Remember Me     Forgot Login?   Sign up  

North London Waste Plan


The purpose of the North London Waste Plan (NLWP), which is being developed jointly by seven North London boroughs (Barnet, Camden, Enfield, Hackney, Haringey, Islington and Waltham Forest), is to ensure that there is sufficient capacity to manage the processing of household and other waste during the period up to 2027 without exporting a large proportion of it to landfill sites in other parts of the country, as currently happens.

Drafting of the NLWP was originally completed in 2012 and the completed draft was greeted with fierce opposition from a number of groups representing communities in North London, in particular by the Pinkham Way Alliance, which was set up originally to resist plans to build a large reprocessing plant on the Pinkham Way section of the North Circular Road in New Southgate.  The focus of the Alliance's campaign was subsequently broadened when it became clear that in addition to the threat to this particular area of undeveloped land the NLWP posed a threat to the economic well being of the North London boroughs because of the inflexible nature of the contracts envisaged with private companies.

Later in 2012 there were two significant developments:  the apparent abandonment of the main element of the proposed Pinkham Way scheme, and a ruling by the Planning Inspectorate that the NLWP as originally drafted was not legally compliant and that the planning and consultation process must therefore be relaunched.

For more detail see the Pinkham Way Alliance and North London Waste Plan websites.  See also the Pinkham Way section of this website.

[This introduction was last updated on 19 May 2013 and is in need to revision and updating to reflect later events.]

News Items

Share this article

Business and energy secretary Greg Clark has given the go-ahead to a new energy-from-waste plant at the Edmonton EcoPark. The plans were approved following an examination by the Planning Inspectorate which began in February 2016. It will replace Edmonton’s existing energy-from-waste facility (easily seen from the North Circular and many local spots with an easterly viewpoint) with a new plant which, unlike the old one, will produce heat as well as power. Site preparations are currently scheduled to begin in 2019 and construction in 2022 before the new facility is commissioned in 2025. The new energy-from-waste plant will have an electrical output of up to 70MW and will be able process 700,000 tonnes of waste annually. The old plant can process 550,000 of waste each year.

north london heat and power station artists impressionAn artist's impression of the planned heat-and-power station released at the time the 2015 consultationThis approach replaces the plan for a residual waste treatment plant at Pinkham Way, whereby waste would be processed into fuel pellets before being transported to the DS Smith fibre plant in Kent. The Pinkham Way Alliance (PWA) strongly resisted these plans over several years until this new approach - said to be a £900m cheaper option - was revealed.

The Authority retains Pinkham Way, a Grade 1 Site of Importance for Nature Conservation, as a “strategic asset” despite having no (public) strategy for the site. Public utterances however suggest they intend to build on the site, if possible and approved.

PWA is currently contesting the site's (unique) dual designation as Employment Land with the Planning Inspector. Following that decision it is likely the long awaited rewrite of the North London Waste Plan will be launched on its approval journey.

PWA focuses on the specific Pinkham Way site and has already saved north London's ratepayers some £900m through their campaign. Edmonton was out of area but linked representations were made up to the second stage of public consultation. The analysis suggested the proposed scale, at 700,000 tpa, was in excess of what data indicated was required, implying waste may end up being imported into north London.

Taking the analysis (see Response to Phase 2 Edmonton Consultation below) the next step to public inquiry inevitably involves professional presentation in this QC-centric cross examination stage. With the North London Waste Plan expected shortly that is why PWA needs local support, both in signing in support of their submissions, and ideally financial to meet such end-of-work professional bills. You can find out more and sign up for occasional newsletters at


Response to Phase 2 Edmonton Consultation - response by Karl Brown to the phase 2 consultation,  including detailed critical analysis of the assumptions behind the scheme for the large new incinerator

Public consultation: North London Heat and Power Project - June 2015 article on PGC with subsequent forum discussion

Log in to comment

PGC Webmaster's Avatar
PGC Webmaster posted a reply #2842 28 Feb 2017 23:30
According to the specialist waste industry journal Resource, the approval by the minister came in the form of a Development Consent Order. The 14 councillors from the seven North London boroughs that make up the North London Waste Authority will consider the consent at a meeting in April and develop a strategy for delivering the scheme over the coming months. Construction preparation work could start in 2019. The existing plant would be decommissioned and demolished once the new facility is up and running by 2028.

