Beddington Conservation and Access Management Committee meeting
Viridor Beddington Landfill offices
Thursday 14 July 2016
Attendees:
Cllr Nighat Piracha (Beddington North – Chair)
Alistair Hayes (London Wildlife Trust)
Sue Morgan (Wandle Valley Regional Park Trust)
Marcus Kohler (MKA Ecology)
Derek Coleman (Conservation Science Group)
Edd Sarasketa (Viridor)
Andrew Turner (Viridor)
Action1.0 / Introductions, Apologies
1.1 / There were a number of apologies offered ahead of the meeting:
Cllr Pathumal Ali (Beddington North)
Adrian Frost (Viridor)
Sophia Yarwood (Viridor)
2.0 / Minutes and matters arising
2.1 / Cllr Piracha began the meeting carrying out an overview of the minutes of the extraordinary meeting held on 4th July. It was explained that this meeting was designed so that Edd Sarasketa and Andrew Turner could explain how all of the relevant documentation associated with the project interacted.
The group had a discussion around the criteria of the constitution and confirmed that it met all the criteria of the constitution and commended Sue Morgan for navigating the documents.
Marcus also made the point thatthe questions at the end of Sue’s email would also beimportant.
It was agreed that the minutes were representative of the meeting and approved.
Marcus Kohler raised one comment, in his perspective the role of creating and delivering communications strategy was not a role of the group, but the group did need a communications strategy.
3.0 / Viridor operational and restoration update
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
3.10
3.11
3.12 / Edd Sarasketa shared a short update for the landfill operations since the last meeting. Working on side wall of cell 7 was ongoing along with working on cell 9c2 this will ensure continuity of service for the South London Waste Partnership.
There will be capping of approximately 20,000m2 of landfill to the northern section of the site and retrospective gas and leachate infrastructure. Edd also indicated on a map, the area that has been capped to date.
With reference to the sludge lagoons, lagoon four is the area that is being used to stockpile soils from the excavated area of the new landfill cell.
Cllr Piracha asked Edd what is capping and how this impacts the restoration?
Edd confirmed that once an area had been filled with waste to its approved contours, approximately 300mm of protection soils and a one metre engineered clay call cap ties into side wall of the landfill cell, this restoration seals the waste. At this point there is a further 300mm of protection soils before the requisite thickness of restoration soils are placed on top to accommodate relevant vegetation. Gas and leachate infrastructure is then drilled and connected throughout the landfill. There is a gas compound located near the landfill offices and thiscurrently generates5MW of electricity.
The capping programme will last for 6 weeks, the full programme will complete on 3 November, however Edd did advise that this is weather dependent, wet weather delays the work significantly.
The wet grassland project is progressing through approval levels within Viridor for the southern portion (the northern section will be completed upon completion of the ERF. Edd explained that the project team visited the Wetland Centre at Barnes to evaluate designs of wet grassland and the centre, Edd advised that this had been most useful.
Alistair Hayes asked a number of questions and mentioned that the London Wildlife Trust (LWT) had opened Europe’s largest wetland centre recently and that his organisation would have been interested in pitching for consultancy work. Marcus Kohler confirmed that both the Wetland and Wildfowl Trust (WWT) and LWT were approached for a visit and to engage over this work. It was agreed that a meeting Walthamstow would be conducted. It was mentioned that the existing Conservation Science Group (CSG) was keen for Viridor to engage with the WWT.
Edd continued to discuss the heathland restoration and the work currently ongoing is to establish the soils base and completing the engineering. Viridor has approached a number of London universities to establish whether the restoration at Beddington might be useful for research projects.
A discussion was held around further meetings and how the CAMC could be involved. Edd responded that he needed to continue the current procurement process and if he delayed to align this with the CAMC meetings it would result in delays to the programme, Edd to mention that the CSG had been involved during the planning stage.
Andrew Turner recommended that the CAMC could become more involved in future procurements and programme, once they were up to speed with the project pipeline of restoration.
Marcus reiterated that he was keen to establish a meeting to Walthamstow.
Marcus then asked if Roger Wardle (consultant responsible for designing the habitat to date) had spoken with WWT to engage and develop the designs. Edd confirmed this might be a confusing part of the project. Edd continued to mention he had considered SLR, another leading consultancy.
Alistair confirmed that he did receive a communication from Marcus about a visit to Walthamstow but was confused around communications and in which capacity these were sent (either as Marcus Kohler on behalf of Viridor or as MKA ecology).
