address specific issues relating to parking for members of staff.

This will be undertaken as part of the next stage of design and will be included as part of the development of a Workplace Travel Plan. However, this is not a reason to delay the progress of the project.

Key Finding 6 - Members would welcome the provision of additional parking at Snow Hill to reduce the current parking congestion in the area. The Panel notes however that funding and cost viability remains an issue, therefore this development is far from certain.

This work is being undertaken by the Transport and Technical Services Minister and the options have recently been published. We understand that this will be presented to the States in due course.

Recommendations

Accept/

Reject

Comments

Target date of action/ completion

Recommendation 1 – The Panel recommends that the parking provision for visitors is reviewed with a view to providing greater and more convenient parking provision for visitors. The Panel believes that Green Street would be a better option for this purpose.

T&R Minister

A review of visitor parking arrangements will be undertaken as part of the next design stage with the aim of improving the proposed arrangements.

Design Stage E (timings to be confirmed)

Recommendation 2 – The Panel notes the brief statement by the States of Jersey Police that the provision of staff parking was not considered necessary or appropriate. Members respectfully disagree with this view and recommend that it would be sensible to acknowledge the need for staff parking in the area by designating a suitable area of Green Street to staff parking with additional provision for visitors.

T&R Minister

Reject

Whilst the Panel’s specific solution is not accepted at this stage, it is accepted that there is a need to work with the closely with States of Jersey Police staff in terms of travel to work and to identify solutions to address issues relating to parking for members of staff.

This will be undertaken as part of the next stage of design.

Design Stage E (timings to be confirmed)

Conclusion

We would like to reiterate our thanks to the Panel for its work on this review. We accept that there are issues relating to visitor parking which require further exploration and we will undertake to do this as part of the next stage of design. We will also commit to working with the States of Jersey Police staff to find solutions to the issues relating to staff parking.

We note the Panel has not made recommendations with regard to its views on the area specification and the perceived need for additional accommodation in the future. The Project Team has provided much evidence about the basis of design of both office and specialist areas, the nature of future policing and the standards within which the design has been developed. Whilst the Panel notes that the key elements of the design comply with established guidelines and standards, it still states that it is unconvinced about the future expansion capability and of the site and the internal accommodation. The Panel provides no evidence to support these views and they therefore cannot be accepted.

Whilst the project team will review the above issues as part of the next stage of design, neither recommendation is something that should hold up the progress of the project.

SR.19/2012 Addendum – Response from the Minister for Treasury and Resources

Minister for Home Affairs and Assistant Minister for Treasury and Resources

Joint Ministerial Response to S.R. 19/2012 - Addendum

Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel

Relocation of Police headquarters to Green Street

26th February, 2013

Introduction

We would like to thank the Panel for undertaking this review as an addendum to P92/2012 and we are sure its findings will help to contribute to the success of this much-needed project.

Before considering our response, the following issues should be considered which we believe are important in setting the Panel’s report in context:

As part of the development of the scheme, a comprehensive consultation process has been undertaken between Taylor Young Architects and the States of Jersey Police (SOJP). Between October 2011 and August 2012, numerous consultation workshops were held with teams, senior managers, middle managers and individuals which have been a key contributor in the development of the proposals. As part of this, on two occasions (in February and August 2012) all staff were provided with the opportunity to review the plans and details of the scheme were on display within Police Headquarters throughout this period. It should be noted that that extensive engagement with staff occurred well before the issues identified in November 2012.
The development of a large capital project for an organisation of 330 people means that it is not possible to take the views of every single member of staff into consideration. The process of engaging managers and teams and providing the opportunity for broader comments from across the organisation is entirely appropriate to such a scheme, as is the requirement for the design to be signed off by the senior management team.
As the Panel’s report makes clear, should the scheme achieve planning consent, considerable further design work and consultation with users will be undertaken to finalise the design (stage E of the design process) for the more detailed bye-laws submission and the construction process. With this in mind, some of the issues identified in this report would naturally be the subject of more detailed design and development as the scheme is refined.
Whilst this report has helpfully identified some issues to be addressed during the detailed design process, as identified in the appendices to this report, the majority of the issues raised have been addressed or explained to the satisfaction of those responding. This is illustrated by the response from the Police Association in Appendix 1 of the Panel’s report.

Findings

Comments

Key Finding 1 – The reservations expressed by Police Officers to their Association have been addressed in discussions with the Deputy Chief Officer and Project Team. Many specific concerns can be resolved in the next detailed stage of the design process. The principal outstanding issues around parking provision for police officers and for visitors to the Enquiry Desk remain. These have been acknowledged and work remains to be done by the States of Jersey Police and the Project Team to define a solution.

