Apologies for absence were received from:
Councillor Kathy Bee (London Borough of Croydon),
Councillor Colin Hall (London Borough of Sutton) and
Councillor Andrew judge (London Borough of Merton).

Councillor Colin Hall (London Borough of Sutton) – Councillor Jill Whitehead advised that Councillor Colin Hall was very ill; and suggested that any Member who wished to thank Councillor Colin Hall for all his work for the South London Waste Partnership contact her so that their appreciation of his work could be recorded in a book which was being compiled.

Subsequently, as indicated below, the Joint Committee agreed that a letter of appreciation be sent to Councillor Colin Hall thanking him for all his work for the South London Waste Partnership.  Matthew Club (Head of Waste Management, London Borough of Sutton) asked that the letter be sent to him first so he could forward it to Councillor Colin Hall.

RESOLVED: That a letter of appreciation be sent to Councillor Colin Hall thanking him for all his work for the South London Waste Partnership.

None.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 17 February 2015 were agreed as a correct record.

The Chair indicated that, following the last meeting, when 10 minutes had been allocated for public questions, the procedure had been reviewed and instead a note had been included on the agenda front page inviting anyone who wished to speak on an item (on the meeting agenda) to register by no later than noon on the day of the meeting via the officer contact details shown.  The Joint Committee endorsed the new procedure.  Subsequently the Chair indicated that the speaker for Item 4 below would have 3 minutes to speak/ask their questions.

Following officers introducing the report, the Committee heard from one member of the public who had asked to speak on this item.  The speaker asked various questions including regarding the monitoring of the contract with Viridor; querying the need for an incinerator in Sutton, infant mortality rates in Slough since the building of the Colnbrook incinerator and Lakeside ‘Energy from Waste’ facility; and the use of environmental experts and PR professionals.  Officers and the Chair responded appropriately to each question.

A member reiterated the need to monitor air quality if the new site proceeded; and the Chair confirmed that this was certain to be an item on future agenda.

A member referred to the recent recycling figures for Purley Oaks (on page 13) being the lowest for some time.  Officers advised that figures did fluctuate, but confirmed that officers were looking for reasons for the low figures at both Purley Oaks and Garth Road.

A member highlighted the difficulty of interpreting the colour graph on page 15, when printed off in black and white.  Officers undertook to look at ways to ensure such graphs were readable when printed.

RESOLVED: That the contents of the report be noted.

A Member again expressed concern that the reasons for the cost overspends (detailed in the report) were ascertained in order that this wasn’t repeated in future procurement exercises, especially as they were likely to be more complicated.  Officers reiterated their assurance that the issues raised by the current procurement exercise had been noted.  (See also previous Minutes on agenda page 2.)

A Member again referred to the possible need for a protocol that if there was potential for an overspend above a certain percentage, then the Chair (and other Members as appropriate) should be involved (as outlined on agenda page 2 in the Minutes of the previous meeting).

RESOLVED: That the contents of the report be noted.

To RESOLVE that the public are excludedfrom the meeting during consideration of thefollowing report(s) on the grounds that it is(they are) exempt from disclosure for thereasons stated in the report(s).

RESOLVED: That the public are excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following items on the grounds that they are exempt from disclosure by virtue of Part 4B, Paragraph 10.4 and Category 3 of the constitution.

The Committee considered the report which provided an update on the position of the Phase B - Energy Recovery Facility (ERF) Disposal Contract.  Officers gave a further oral update on the current status of the town planning process for the proposed ERF facility, and how this related to the contract.

There was discussion of the financial and legal implications in the event that one of the parties to the current contract were to withdraw from the contract, and what information in this regard could be made public.  Officers confirmed that it would be possible to compile an appropriate statement which could be made public.

RESOLVED: That (1) the Committee notes the planning progress on the ERF project; and

(2) officers compile an appropriate statement which could be made public regarding the financial and legal implications in the event that one of the parties to the current contract were to withdraw from the contract.

The Committee considered the report which detailed the red risks (i.e. high risks) around the Partnership waste disposal service contracts. 

RESOLVED: That the Committee notes the key developments on the Risk Register and the mitigation of these risks.

------------------