Marcus confirmed again that this was on behalf of Viridor.
Sue Morgan was keen to understand procurement and work flow around projects in the future and will the CAMC be up to speed to review designs for the wet grassland.
Edd responded that the CSG also have a similar role to the CAMC to have an overview of Viridor’s proposed actions rather than a direct influence in the choice of contractors and costings and programme.
Andrew suggested to the group, if it would be helpful for the CAMC to be presented with a project pipeline of work planned to take place in the next six months. This would give the Committee a chance to review the work and to ask any questions in a timely manner.
Derek Coleman confirmed his support for Edd and the Viridor team with tight deadlines and maintaining the habitat balance. Edd appreciated this and mentioned that if he failed to deliver habitats there would be severe reputational and credibility implications among stakeholders.
Sue confirmed that a one-page briefing paper including the pipeline of projects would be very beneficial for the CAMC – this could be submitted ahead of a meeting for review.
Edd and Andrew confirmed that this would take the form of a dashboard and include work planned in the coming months, including capping and engineering works. / MK
AT/ES
4.0 / Nature conservation and issues affecting the Metropolitan Open Land (MOL)
4.1 / Marcus Kohler, mentioned the he was keen to have this as a standing agenda item. With a number of issues outstanding, the largest issue being the future plans of Thames Water (the landowner of the site). The Chair took an action to draft a letter to Thames Water offering a meeting.
Alistair confirmed that if Thames Water could facilitate the visit to Walthamstow this would be a sensible opportunity for engagement. Cllr Piracha confirmed that the CAMC had already written to Thames Water for engagement there was no reply and also wrote on behalf of the Beddington North Neighbourhood Forum.
Edd confirmed as the manager of the site he has a monthly meeting with Thames Water and this acts as an opportunity to flag any operational issues.
Derek confirmed he speaks to Thames Water at any opportunity, and has not had a reply in recent months.
Marcus confirmed that it was surprising Thames Water were not interested in the role of the Committee. Again the Chair agreed to write a letter asking for a meeting Head of ecology and Estates.
Edd added there were some small parcels of land (indicated on a chart at the meeting to the west of the site) that were outside of the area of the CAMC’s remit. Marcus disagreed stating that the wider area is a part of site’s future. Derek added that this has been an issue, dating back to the start of the site. / NP
NP
5.0 / Reports from community groups
5.1 / Sue confirmed that she envisaged this agenda item to form a brief 2 minute synopsis from the relevant community and sub groups. Including the Conservation Science Group (Derek could act as a spokesperson), the Community Liaison Group (Andrew agreed to act as representative) and then also the Community Benefit Fund.
6.0 / Reports from sub-groups[s]
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.7
6.8
6.9
6.10 / There were no sub groups. A discussion was held around the creation of sub-groups.
One suggestion was around a group for a public access programme – Marcus suggested this could be a brainstorm to feed into Viridor’s existing plans. The group agreed this could be dependent on the communications plan after it was presented to the CAMC. Cllr Piracha suggested if there was a need then a sub group could be commissioned.
There was a short discussion about the role of the CAMC and engaging stakeholders, with Marcus confirming that liaison with other stakeholdersand community involvement was a core focus for the group under its ‘Access’ responsibilities. Derek was of the opinion the group were not responsible for such matters as facilitating open days.
Marcus agreed, but remained keen to be involved and Andrew Turner clarified that Viridor had been operating a closed site during the past years owing to the operational nature of the site. However Viridor were planning to hold two open days later in the summer – Marcus expressed an interest in being involved along with any Committee members.
Alistair was keen to have a refined purpose for the group and Andrew advised that he saw the role of the group to comment on Viridor’s stakeholder engagement plans and then participating as much as they felt interested.
Sue stated she was keen to identify the core stakeholders and there was a short discussion, Andrew replied that Viridor had a strong stakeholder map and that there were two distinct groups with bodies such as Thames Water and WWT being business contacts and a transactional relationship exists, and there are community groups including the BNNF who are interested in the progress of the site.
Sue spoke about ecological work and how the Wandle Valley Regional Park Trust can contribute to work of the CAMC. Marcus voiced his support for this and how the community can become involved in wildlife aspects, educational opportunities and ecology.
