Remember Me     Forgot Login?   Sign up  

Pinkham Way

The campaign against plans to build a large waste-processing plant on vacant land adjacent to the Pinkham Way stretch of the North Circular Road is being coordinated and led by the Pinkham Way Alliance.


The site was historically a sewage works but since being allowed to return to nature has become a much appreciated green space. When the proposal was first made public in 2011 many objections focussed on the loss of this open space (a Borough Grade 1 Site of Importance for Nature Conservation) and on related environmental factors such as the increase in traffic on the nearby North Circular and reduction in air quality for residents. Subsequently it become clear that the associated tendering process would result in seven North London boroughs (among them Enfield) becoming locked into a long term expensive contract.

Following an announcement in December 2012, the status of these proposals is currently unclear, but it appears the North London Waste Authority still wishes to build a waste facility on the site and the adjacent Borough of Barnet still wishes to develop a depot for its waste wagon fleet also on the site. The Pinkham Way Alliance is continuing its campaign, one element of which is in supporting the immediate community in their efforts for the site to be classified as a Village Green. That hearing was held in Public in early March 2013 with the Inspectors decision is expected in the summer.

For more detail see the Pinkham Way Alliance, Pinkham Way Incinerator, North London Waste Authority and North London Waste Plan websites, as well as the North London Waste Plan section of this website. 

[Text amended 21 March 2013]

Share this article

pinkham way petitionThe Pinkham Way Alliance is urging supporters to sign an online petition calling for the removal of a local nature conservation site from the North London Waste Plan.  The petition is addressed to Haringey Council, but residents of Barnet, Enfield and Haringey are all eligible to sign.  To be effective, supporters need to sign by 12th November.

The land in question, now dense woodland, was the location of a long abandoned sewage works adjacent to the Pinkham Way section of the North Circular Road.  Despite its nature conservation status, it is earmarked as a possible site for a waste treatment plant.  Earlier this month the campaigners succeeded in persuading an important committee that the present dual classification of the land makes absolutely no sense.

Stephen Brice, chair of the Pinkham Way Alliance, has emailed supporters asking them to sign and to attend a key meeting on 13th November.


In a landmark 6-5 vote, Haringey's Regulatory Committee chose to advise the Council to drop Pinkham Way nature conservation site from the North London Waste Plan (NLWP).

Let's make this a major turning point and get the site removed once and for all from a waste plan that should never have included it.

Please sign our online petition urging Haringey to accept the recommendation of its Regulatory Committee. The deadline is Monday 12 November.

All over 18s in your house hold can sign individually. Please persuade your local friends and neighbours to add their names - many of them do not receive these emails. For those not online, you could offer to input their details yourself.

This petition is hosted by campaign site 38 Degrees. Please forward the link out to as many of your relevant networks as you can (school parents, clubs, local business, etc):


The key Haringey Cabinet meeting is on Tuesday 13 November at 6.30pm.

Your magnificent support at the recent Regulatory Committee meeting helped us win the vote. Please keep this date free if you can - a strong PWA presence on the night will be essential.

Haringey Council has seen a big shake-up this year, and its new politicians have stressed that things are going to change for the better. Let's hold them to their word.

We'll be in touch again soon.

Stephen Brice
Chair, Pinkham Way Alliance

Join the Facebook group
Join the Facebook group
Follow us on Twitter
Follow us on Twitter
Make a Donation
Make a Donation

