Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor Maqbool and Councillor McKean attended as substitute.   Apologies were also received from Councillor Martin and Councillor Forbes attended as substitute.

The Chairman read out the procedure for the meeting.

On a point of order Councillor Sandford commented that when the Committee voted to exclude the public with regard to the exempt information contained within the papers they would need to vote on:

• whether the public interest on disclosing the exempt information exceeded the damage it could cause  the council if that information was disclosed and
• whether the information should be exempt and members of the public and press should be excluded from the  meeting.

Councillor Sandford also raised concerns with regard to information that had been sent out to the Committee via email 24 hours before the meeting containing a hyperlink to historical background information relating to the decision.  He expressed concern that it had been sent only 24 hours before the meeting and that Members would not have had time to read and digest it.

The Head of Legal Services responded that the reasons for the public interest test had been clearly set out in each of the exempt annexes therefore giving members adequate time to consider this and decide whether the public interest test had been applied properly.  The procurement process was still at a very sensitive stage and therefore there was a need to maintain a high level of commercial confidentiality around the papers issued. 

The Head of Legal Services explained that the hyperlink that had been sent out contained historical information which had not formed part of the agenda.  The information had been made available to members of the committee so that newer members would have background information relevant to the decision from previous meetings.

At this point Members must declare whether they have a disclosable pecuniary interest, or other interest, in any of the items on the agenda, unless it is already entered in the register of members’ interests or is a “pending notification “ that has been disclosed to the Solicitor to the Council.

Members must also declare if they are subject to their party group whip in relation to any items under consideration.

There were no declarations of interest or whipping declarations.

The Chair addressed the public gallery and asked if there were any additional speakers other than those who had already registered to speak.  It was noted that there were no additional speakers.

The purpose of the meeting is to provide an opportunity for consideration of any request to call in a decision.  A Call-In request has been made in relation to the decision made by The Cabinet Member for Resources and Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Culture, Recreation and Strategic Commissioning which was published on 13 August 2012 regarding Energy from Waste Facility and associated works and services – AUG12/CMDN/077.

This item has been divided in to two separate reports:

1. Item 3a - Public Report and
2. Item 3b - Exempt Report

In accordance with Standing Orders, Members are asked to determine whether the Exempt Report relating to agenda item 3b Call-In request of the decision published on 13 August 2012 regarding Energy from Waste Facility and associated works and services – AUG12/CMDN/077 which containsexemptappendicescontaininginformationrelatingtothefinancial orbusinessaffairsofa particularperson(includingtheauthorityholdingthat information),as definedby Paragraph3 ofSchedule12A ofPart1 ofthe LocalGovernmentAct1972, shouldbe exemptand thepressand public excluded  from  the  meeting  when  these  appendices  are  discussed  or whether the publicinterestindisclosingthisinformationoutweighsthepublic interest in maintaining theexemption.

At this point the Chair in accordance with Standing Orders asked Members of the Committee to determine whether the Exempt Report listed as item 3b in the papers which contained exempt appendices should be exempt and the press and public excluded from the meeting when those papers were to be discussed or whether the public interest in disclosing the information outweighed the public interest in maintaining the exemption. 

Members of the Committee voted in favour of going into exempt session (4 in favour and 3 against).

The Chair continued the meeting at this point in public session to allow members of the audience to speak and some discussion from the Committee before going into exempt session.

The purpose of the meeting was to consider the Call-In request that had been made in relation to the decision made by the Cabinet Member for Resources and Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Culture, Recreation and Strategic Commissioning on 13 August 2012 in respect of the Energy from Waste Facility and associated works and services – AUG12/CMDN/077.

The request to Call-In this decision was made on 15 August 2012 by Councillor Thulbourn and supported by Councillors JA Fox, Sandford, Harrington and Khan.  The decision for Call-In was based on the following grounds:

(i)      The decision does not follow the principles of good decision making set out in Article 12 of the Council’s Constitution specifically that the decision maker did not:

(a)     Realistically consider all alternatives and, where reasonably possible, consider the views of the public

(b)     Act for a proper purpose and in the interests of the public.

(c)     Follow procedures correctly and be fair.

After considering the request to call-in and all relevant advice, the Committee were required to decide either to:

(a)              not agree to the request to call-in, when the decision shall take effect;

             (b)       refer the decision back to the decision maker for reconsideration, setting out its concerns; or

             (c)       refer the matter to full Council.

In support of the request to call-in Councillors Thulbourn, Fox, Sandford, Harrington and Khan made the following points:

Councillor Thulbourn

• High risk project financially and environmentally to the City and the impact to the City would be significant.
• Every member of the Council should have the opportunity to understand why the decision was being made.
• Concerned that the decision was not being made in the interests of the public and that the procedures in making the decision had not been followed fairly and properly.
• There was not enough information in the public domain.

Councillor Sandford

• Had been involved in the Waste 2020 project since 2006 as part of the Member, Officer working group that produced the original recommendation that went to Full Council.
• There appeared to be a drive within the council for an Energy from Waste facility which was a mass burn incinerator using 1980s technology.  There was no evidence that a proper evaluation had been undertaken of all the latest technology and that alternatives had been considered in light of changing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.