Share this article

The Pinkham Way Alliance has now published the response it submitted to the consultation about the North London Waste Plan.  Following a fundraising campaign, the Alliance was able to employ a planning consultancy, Turley, to present arguments against the allocation of Pinkham Wood as a potential site for waste processing, and, more generally, to question the draft Waste Plan's assumptions about future waste volumes and required processing throughput.

pwa logo newsletter topThe Response and associated Appendixes, along with a report on invertebrates found on the Pinkham Wood site, are available on the Pinkham Way Alliance website.

As we reported last month, the Alliance recommended that individuals should respond to the consultation by stating that they wished to have their views represented by the PWA.  More than 1000 people did so.

Log in to comment

Karl Brown's Avatar
Karl Brown posted a reply #1707 12 Oct 2015 18:57
There are several strands to the PWA submission. One theme the PWA has emphasised for a number of years is that todays linear ‘take, make, dispose’ economic model relies on large quantities of cheap, easily accessible materials and energy, and is a model that has physical limits.

Planning for, not just the (finally!) acknowledgement of the Circular Economy needs to be part of the expected future.

In this model waste is a resource with value rather than a liability to be avoided. Long postulated, trends in the non-household waste sectors now suggest it is starting to happen.

At the household waste level we tend to all be more familiar with our own waste and the desire (?) to recycle more. This is a good thing, environmentally and financially, and we remain below target.

Green bins are one place to look at where we could possibly be doing more: consider figures from The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (2012-2014). They suggest that one in nine people (or 805 million people) are chronically undernourished. At the same time, estimates suggest that globally we waste something like 30-50% of food before it ever reaches our stomachs. So as well as the issue of social justice, and the loss of food itself, there is also the accompanying waste of other key resources in the process – water, land, soil and labour not to mention the unnecessary pollution caused by fertilizers, pesticides and greenhouse gas emissions.

Back home and “morally repugnant” is how a recent report by the House of Lords described the estimated 15 million tonnes of food waste that is generated annually in the UK each year.

My maths makes that about 13kg per house equivalent per week (noting much will be wasted before we get to buy it). That’s an awful lot of uneaten food with unnecessary associated environmental costs. Much to do.

Share this article

The Pinkham Way Alliance is asking supporters to sign an online form supporting the Alliance's response to the current consultation about the North London Waste Plan. By signing, you confirm that you are happy for the PWA to represent your views. The deadline to add your name is 5pm on Tuesday 29th September 2015.

The Alliance has been campaigning to preserve an ecologically valuable green space adjacent to the North Circular Road and prevent construction of a waste processing facility on the site.

The Pinkham Way Alliance has issued the following information:

pwa logo newsletter top


Some useful information:

NLWP – North London Waste Plan (a land use plan drawn up by the 7 N London Councils).
NLWA – North London Waste Authority (the waste disposal authority for the N London Councils).
Haringey Council is one of the 7 Councils, and is in addition the planning authority for the Pinkham Way site.
Pinkham Way is owned roughly two thirds by NLWA and one third by Barnet Council.