Log in to comment

Karl Brown's Avatar
Karl Brown posted a reply #4199 08 Nov 2018 12:19
8th November - Haringey Cabinet have deferred looking at the new North London Waste Plan at this month’s meeting. That consideration will now take place on 22nd January 2019, to give them time to properly consider the recommendation of their own Regulatory Committee who concluded that the Grade 1 Site of Nature Conservation (SINC), commonly known as “Pinkham Way”, be removed as a site available for waste dumping or waste processing.
“Pinkham Way” is between the north circular and Muswell Hill golf course (forming part of a wider green corridor) on the left after you pass under the mainline railway bridge heading west on the north circular. The mainline railway forms its eastern boundary, housing and a park to its west.
Your signature to the current petition can only assist in stopping the extraordinary haemorrhage of unnecessary public sector cash this exercise has caused over the last eight years. Enfield Cabinet meets to approve, or otherwise, the same plan next week (14th).
Karl Brown's Avatar
Karl Brown posted a reply #4203 11 Nov 2018 11:45
As a little background to anyone thinking of signing the PWA petition but still making their minds up: At the start of the plan period, the North London Waste Authority (NLWA) are planning to deal with a staggering 140% of the amount of waste required of them by the Mayor as their share of London’s total waste, and even more by the end. To manage this, they reckon they need up to 9 hectares of new land (a figure that is going to be hard to justify) and so, to be on the safe side, they have identified 93.45 hectares, more than ten times the amount. This land would then be waste protected, ie not available for other use. All of it is (rightly) classified as Industrial land. But it seems even that is not enough, so on top of all that, they make a grab for a Site of Nature Conservation, “Pinkham Way”, of close to 6 hectares, making a total of 99.35 hectares. Nothing like a margin of error!

Why? Why have they spent ballpark £35m so far on buying it (about £12m) and then fees to consultants, lawyers and such on top to get this far?

Every previous iteration of the plan suggested on analysis that they needed no extra land at all. We will wait for the detailed numbers this time, but expect no change in that position.

Without looking, I’ve little doubt I’ll find councils spelling out how committed they are to protecting the environment. Well, let’s see how committed Enfield Cabinet is this week when they shouldn't be signing off this plan with Pinkham Way included.

Share this article

As part of their long-running fight to protect a nature conservation site from industrial development, the Pinkham Way Alliance have this week called for all supporters to fill the public gallery at a meeting on Thursday evening.

The Alliance is asking supporters to join a deputation to Haringey's Regulatory Committee, in the Haringey Civic Centre, Wood Green High Road, at 7pm on Thursday 18th October.  They suggest that "fireworks could start a little early this autumn..."  but promise supporters that they won't need to stay long after the start of the meeting.

pinkham way alliance logo


Trouble at Haringey Civic Centre

Next Thursday18 October, at 7pm, we'll be taking a deputation to Haringey's Regulatory Committee, in the Haringey Civic Centre. The fireworks could start a little early this autumn...Please support us from the gallery if you can. Numbers will matter. We should be heard soon after the meeting starts, so it won't take long.

You'll remember the North London Waste Plan (NLWP); the planning document drafted by the seven councils of the North London Waste Authority (NLWA) to ensure enough land for their waste. After  nothing for three years, a new draft is going to these Councils for approval before going out to consultation in early 2019. In Haringey, if it gets past Thursday's committee, it'll go before the Cabinet and ultimately the full Council.

The draft mentions a 'reduced number of sites'. But - do I need to finish the sentence? - Pinkham Way is still in there, misleadingly renamed an 'area'.

Haringey's attempts to justify its inclusion are pathetic, not supported by evidence and should fool no one. Which is why our deputation refers to 'Wednesbury unreasonableness' - from a legal case that sets the standard for unreasonableness of public-body decisions that would make them liable to be quashed on judicial review.

You can read the full deposition here.

Best wishes, 

Stephen Brice
Pinkham Way Alliance

An anomolous dual classification

pinkham way mapMany years ago Pinkham Way Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) was a sewage treatment works but since the plant was abandoned nature has taken over, creating a location of rare ecological significance for north London.  It is located within Haringey borough, but is very close to the boundaries of both Enfield and Barnet boroughs.

When the plan to build a large waste processing facility at Pinkham Way was dropped (in 2013) that ought to have been the end of any idea that the site was suitable for industrial use.  But despite a mass of evidence to the contrary, Haringey Council has persisted in giving it an anomolous dual classification - as both nature reserve and potential industrial site.

The PWA's current priority is to ensure that Pinkham Way is removed from the new version of the North London Waste Plan, which is currently being drafted and will need to be approved by all seven north London boroughs.

Draft Pre-Submission North London Waste Plan 18 October 2018 Regulatory Committee

PWA notes that one of Haringey Council’s nine most important borough wide Nature Conservation sites (Pinkham Way SINC) is included in the draft NLWP as an ‘Area’ suitable for waste development.

