·

I support this document and am pleased to see some challenging figures in there. A system of reporting back on how it is going would be welcome. On an annual basis would be fine.

·

It is very weak. Everyone can sign up to it and then ignore it in the implementation stage. Why not use a firm monetary budgetary framework – setting out fixed department budgets for the various items? Failure by departments to meet targets will thus be highlighted and appropriate action taken.

·

The policy is strong on the targets (the ‘What’ of the policy) but no plans to achieve them are shown (the ‘How’). Given this, how are we to judge and agree the policy and more importantly, make a judgement as to the acceptability of the Policy?

·

In the section on Policy/Communication, how is the £100,000 expenditure reduction arrived at? Does it take into account the investment costs to achieve the targets?

·

What happens to the Environment Policy after 2011 if it is time limited to that date?

·

How can we have a credible policy if certain sectors i.e. council housing stock is not taken into account? Replace the “could” with “should” in the preamble which reads “A similar policy to include these properties could ….. re-use” in order to explicitly include such a policy.

·

When will the Environment Policy Group start assessing progress, given that the policy starts in 2005? This should be included.

·

As the targets shown are relevant to all areas and activity of the council, the word “relevant” should be removed from the following: “The implementation and maintenance of this Policy in all relevant areas and activities”

·

How can you have a target that is unquantifiable and immeasurable as those related to reduction in waste and amount of waste sent to landfill? The first principle of target setting is that they should be specific and measurable. How can you determine the present starting point from which to improve? I suggest deletion of these until such time as the baseline can be measured.