  • The Pinkham Way site was included in the North London Waste Plan (NLWP) by Haringey Council before it had completed the site review recommended by the Local Plan Inspector in December 2012
  • The available evidence from the Council’s own consultants indicated that the site was unsuitable for employment.
  • The NLWP’s assessment of the site lacks objectivity, as insufficient weight is given to the nature conservation and open space value. There is no evidence that either Haringey Council or the NLWP has considered alternative uses.
  • A flood risk assessment is required at Pinkham Way. The NLWP has failed to conduct one.
  • The chronic A406 Pinkham Way congestion and its effect on the local secondary road system is now so acute as to demand detailed assessment by the NLWP; an assessment should not be left to be conducted by a potential developer as part of a planning application.
  • The site is the only Site for Nature Conservation (SINC) in the NLWP. The NLWP must conform with the Local Plans of all member Councils. All member Councils state that SINCs, green infrastructure, priority habitats and endangered species should be protected. The site’s inclusion in the plan appears therefore to be an anomaly.
  • The NLWP Sustainability Appraisal states that ‘the site is unlikely to be considered as previously developed land’. The London Plan says that land regarded as such ‘cannot be regarded as requiring development’.
  • Were the land to be regarded by the Inspector examining the NLWP as brownfield, National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that development should be avoided on brownfield land ‘of high environmental value’.
  • The NLWP assessment of North London’s existing waste management capacity is inadequate and lacks detail compared to other plans.
  • The NLWP’s estimate of the amount of waste that can be treated on a given area of land (‘throughput’, expressed in 000s of tons per hectare per year) is very low compared with other plans, especially other plans in London. The lower the throughput on a given area of land, the more land would be needed for management of a given amount of waste.
  • The NLWP’s waste projections rely on a 30-year study conducted for the NLWA for its proposed new Edmonton plant. The consultants conducting the NLWA study expressed the strongest concerns on the amount of historical data available and the accuracy and worth of any forecast they might make, saying that ‘We would not normally advise forecasting for more than a very small number of years into the future on this basis’.
  • They also point out, importantly, that ‘the analysis of a number of alternative scenarios show that waste arisings could vary significantly depending on the assumption made’
  • The NLWA describes the study, surprisingly, as ‘a robust analysis of historical trends, and robust ... assumptions of what will happen to these trends in the future’. It made its decision based on a single scenario.
  • The NLWP (which runs for 15 years until 2013) makes no mention of the uncertainty expressed by the consultants. Such uncertainty should mean , as the consultants suggest, that a comprehensive plan should develop a range of scenarios, including one of a long term decline in waste
  • The NLWP neither mentions nor takes account of statistics from the previous several years, which show a steady decline in waste (12.8% since 2006/7) although the population of N London was rising (12.9% increase over the same period). Not to develop a projection from the existing context seems illogical and, in PWA’s view, unsound.
  • The single scenario which the NLWP uses is the wrong one, and, in PWA’s view, the NLWP furthermore shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what it is trying to achieve in using it.

For more information see this page on the PWA website.

Log in to comment

Share this article

The redrafted version of the North London Waste Plan is currently out for consultation.  The previous version of the Waste Plan was withdrawn because it had not been properly consulted with affected authorities outside London.

Any resident is able to comment, but clearly most people will not have the expertise to assess the validity of the data it is based on and the policies it proposes.  The Pinkham Way Alliance, however, does have the required expertise and is currently formulating its response.

As with the original Waste Plan, the Alliance's two main concerns are to preserve as wildlife habitat the area known variously as Pinkham Wood/Friern Barnet Sewage Works and to prevent the North London boroughs signing up to excessively grandiose schemes for processing waste that bring potential environmental problems and/or cost too much.

Log in to comment

Share this article

The public have until 30th June to comment on proposals to build a new waste incinerator in Edmonton, considerably larger than the current incinerator, which it would replace.  The new buildings would be on the northern side of the North Circular, to the north and south of the present plant, which would then be demolished, leaving a space in between.  Public exhibitions will be held in Enfield, Edmonton, Northumberland Park and Chingford.

north london heat and power artists impressionThe scheme, which would cost £500 million and be completed in 2025, is known as the North London Heat and Power Project.  Its largest element would be an Energy Recovery Facility, which would burn unrecyclable waste and use the heat thus generated (the recovered energy) to produce both electricity and hot water - the electricity would go into the national grid, the hot water would be used for district heating schemes, such as those currently proposed by Enfield Council (the Enfield proposals would use various sources of heat, they are not dependent on the new incinerator).

The new incinerator, as well as being larger, would be much more efficient in terms of energy output over energy input than the current incinerator, which carries the lower classification of Energy from Waste Facility.

In addition to the incinerator, the project includes a new Resource Recovery Facility - essentially a facility for sorting waste as delivered to the site.  However, unlike the present "EcoPark", there would be no composting facility - the waste authority argues that this smelly activity is better done in a rural environment.  Despite this, the rebuilt EcoPark plans to continue to supply compost free of charge to community groups.

The current consultation is the second - the first phase related to more the general principle of building the facility, the second includes much more detail about its design.  On the basis of feedback from the first phase of consultation, the North London Waste Authority (NLWA) took the decision to move onto the next phase.

The NLWA has published a Phase One Consultation Feedback Report summarising the comments that were received and how it has chosen to take them onboard (or not, as the case may be).

For the current phase of consultation a large number of detailed (but generally fairly accessible) documents are available online.  They address such issues as the technologies to be used, environmental impacts, health impacts and so on.  While the new incinerator will be twice as high as the current plant, various features of the external design are meant to make it less conspicuous.