This is a designated SINC No 1 Borough Importance and according to the Council’s own consultants “…is of high ecological value and a rare resource for Haringey.” It contains priority species and habitats, some rare and breeding on the site. It is protected by the Council’s own Local Plan Policies on Biodiversity and SINCS and as such has no place in a waste plan.

We would like to remind you as members of the Regulatory Committee that although your role is informal and consultative in relation to planning policy, you are required to fulfil that role by taking into account the Council’s own relevant local plan policies; national and regional planning policies, and all other relevant considerations, including this comment from Pinkham Way Alliance.

We ask you to give due consideration to the above, and of our comments below, after which we would ask you to conclude, and to indicate to the Cabinet, that the inclusion of this site in the draft waste plan is inappropriate.

To assist you we would draw your attention to the following points:

  • The NPPF, the London Plan (LP), NLWA and all NLWP member councils have policies to protect and enhance SINCS, Priority Species and Priority Habitats. The site qualifies for protection under all three criteria.
  • It is not brownfield land – it is specifically excluded because of its high ecological value from the NPPF and LP definitions of brownfield / PDL.
  • It meets the NPPF / LP criteria for open space.
  • Haringey has included it in its Green Infrastructure map as ‘Green Space’. It is marked in Barnet’s GI as ‘Public Park’ and in the All London Green Grid as ‘Private Open Space’.
  • Section 9.8.8 of the draft London Plan (to be publicly examined early in 2019) states that, when locating waste facilities ‘… boroughs should … look to Locally Significant Industrial Sites (LSIL) and existing waste management sites’. As the Council knows well, PW falls into neither category and the Council’s attempt in 2012 to designate it LSIL was dismissed by the Planning Inspector.
  • The Council’s more recent attempt to include the site in its Site Allocations DPD was rejected by the 2016 Inspector who insisted that the Council remove it. The Council complied immediately, admitting that there was no justification for its inclusion.
  • The site has an anomalous and irreconcilable dual designation, unique in the UK - Grade 1 Site for Nature Conservation (SINC) and Employment Land.

For the Council to approve the inclusion of the Pinkham Way SINC in this draft planwould be a decision of Wednesbury unreasonableness and would be likely to expose the Council to challenge.

Thank you

Stephen Brice
Chair – Pinkham Way Alliance
9 October 2018

Log in to comment

Karl Brown's Avatar
Karl Brown posted a reply #4121 19 Oct 2018 17:30

Haringey’s Regulation Committee met last evening (see posting of 17th) and after a vote decided to recommend to Cabinet the exclusion of Pinkham Way from the draft North London Waste Plan (NLWP). Haringey Cabinet will make the final decision on approving the draft NLWP as it stands, for that borough. This represents a very positive step for common sense and the PWA; a surprising decision given the (long) history but surely correct given the facts.

PWA’s Chair made a short deputation, answered by a senior officer, before receiving councillor questions, after which councillors asked the officers questions before a vote and agreeing to recommend refusing the inclusion of Pinkham Way.

We heard how refusing could delay the “urgent” NLWP, now over a decade late, countered by pointing out that more haste would have been achieved long since by excluding the site; how the borough had to put the site through to the NLWP because the landowner (North London Waste Authority – NLWA) had suggested it in the NLWP’s call for sites - the only such site in all of north London - yet neglected to mention the plan’s site sifting process which gave every opportunity to stop it; how, because it was designated Employment land, they had to put it forward to the plan (It is unique in the UK as a Grade 1 Site of Importance for Nature Conservation as well as Employment, something a Planning Inspector had earlier surfaced as an effective bar to the boroughs intent for Pinkham Way) but not that Employment land is specifically not designated for waste site use in the London Plan, nor that the area is not a priority employment zone for the borough; how the site is environmentally rich, carrying protection at all levels of the national planning hierarchy; and more.

Councillor questions to officers tended to focus on the why on earth destroy such a habitat for waste use, particularly when no one can explain what that waste would be, or if the land was actually required for waste and just what the benefit to the borough would be if so; plus that developing over existing trees and other green risks undermining such borough key themes as climate change mitigation, flood alleviation and air quality. Asking just why the land was bought in the first place to cause this long running saga received an airing, as did the immense and ongoing cost of the exercise on top of the uber premium price paid in the first place.