Derek commented that there was a demand from the community to access the Farmlands and that this was a core expectation of the CAMC from the community. There was an acknowledgement of the operational nature of the site and for Viridor making the site accessible for the Beddington Farmland Bird Group and open days.
The group discussed how large the CAMC’s remit was appearing to be and if there was any budgetary control. Andrew confirmed there was not, but the role of the CAMC was to review Viridor’s planned activity and use their experience to advise.
Marcus was keen to make recommendations to Viridor, especially around access – visual and physical. And the group were in agreement that this should be a priority. Andrew suggested that the annual Wandle Valley photographic competition would be another strong opportunity to amplify visual access.
The Committee discussed the representation of the CAMC, the constitution was reviewed and Alistair commented he felt there was a strong group of members with an understanding of community, landscaping and financial issues. But Alistair did comment that he didn’t see the role of the members to engage directly with the community. Andrew Turner confirmed that Alistair did not have strong relationships with the community so would not be expected to go out and engage. Andrew suggested that all members of the group should act as advocates of the restoration and Farmlands generally, with the council members engaging with their communities.
The conversation moved onto speaking opportunities and the open days, the group were keen for the CAMC to raise its profile and Andrew agreed to start a programme of widening the knowledge of the group. Sue was keen for the output of the work to appear on the Wandle Valley website with updates on the farmlands, work committed and open days. There was hesitancy over the CAMC’s capacity issues, Andrew Turner replied that Viridor would be supporting the group from a communications aspect.
7.0 / Marketing and communications
7.1 / Andrew Turner confirmed that there is an existing communications plan for the Beddington Farmlands including the ERF. It was agreed this would be presented at the next meeting.
A discussion was held around having an interpretation board along the permissive footpath to the west of the site. Marcus and Derek confirmed this had been spoken about for a number of years. Andrew Turner confirmed this was an excellent idea and it was in progress. / AT
AT
8.0 / Education and research
8.1
8.2 / There was a brief discussion around the educational offering for the Farmlands. The Committee were interested to understand how a communications programme could be implemented and if there was a budget for the work.
Andrew Turner used this opportunity to advise how the CAMC could work effectively. There is no budget attributed to the CAMC directly, but an effective way of working would start with the CAMC raising an issue, then Viridor will be able to advise their current plans and the Committee can feed into this project at the appropriate time. In the case of education, Viridor will be designing a cutting-edge visitor centre associated with the ERF and Andrew assured the Committee that at the point when this was being designed, the CAMC would be introduced to comment.
Andrew also confirmed he was writing new content for the Viridor website, and this could be shared with other community group webpages.
9.0 / Any other business
9.1
9.2
9.3
9.4
9.5
9.6
9.7 / Edd mentioned that in the past few weeks a number of birds had been shot on the Farmlands, around 20 carcasses were found by the lakeside including tufted duck and geese. Derek expressed concern around disease, but Edd replied that Viridor had been working with the Environment Agency and the Environmental HealthDepartment and this could be ruled out.
Viridor are now in the process of increasing the profile of the site with the Police, calling 101 whenever there were intruders on the site. Andrew also confirmed that the Police were interested in issuing a press statement about the dead birds and Viridor would co-operate fully.
Marcus added that he works regularly on the Farmlands surveying the wildlife and in a previous night’s bats survey, a gentleman was lamping last night with a highly powered lamp.
Edd also raised the point that Viridor were commissioning some tree surgery near the bus stop in Hackbridge, south of the train station to remove some overhanging branches. This would involve a road closure and Viridor has been in conversation with the council about the safe way to do this. There would also be some thinning work taking place on the site over the autumn.
Engagement of a secretary – Cllr Piracha confirmed David Warburton and Mark Dalzell at Sutton Council cannot supply a secretary and have requested Viridor appoint a secretary. Edd asked for this to be confirmed in writing.
The Committee discussed future meetings and whether Wifi could be introduced to enable members to join the meetings remotely. It was discussed that meeting in the day time was preferable for all members.
The venue of meetings was also discussed with Viridor stating the Farmlands offices would always be available free of charge, Cllr Piracha took an action to investigate whether the Council offices at Denmark Road could be made available. / NP
NP
10.0 / Date of next meeting
10.1 / It was agreed that the next meeting would take place on the 29th September at 14.00, Sue Morgan offered the venue at Morden Hall Park. It was also agreed that in the future meeting invites would be issued by Outlook invitation.
Future meeting dates:
24 November 2016,
19 January 2017,
23 March 2017. / AT