While the new plant would appear to be a great improvement in terms of energy efficiency and the amount of pollution emanating from the chimney stack (similar in size to the current chimney), a major question is whether such a mega project can be justified.  Will the amount of waste remaining after separation out of recyclables will be enough to fuel this giant?  If not, might that lead to reduced efforts to recycle, might it make the plant financially unjustifiable, might it result in the NLWA importing waste from other parts of the country?  If the project does prove to be a mistake in terms of its cost/benefit ratio, it is the north London boroughs and their residents who stand to lose.

These are some of the questions raised during the first consultation phase by campaigns such as the Pinkham Way Alliance and the Enfield Green Party, as we reported in April. Though the Authority claims confidently that the documents now available provide a sound business case, it is difficult, not to say impossible, for a layman to judge, but one cannot but have suspicions that such a huge project might be a case of empire building.

However, even if judging the overall soundness of the scheme is beyond us, there are many smaller questions where ordinary members of the public are qualified to comment.

For detailed information about the project and to comment on the proposals, see the North London Heat and Power website and in particular the Document Library page, which provides introductions and links to the many detailed documents.

Public exhibitions

Oasis Academy Hadley, South Street, Enfield EN3 4PX
Friday 5 June 5pm – 9pm
Saturday 13 June 10am – 4pm

The Artzone, Edmonton Green Shopping Centre, 54 The Market Square N9 0TZ
Saturday 6 June 12pm – 6pm
Tuesday 9 June 4pm – 9pm

Parkside Primary School, 82 Peel Close, Chingford E4 6XQ
Wednesday 10 June 4pm – 8pm

Neighbourhood Resource Centre, 177 Park Lane, Northumberland Park, London N17 0HJ
Thursday 11 June 4pm to 8pm

Log in to comment

Karl Brown's Avatar
Karl Brown posted a reply #1261 04 Jun 2015 16:15
Edited version - figures corrected

Basil indicates that the Authority (NLWA) suggest the proposed incinerator is supported by a sound business case. (“Sound” being a crucial test when this comes to Public Inquiry.) The short answer is no it’s not, categorically and undoubtedly not.

There are many aspects which stand as being hugely questionable but possibly none as obvious that here is a monster piece of infrastructure, set to cost us hundreds of millions of pounds, with an expected lifetime likely to be in the order of five decades and yet if you ask where is the underlying Waste Resource Strategy which include this piece of the waste jigsaw for dealing with the output of the near 2m residents, businesses and visitors to north London you will draw a big fat blank. Apparently “sound” yet built on foundations of air.

Is that relevant? Yes for many, mainly technical planning reasons, but there are other ways of looking at it. How about this one: the proposed strategy, as I understand it, is for all residents of the seven North London Boroughs to throw their waste into the street after which those living at numbers 13 (unlucky) sifts the waste into piles. These piles will then be dealt with in some manner or other by someone or other but in particular any residual waste is NOT sent to Edmonton. Perhaps sent to Holland, which has such incinerators but not enough waste (once on they need to be constantly fed) and will so import, at roughly 50% of UK equivalent cost. So these lucky streets will save a lot of money. That strategy holds from 2020 for the next 30 or so years. Is there an alternate?

Simply can’t believe me about the strategy vacuum? Then by all means ask NLWA, your local Councillor, or indeed anyone, what the strategy is, and more particular how it supports the proposed processes, scale and supporting investment in this Edmonton site and how that then goes on to make this a “sound” , supportable investment. Good luck with that. You will discover “air”.

The NLWA may point to a strategy document, one which expires in 2020, before the Edmonton proposal will cut turf, which was wrapped up with undue haste with Pinkham Way DEFRA deadlines in mind. Sadly for them in focusing on the last proposal of making fuel briquettes out of waste at Pinkham Way to then drive to Kent to burn doesn’t tie in with what is now before us.

Their track record is in barely being able to forecast tomorrow never mind 50 years ahead and yet the capacity being built for a 2025 start is based on their expectation of waste levels in 2051. Ask if any of the senior team would bet their pension on it being within a million miles of it being accurate.

And you might wonder that why after so many years and so many tens of millions of pounds of public money being spent that the NLWA still cannot articulate a plan for the area they carry statutory responsibility for, and on which they wish to spend hundreds of millions of pound of our money. Possibly irrelevant detail they may consider for a public body which has unsigned annual accounts two years running.