Enfield’s own cabinet will shortly deliberate to agree, or not, the draft NLWP as currently presented to go forward for public consultation in early 2019. Smart money would suggest the chances of the Planning Inspector agreeing the need for Pinkham Way and its inclusion as fitting with all manner of planning requirements and policies when it comes to inquiry to be effectively nil .

This one is long since well past the emperor having no clothes; rather the emperor appears to be running around naked with their arms in the air blowing raspberries in all directions. Enfield cabinet could do north London a favour and put him out of his misery when they come to discuss the approval of the draft NLWP Reg19 next month.
PGC Webmaster's Avatar
PGC Webmaster posted a reply #4128 23 Oct 2018 18:43
This is the message that Pinkham Way Alliance chair Stephen Brice sent to supporters following the successful lobby at the Haringey Regulation Committee:

Last Thursday was a big night for this campaign. A Haringey committee voted in our favour.

Our deep appreciation to all who filled the Council Chamber gallery. I find it amazing that, after 8 years, you're still willing to turn out - and in such fine voice! It meant so much to us, and very likely emboldened the Councillors who voted on our side.

The Regulatory Committee examines complex planning issues, such as the North London Waste Plan (NLWP). Its members had clearly done their research, and questioned both us and the Haringey planners skilfully.

But then - catching everyone by surprise - a Lib Dem member proposed an immediate vote on whether to advise the Council to drop Pinkham Way from this new draft of the NLWP. Before we knew it, the Committee voted 6-5 in favour.

So, what now? The waste plan draft goes before Haringey Cabinet on 13 November with the advice that Pinkham Way be removed from the list of possible waste sites.

However, we can be 100% sure there'll be pressure on Haringey to disregard this advice. We'll be calling on your support at the Cabinet meeting.

Meanwhile, in the build up there are actions we can all take to emphasise that we want Haringey to stick to its guns and drop the site.

As Enfield is another of the seven boroughs with responsibility for the North London Waste Plan, there may at some point be a need to do some lobbying at our own Civic Centre. No doubt Stephen will let us know if the need arises.

Share this article

The Pinkham Way Alliance has won a major victory in its struggle to protect the woodland adjacent to the Pinkham Way section of the North Circular Road.


The Inspector's final report on Haringey's Local Plan is out and there's much for us to celebrate.

Thank you again for your support at the hearing last August, and in the consultation over New Year.


Pinkham Way will be removed from Haringey's 'Site Allocations' - the Council admitted at the hearing that it wasn't needed for its employment strategy.

So, potential developers will no longer be able to argue that a development's benefit (i.e. its contribution to the borough's employment needs) outweighs the harm to nature conservation.
This is a very big win indeed for residents.


We've long argued that this green site is environmentally valuable and should be protected, and that its current planning designation for 'employment' is wrong.

From her report, it's clear that the Inspector agrees. However, she didn't have the power to recommend removal of the employment designation. This is because the matters before her were 'modifications' to policies rather than the policies themselves.

Very significantly though, she makes extensive comment about Pinkham Way, citing its long period as vacant land, its conservation value, and the length of the PWA campaign to remove the employment designation.

She restates that a Planning Authority should not keep a employment designation where there's no reasonable prospect of development.


It is our firm opinion, therefore, that had the Inspector been able to recommend the designation's removal, she would have. There now seems little chance it'll survive the next review of Haringey's Local plan.


With the weight of this report behind us, we can concentrate on pushing for the removal of the site from the next version of the North London Waste Plan (NLWP), due towards the end of the year. As ever, please watch this space...

You can read our full summary of what the Inspector's report means for the future of Pinkham Way.

Stephen Brice
Pinkham Way Alliance


Log in to comment

Share this article

still targeting pinkham way

The Pinkham Way Allliance (PWA) is asking its supporters to sign up to be represented by the Alliance in the ongoing London Borough of Haringey's Local Plan Main Modifications public consultation.