As identified in the body of the report and Appendix 1, nearly all the issues identified by the Police Association have been resolved to the satisfaction of the Association. Despite the extensive consultation process, the Association recognise in the report that a number of the concerns were raised through lack of knowledge, rather than because the design was deficient.

The key issues identified as outstanding will be considered as part of the detailed design stage (see below).

Key Finding 2 - Feedback from civilian staff raised very similar concerns to those given to the Police Association, the issues of parking for staff and visitors and the lack of expansion possibilities featuring strongly. The Panel believes that in the main the specific concerns expressed by civilian staff can be addressed through appropriate discussion and interchange with management in the same way that police officer concerns have been addressed.

As identified in the report, the Deputy Chief of Police has responded to the issues raised and a further opportunity for all staff to review the plans and make comments to the architects was provided in December 2012.

Again, many of the points have been addressed or clarified in the response of the Deputy Chief of Police and the key issues outstanding will be considered as part of the detailed design process (see below).

Key Finding 3 – Further detailed refinement of plans for the Police Station will take place at the next stage of the design process and will be able to respond to specific issues raised by staff.

As stated above, should the scheme achieve planning consent, detailed design will take place which will again involve engagement with staff. This will provide an opportunity to address outstanding issues relating to building design.

In terms of internal design, this will include:

Addressing the issue raised regarding access to the custody suite from reception
Where required, reviewing internal layouts to ensure they provide the right environment for those occupying these areas.

In terms of the broader issue of parking for Police officers, including those recalled to work at short notice, this has been covered in the response to SR.19/2012.

It is recognised that this is one of the key issues raised by staff and there will be a need to work with the States of Jersey Police staff in terms of travel to work and to identify solutions to the specific parking issues identified.

Key Finding 4 – In the Panel’s view the figures for police establishment and crime figures over the last ten years appear to give weight to its belief that the Police Station should take account of potential requirements for future expansion in response to developing services.

The fact that staff total numbers have risen by c. 6% over the last 17 years is not evidence to suggest that this will continue into the future. In addition, evidence provided to the Panel suggests that it is the way the building is used, rather than total numbers which will dictate accommodation requirements.

It is also questionable whether such a conclusion can be drawn simply from total staff numbers. The staff numbers provided make it clear that they include part time staff. In recent years, like many organisations, the Police have increased the numbers of those who work part-time or job share. Whilst this does contribute to an increase in total headcount, the nature of part time and job-share roles serve to lessen the impact on accommodation.

Furthermore, the Panel’s report identifies the evidence provided by the States of Jersey Police about the nature of future policing, in particular the emphasis on embedding officers in the community and the use of technology in the future which will result in a reduced requirement for traditional accommodation in the future.

The Panel also received evidence about the flexibility and expansion capabilities built in to the new building (10% in office areas) which are designed to support a workplace strategy which will continue to promote more flexible working and facilities.

Adoption of modern technology such as mobile data terminals, will reduce the requirement for permanent desk spaces as ‘out of the office’ mobile working becomes more commonplace.

As identified in the response to SR 19.2012, the Panel’s beliefs that there will be a need for additional accommodation in the future are not accepted.

Key Finding 5 – The Minister believes that there may be a future possibility to expand the building depending on future redevelopment of the existing Green Street Car Park.

Key Finding 6 - The office space within the new building has been designed with an overall expansion flexibility of 10% in theory. This will allow concerns about specific office accommodation to be considered at the next stage of the design process.

The expansion flexibility is not theoretical; it has been included within the design.

The Panel has been informed that 10% spatial tolerance has been incorporated into all office areas. This means desk configurations can be reorganised to provide space for an additional increase of workstation numbers whilst still meeting the requirements of Health and Safety minimum standards and British Council of Offices guidance.

The above refers to office areas and the Panel was also provided with evidence of the flexibility provided in other specialist areas, such as the control room, which provide greater tolerance.

Key Finding 7 - Direct consultation with Honorary Police Officers will take place at the next stage of the design process.

This consultation has been planned for the next stage of design. As the Panel notes in its report, provision has been made in the design for facilities for professional partners.

Conclusion

We would like to reiterate our thanks to the Panel for its work on this review.

We note the Panel has not made recommendations as part of this addendum, but can assure members that work on the outstanding issues identified will take place as part of the next stage of the design process.

Whilst the issues identified will no doubt be helpful to the success of the scheme, nothing has been identified that should delay the progress of this important project.