You could ask why given the huge efforts over past years to argue for a different monster site at Pinkham Way to process the same residual waste –since when waste levels continued their long term decline irrespective of economic conditions and population levels - that this proposal is even bigger than that discredited one. Keen readers might choose to get right into the figures and discover that 1=1 can indeed equal 3 if that is the required answer.

If they say because we wish to import waste into London from the likes of Oxford, Reading, Cambridge, Milton Keynes, Southend on Sea and such places you might ask why on earth would we be planning to do that.

You might ask why Enfield is positioning itself to be the waste centre of the south east.

You might ask why, slipped deep into one document and not assessed for cost, risk, or other relevant dimension in assessing options, that the NLWA have decided to plan for levels of waste far above what is required of them under the Mayors London Plan for waste, something called the Apportionment. Do we really want to allocate London’s scare resources of land, capital, road space, fresh air and more to processing considerably more of London’s overall waste than we are required to? Never mind adding on top of that the extra desire of the NLWA to process even more waste from the Home Counties.

I mentioned assessing options. Don’t look for options to be assessed. No point, and don’t believe the Pinkham Way supporting Outline Business Case does the job either. Ask a simple one: what options are available and with what implications for the lines proposed at Edmonton? Are the calorific risks associated with two large lines proposed? How will that risk change over time and with what potential implications for cost to ratepayers? What alternatives did you consider and with what comparative cost / benefit, risk and supporting whole-of -process profiles?

Do you think the emissions of all this additional road transport would have been correctly assessed when the long term stated intent to work with “sustainable transport” was recently thrown out of the window?

Do you believe the expected emission levels are within World Health Organisation safe –health guidelines? Why not ask.

But do be positive about Enfield Council. All seven Boroughs are required to send residual (“black bag”) waste to the NLWA. What to do with Recyclables is a Borough choice. Enfield does not deal with the NLWA on this and saves roughly £3m pa on our rates bill as a consequence. Why is the NLWA so relatively expensive?

And if anyone thinks the Pinkham Way site is “safe” let the NLWA come out definitively and say without any question of doubt that they have no ambitions to develop a huge MRF waste plant there.

Now if they had a strategy that answer itself would be obvious – one way or the other.
Some with experience might say the NLWA makes FIFA look transparent. What we do know is that waste certainly is their business, a core competency no less.

Do respond. The weight of the first consultation was centred on a relatively tight circular area centred on the site, much of which is reservoir. The plan is however central to almost 2m residents and businesses in north London. They should all be aware of what they are being asked to pay for.
Karl Brown's Avatar
Karl Brown posted a reply #1264 06 Jun 2015 07:47
I mentioned in an earlier post the dubious nature of making such a fundamentally irrevocable investment as now proposed for Edmonton based on highly questionable figures. Were that only me then you may choose to dismiss such concerns. The comments below are some of the reservations highlighted officially by the consultants employed (Eunomia) who actually developed the forecasts. At this point I can ask again, would anyone bet their pensions on the forecasts behind this huge investment being within a million miles of them being accurate.

Eunomia’s extreme reservations concerning the usability of the data and their associated analysis as a basis for forecasting (and hence investment) could not realistically be any stronger:
• Providing forecasts of waste arisings for over thirty years in the future is extremely difficult … in essence it is unknowable
• It is worth re-emphasising, however, that given the paucity of historical data there is limited scope for making accurate predictions,
• We would not normally advise forecasting for more than a very small number of years into the future on this basis. The use of this type of analysis for long-term projections remains questionable and open to challenge
• One limitation of this type of analysis is the number of historical data points which are available
• Although the quality of data has been steadily improving since 2000 (although vagaries remain), the time series for the datasets used are relatively short and the quality of data in the early years is questionable.
• There is also a danger in over-complicating matters with spurious levels of detail; detail which in and of itself is based on relatively high-level sampling and assumptions.
• to account for what we would speculate is the cumulative effect of waste prevention and minimisation measures
• Forecasting C&I waste volumes for future years is notoriously difficult due to the distinct lack of data on historic and current volumes.
• the analysis of a number of alternative scenarios show that waste arisings could vary significantly depending on the assumption made

Or as the main accompanying paper highlights, the NLWA conclude: “The model was developed based on …. a robust analysis of historical trends and a robust set of assumptions about what will happen to these trends in the future.”