The PWA has written a response to the main modifications document which is aimed at overturning Haringey Council's insistence that the Pinkham Way site continue to be allocated as a potential employment site.  Quite apart from the fact that it poses a threat to an ecologically valuable site and is damaging to the environment in other ways, the Alliance argues that this designation is irrational, for reasons that they set out in their response.


Consultation details on Haringey Council website

Bullet points of PWA response

PWA website home page

To be represented by the PWA, sign up here before midnight on 11th January.

Log in to comment

Karl Brown's Avatar
Karl Brown posted a reply #3017 16 May 2017 17:02
Another significant milestone achieved by the Pinkham Way Alliance (PWA).

Now in its sixth year this titanic struggle which pitches a few (thousand) residents against seven councils, DEFRA, a statutory waste authority, sundry big business, major consultants and other ad hoc professionals, plus variously politicians and the Cabinet Office grinds on. And in its sixth year the PWA score yet another noteworthy win.

This time the focus has been on Haringay Council and specifically the outcome of the Examination in Public of their Site Allocations Development Plan Document.

Formal Representations were first submitted by PWA in March 2015, often drawing on and referencing substantive earlier work. Since that time many exchanges, formal and informal, including in open forum under the jurisdiction of the Planning Inspector, have taken place as the process went forward and ultimately contributed to the recently published Inspectors report.

In a major victory for PWA, the Pinkham Way site will be removed from the Council’s Site Allocations development plan document (SADPD). This means that the Council can no longer argue that Pinkham Way is a strategic employment site needed to deliver its strategic employment policies. (Recall that the intent has been to build and operate a large waste plant(s) of various forms.)

The Inspectors concluding sentence was to the effect that any future planning proposal for the site would have to be considered against the full range of national and local plan policies. Thus potential developers would now have real difficulty arguing that development of this site would have the benefit of contributing to the delivery of the council’s employment strategy. Arguments that the benefit of a proposed development would outweigh the harm to its nature conservation value are weakened, as the site is not required to make any contribution to the strategic employment policies.

And that immensely significant step has taken many hundreds of hours of very carefully developed PWA analysis, input and discussion; and without a tweet or Facebook-post raised in anger.

PWA has long argued that this green site is environmentally valuable and should be protected as such and that its current planning designation for ‘employment’ is wrong (dual designation, along with being a Grade 1 Site of Importance for Nature Conservation.) Reading the Report it seems clear that the Inspector agrees. However this current process didn’t have the power to recommend removal of the employment designation. This was because the matters before the Inspector were ‘modifications’ to policies rather than the policies themselves.

However, given the comments made by the Inspector about the Pinkham Way site, for example citing its long period as vacant land, its conservation value, and the length of the PWA campaign to remove the employment designation, and then pointing out that a Planning Authority should not retain an employment designation where there is no reasonable prospect of development, the PWA view is that Haringey Council will have little option when it next reviews its strategic local plan but to finally remove the employment designation from the site. This would have fundamental, effectively terminal, implications for any waste plant(s) development.

PWA efforts will now be focused on having the Pinkham Way site removed from the draft North London Waste Plan which is due to be reissued later this year.

Local support has been fundamental to this long running - and to date - successful campaign. You can show your own support by registering for (very) occasional update e mails at . It really does help.
Karl Brown's Avatar
Karl Brown posted a reply #4064 20 Sep 2018 21:47
This is a long, long story, littered with successes by the Pinkham Way Alliance (PWA), a grouping of 3000 or so residents and businesses not in favour of plans to develop a valuable green space for waste disposal use. After probably PWA’s biggest single success, the saving of £900m (their figure, nearer £2bn, PWA figure) from the cancelling of the Procurement, much skirmishing has continued, interspersed with the occasional full frontal battle across various fora.

A key part of any proposal is the underlying North London Waste Plan (NLWP). Now 12 years since this kicked off, a lot of PWA activity has been spent highlighting what a load of old tosh (a view) has frequently been proposed; and then they end up back where they started to think again.

A new mailing (attached) indicates the latest attempt to deliver an acceptable NLWP is about to commence, and when. (Much as with the railways, we tend to see many timetables, none of which prove to work in the harsh light of day to day life.)

With significant increased population forecasts (pre Brexit anyway), a London Plan requiring all London’s waste to be dealt with within our city, more recycling and its associated processing sought, but broadly people seeking less “stuff” (less money, smaller houses / rooms, sharing economy, other) and several other key variables, it’ll be interesting where this latest incarnation seeks to take things. I’d hazard a guess they’ve now run out of track, with PWA having blocked so many routes on solid grounds near impossible to argue against, that the focus for waste may well now be elsewhere than on a Grade 1 Site of Importance for Nature Conservation. But let’s see.

This browser does not support PDFs. Please download the PDF to view it: Download PDF

Share this article

The Pinkham Way Alliance has issued a campaign update to its supporters, coupled with a suggestion of how people can help reduce the scandalous waste of food that occurs in London.

pinkham way alliance logo


First news on the results of the hearing

Do you want the good news, or the bad news? I’ve got both, arising from the hearing in front of the Planning Inspector in August.

To recap, she examined aspects of Haringey’s Local Plan. The Council had included Pinkham Way in its ‘Site Allocations’ (SA) – to allocate the site as of specific importance to its employment strategy.

The unequivocally good news is that the site has been deleted from the SA as it did nothing to implement Haringey’s employment policies.

The bad news is that the site’s underlying employment designation remains. However, our many arguments against this phony designation are still valid, and Council evidence in support is as fictional as it ever was.

A consultation on this latest draft (the ‘Main Modifications’) has started, and will end on 13 January. Our response to Haringey will object strongly to this relentless refusal to recognise Pinkham Way as the open green space the real evidence shows it to be.

We’ll be asking for your signature in support (as if you couldn’t guess… ). Please keep an eye open.


Food waste

You may have noticed the Evening Standard campaign on scandalous food waste in London and the tremendous efforts of the Felix Project. The Project is now crowdfunding to open a second depot in the capital.

For details, visit The Felix Project.

In a dark world, have a wonderful Christmas. We'll be in touch very soon afterward.

Best wishes,

Stephen Brice
Pinkham Way Alliance

Log in to comment

Share this article

Karl Brown was in the public gallery to listen in during the examination in public of part of the Haringey Local plan dealing with the Pinkham Way nature conservation site (for background see this page on the Haringey Council website and this appeal from the Pinkham Way Alliance).

A full gallery heard from Haringey Council, the NLWA and Turleys acting for the PWA. Previously extensive written submissions, together with a call for more detail on some specific aspects (available on the PWA website), meant that this section of the multi-day hearing into the Soundness of Haringey’s proposed R19 Site Allocations and Development Management DPD  was relatively short and focused, at least in terms of the annals of this long running story.

Haringey Council confirmed that while the land at PW was (partly) designated as Employment, it was not included in figures discussed at an earlier day’s DPD examination to meet the employment demands of their own strategic plan nor the employment requirements of the London Plan, rather they were viewing it as some form of contingency comfort-buffer given the pressure the London Plan is generally placing on levels of Employment designated land.  Under questioning from the Inspector, who seemed puzzled why it was included in the submission in the first place, since they were proposing no change and had not counted any related employment figures, the Council indicated they would be content for the PW site to be removed from the submission, although as the overall discussion progressed it seemed this option was no longer left on the table by the Inspector.

The Waste Authority (NLWA) indicated in the clearest possible terms that while they had no idea what waste streams they intended to put on the PW site ("black bag" recyclate in a possible Edmonton incinerator replacement, or various functions related to recycling and/or bulking and on-transport) they "do intend to bring it forward in terms of development", ie concrete over at least part of it and build upwards. Their spokesman explained to the Inspector the difficulties that losing the site’s Employment designation would mean to this ambition.  It was made clear by the NLWA that the PW site was included in the (overdue) R19 draft of the North London Waste Plan being prepared by the seven councils of North London (again) as a chosen waste processing location. PWA highlighted that the NLWA had no (publicly available) strategic plan to support PW as such a "strategic site" they could apparently not afford to lose.