That requires some leap of imagination.
Karl Brown's Avatar
Karl Brown posted a reply #1295 13 Jun 2015 17:53

The suggestion which has been floated by one very senior MP after a visit to the Edmonton incinerator is that if the plans for a new, larger incinerator are approved, then there will be no waste plant on Pinkham Way. That may be contradicted by the new North London Waste Plan which in its just released in its pre consultation form for Councillors to approve and includes a proposed waste site called - Pinkham Way. Finding it hard to keep up?!

Here's a note written by the Chair of the Pinkham way Alliance on that very piece of ground and a picture. (Viewing the site, a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation Grade 1) is not possible since access was denied by a rather tasty metal fence.

If someone mentions the term ‘Priority Habitat’ in relation to London, what immediately springs to mind? Woodland, streams and rivers, heathland, the lower reaches of the Thames –anywhere where wildlife flourishes.

But ‘Wasteland’? Whatever is ‘Wasteland’? It’s land, previously developed and then disused. The longer nature has to reclaim it, the greater the biodiversity. The London Biodiversity Partnership (LBP) values Wasteland’s importance as highly as the better-known examples above, saying it hosts a ‘remarkable diversity of species’.

Pinkham Way is Wasteland.

Industrial use there (sewage) ended over 50 years ago, followed, until 1980, by assorted dumping. Nature, left to itself, has transformed Pinkham Way into a haven for endangered birds, reptiles and invertebrates(especially spiders and beetles), with over 100 species of wildflowers, grasses, shrubs and some 1500 trees. Immense stands of blue-flowered comfrey (too immense actually!) hum with bees, and on summer mornings the birdsong is astounding. The vegetation is largely impenetrable in summer, muffling the A406’s racket and helping absorb pollution (among London’s highest). Quite extraordinarily peaceful.

The Pinkham Way Alliance (PWA) has conducted ecological and invertebrate surveys, which have confirmed the site’s status as a Grade 1 Site for Nature Conservation of Borough importance.
Haringey’s advisors commented: ‘ ... undisturbed ... a rare resource for Haringey of high ecological value’.

The owners, North London Waste Authority and Barnet, have forbidden access; thus local residents, who could derive so much enjoyment and interest from being there, or, as many have formally volunteered to do, from helping to manage it, are denied all this. The owners have no present plans for it, and won’t act to enhance it, as public authorities are supposed to do, putting the site in danger of deterioration.

This is already affecting especially a small area of grassland which is the most important on the site, and is a UK Priority Habitat. It’s ideal habitat for ground-dwelling spiders and beetles, and for invertebrates in general. It’s called Open Mosaic, and it’s where we did our survey.

While Pinkham Way’s Borough ecological importance remains a central pillar of PWA argument, its value extends far beyond the borough. As a London Priority Habitat, it has, by definition, a wider significance. PWA has submitted a 5-year management plan to Haringey.

Yet Wasteland sites don’t receive anywhere near the necessary protection. Too often, nature becomes a tiresome invader between periods of use, and habitats which Haringey itself describes as offering 'stunning diversity' disappear under concrete.
Karl Brown's Avatar
Karl Brown posted a reply #1346 26 Jun 2015 13:27
Stephen refers in his letter to the latest version of the North London Waste Plan (NLWP). The draft version of this, currently being reviewed by Councils prior to public consultation, highlights existing waste capacity in the North London sub-region, ie us, of 3.7 million tonnes. It also highlights the waste generated in our North London sub-region as being 2.4 million tonnes. You would perhaps expect that this 50%+ capacity headroom to be adequate. Even worse for this story is that under the London-wide net self sufficiency requirement, the GLA Apportionment, our sub region is tasked with managing only something like 85% of our waste to ensure the London Region's overall targeted needs are satisfied, ie not the full 2.4 million tonnes. And the current capacity figure is before the incremental capacity now being requested at Edmonton (up a further 150,000 tonnes pa on top of the 3.7 million.)

Oh, and before any plans for Pinkham Way.

It's a complex area but sometimes a simple picture can make you stop and think.

A summary of my own input to the current Edmonton consultation is attached. I'm not convinced about that part of the overall waste picture either.
Karl Brown's Avatar
Karl Brown posted a reply #1347 26 Jun 2015 13:28
Stephen refers in his letter to the latest version of the North London Waste Plan (NLWP). The draft version of this, currently being reviewed by Councils prior to public consultation, highlights existing waste capacity in the North London sub-region, ie us, of 3.7 million tonnes. It also highlights the waste generated in our North London sub-region as being 2.4 million tonnes. You would perhaps expect that this 50%+ capacity headroom to be adequate.