PWA and Turleys argued strongly that as the only dual-designated Grade 1 SINC (Site of Importance for Nature Conservation) in London and with no employment rationale or any employment supporting technical-planning-evidence, its Employment designation should be removed. The PWA case built from the extensive written submissions, highlighted the number of ecologically favourable reports since the designation was first made and the evidence since that time of the dilution in its relevance to carry Employment status, including findings made by the Council’s own external consultants. Technically the Inspectors attention was drawn to apparent contradictions in Haringey’s approach to Policies in both the London Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.  PWA argued the definition emerging from these higher level planning guidelines and Policies indicted the site should be Open Space and the Employment designation should be removed.

After five years of huge ups and downs, experience suggests there will doubtless be more of the same. The Inspector will shortly be retiring to consider her report, which she indicates may require further specific written input, and after which, or perhaps before, we will see the R19 Draft NLWP, a document rewritten after the previous version failed to be Examined in Public a few years ago when the Inspector deferred the hearing on day 1 for the submitting Authorities to contemplate a revised approach fitting with national planning requirements. That NLWP was never resubmitted.

It has been a long, tortuous but to date very successful campaign. Previous PWA pressure leading to the termination of the Procurement alone is expected to save local ratepayers £900m over a three decade period. (NLWA’s own figures, PWA suspect the figure may be noticeably greater.)  But for such successes PWA needs ongoing resident support and especially financial support for this long running matter. While the core team of local PWA experts have run up many thousands of hours of voluntary input over 5 years and while which has consistently proven to be the better of all comers, on public examination occasions such as this, the topping-off of that work with expertise from Turleys has proven to be invaluable – and inevitably costly for a voluntary campaign. Your support can be indicated through the web site by signing up for occasional mailings and ideally donations. The alternative may well be a waste incinerator about a mile upwind, as the NLWA have this week reminded.

(The PW site is immediately to your left having just passed under the large mainline railway bridge on the north circular road. The rail bridge itself is just after the old gas holder, BP garage and the two large blue sheds which are also visible from space, as may be any waste site developed on PW.)

Log in to comment

Share this article

Campaigners seeking to protect a nature conservation site next to the North Circular Road are appealing to supporters to fill the public galleries at a planning meeting next Wednesday afternoon.

The Pinkham Way Alliance has learnt to its dismay that the North London Waste Authority has revived its previously abandoned plan to use the woodland adjacent to Pinkham Way as a potential site for a residual waste processing plant.

The meeting next week will be examining the draft Haringey Local Plan.  The Pinkham Way Alliance has submitted a very strong case for removal of the site's Employment designation.  They hope that a strong turnout of supporters will help persuade the planning inspectors that this case is unanswerable.

Log in to comment

Share this article

The Pinkham Way Alliance (PWA) has published the text of its detailed submission to Haringey Council in response to the public consultation on Haringey Local Plan documents.  Its representations are aimed at preventing development of open land which was once the site of the Friern Barnet Sewage Works site at Pinkham Way, adjacent to the North Circular Road and Muswell Hill Golf Course.

pinkham way allianceIn its draft planning documents Haringey is designating the land both as a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation, Borough No 1 value (SINC), and as Employment Land.

The PWA document presents evidence and arguments in favour of the SINC designation and in opposition to the Employment Land designation:

"It is an open green space that has been vacant for over 50 years. Its ecological value is acknowledged by its SINC designation. [...] It is part of a larger ecological complex and corridor including other SINCs (Hollickwood Park, Muswell Hill Golf Course, Tunnell Gardens, Bluebell Wood, Albert Road Rec and Rhodes Avenue Spinney). A watercourse running in a culvert beneath the site is highlighted in the London Rivers Restoration Action Plan for de-culverting. There is a substantial amount of sound evidence to support retention of the SINC designation which the Council has accepted. However, there is no sound objective evidence to support retention of the Employment designation. On the contrary, [...]there is a substantial amount of evidence to support its removal."

The PWA alleges that Haringey's determination to retain the Employment Land designation is "driven by political pressure, not by sound objective evidence". This political pressure "arises from Haringey Council’s conflicted position as Local Planning Authority for the Pinkham Way site and as a member of the North London Waste Authority".