Even worse for this story is that under the London-wide net self sufficiency requirement, the GLA Apportionment, our sub region is tasked with managing only something like 85% of our waste to ensure the London Region's overall targeted needs are satisfied, ie not the full 2.4 million tonnes. And the current capacity figure is before the incremental capacity now being requested at Edmonton (up a further 150,000 tonnes pa on top of the 3.7 million.)

Oh, and before any plans for Pinkham Way.

It's a complex area but sometimes a simple picture can make you stop and think.

A summary of my own input to the current Edmonton consultation is attached. I'm not convinced about that part of the overall waste picture either.
Karl Brown's Avatar
Karl Brown posted a reply #1425 30 Jul 2015 17:13
The latest consultation on the North London Waste Plan opens today (30th July 2015). Twelve large reports looking at resource and waste management in North London through to 2032.

Despite what many residents had come to believe, the nearby site at Pinkham Way is not “saved”. Instead it has been identified as one of the “most suitable, sustainable and deliverable locations in North London for new waste management facilities.”

It is also one which, according to the London Biodiversity Partnership, contains “a remarkable diversity of species” and includes a section of a UK Priority Habitat. More generally it is a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) Grade 1. As part of recent analysis a Reptile Survey identified a small breeding colony of slow-worms, a protected species, while an on-going survey identified a rich variety of spiders and beetles, some rare.

Much is written about the importance of green space and its protection in our crowded and climate-change threatened City, but perhaps the experience of Cecil the lion has finally highlighted that people really do care about the unjustified exploitation of our natural world. Potentially concreting over this green space when the case for this additional (waste) site appears flimsy may be thought of as a step too far.

Twelve detailed reports in all their complexity is more than most residents can be expected to absorb but the task will be undertaken by the Pinkham Way Alliance. Well over one thousand residents added their signature to the last PWA input. You can have the chance to add yours to the final PWA submission once it is available and so provide better protection to this valuable piece of London’s Green Infrastructure. Simply register on the web site for newsletter updates.

Share this article

A two-year campaign aimed at persuading North London councils to scale down their plans for building new waste processing capacity and at preserving a wooded area adjacent to the North Circular Road scored a significant victory this week, when the North London Waste Authority (NLWA) announced that it was abandoning its plan for an expensive long-term procurement.

Since 2011 the Pinkham Way Alliance has been campaigning against the planned construction of a large facility at Pinkham Wood, close to the Pinkham Way stretch of the North Circular.  The campaigners are not only concerned about the loss of valuable green space and other environmental impacts, but also warn against North London councils locking themselves into a very expensive contract for capacity which might never actually be required.

A press release issued by the NLWA on 27th September cites several factors behind the change of mind.  Chief among them is the need for a cheaper solution - the Authority estimates that the saving to the local councils over a thirty year period might amount to £900 million.  This is a clear acknowledgement that the Pinkham Way campaigners' fears about the financial impact of the procurement on the seven councils budgets were well founded.

Log in to comment

Share this article

In the face of a determined campaign led by the Pinkham Way Alliance, the North London Waste Authority (NLWA) remains set on building a large new waste processing facility at Pinkham Wood (between Friern Barnet and Bounds Green).

In late July the Haringey Independent reported that the NLWA Chairman had rebuked Hornsey and Wood Green MP Lynne Featherstone for signing a petition organised by the Pinkham Way Alliance and stated that "the Pinkham Way site remains central to NLWA’s future requirements". The NWLA's unchanged position is also clear from its submission to the recent public consultation exercise about redrafting of the North London Waste Plan (NLWP).

The NLWA's representation is one of 100 submitted by a range of organisations and individuals that have now been published in full in a Report which is  available on the NLWP website, and "will be used to establish the main issues for the new Plan".  The next stage will be "evidence gathering work", after which a draft of the new Plan will be prepared and presented to the seven North London boroughs for approval.  The draft Plan will then be published and representations will be again invited from interested organisations and the general public (the consultation will probably run from July to September 2014). Several further stages will follow, culminating in the adoption of the Plan by the boroughs, probably in late 2016.

Log in to comment