The PWA believes that Haringey finds itself in this position because of the purchase by the NLWA of part of the Pinkhham Way site in 2009 at a cost of more than £12 million. The NLWA bought the land "secretly", intending to use it for a large waste processing facility. This project was subsequently abandoned (thanks in no small measure to PWA campaigning), leaving the NLWA in the embarrassing position of owning land for which it cannot find a use or sell without a loss unless it has a suitable designation in local planning documents.  An adjacent part of the site was purchased by Barnet Council, with the intention of using it for a refuse truck depot - again, a use which the PWA considers cannot be justified.

The PWA's arguments are set out in great details in the following documents:

There is also a summary of the arguments on the PWA website.

The PWA presented the documents to Haringey Council with signatures in support from nearly 1500 people.  Donations in support of the PWA mean that it will be able to hire a well qualified planning consultant to put its case when the local plan is publicly examined later this year.

Log in to comment

Share this article

The Pinkham Way Alliance are asking for a simple action from members of the public who share the Alliance's concerns about the potential development of Pinkham Wood as a waste processing site or for other industrial use.

By signing online, you can officially associate yourself with the submission which the PWA is making to Haringey Council.

pinkham way alliance logo



We’ve come such a long way in this campaign; we mustn’t let up now.

Haringey’s Local Plan, including the flawed planning designation for Pinkham Way, will be publicly examined by an independent Planning Inspector in the summer. This final consultation before the hearings ends on March 4th.

Your signature in support of our submission is vital, because this is the one the Inspector will study first. To show him or her the deep concern our community continues to feel about Pinkham Way's future, we need a large number of names.

Please take a minute to enter your name here.

All adult members of your household can sign up individually. Please forward this to your friends and neighbours, and, if you know people without internet access, you could offer to take their details and add them yourself.

We'll be collecting names until midnight on Wednesday 2 March.

Among many other points, our submission covers:

  • Haringey’s claim that the site is ‘Employment’ land. The Council has no evidence, and has gone against the advice of its own consultants
  • Haringey’s refusal to accept the site’s Open Space status. Its supposed reasons for this are specious.
  • Haringey’s persistent claim that the site is Brownfield. All evidence, including National Planning Policy, shows it to be Greenfield.

You can read a simple overview of our response.

Thank you, as ever, and all good wishes.
Stephen Brice
Pinkham Way Alliance

Log in to comment

Share this article

logoThe Chair of the Pinkham Way Alliance (PWA) has written to Haringey Council's cabinet member for planning policy to complain about suppression and misrepresentation of evidence which contradicts the Council's policy of classifying woodland at Pinkham Way as suitable for employment use.

In his letter dated 5th November 2015 Stephen Brice writes that the PWA has come to the view that its evidence "is so inconvenient for the Council that there has been a systematic attempt to bury it".

The criticism refers to the preparation of documentation and advice ahead of a meeting of Haringey's Cabinet on 20th October.  The Cabinet discussed and approved various local plan documents, including the Site Allocations DPD (Development Plan Document), a document listing sites within the borough which are considered suitable for building housing or infrastructure for employment.

The Pinkham Way Alliance has been campaigning for Pinkham Way, which is a SINC (site for nature conservation), to be no longer classified as an Employment Site.

In support of its case the PWA submitted a 29-page document with copious evidence that Pinkham Way is unsuitable for use as an employment site.  However, the briefing papers prepared for the Cabinet meeting dismiss the PWA case in a few lines, without including any supporting evidence for or against for the Cabinet members to consider:

6.164 Pinkham Way Alliance feel that SA52 (Pinkham Way) is not suitable for employment use. The existing designations, both employment and SINC, are considered to continue on the basis there is a continuing need for employment spaces in the borough. Any development would be required to consider the SINC designation as well. The evidence the group submitted on the biodiversity present on the site is not sufficient to demonstrate that employment couldn‟t coexist on the site. Flood risk and culverted watercourse were also reasons suggested for why the site is unsuitable for development. Any proposed development would require a flood risk assessment to demonstrate no adverse impact in flood risk while the impact upon the watercourse is already covered by the policy.

6.165  There is specific opposition to the use of the site for waste, which is noted by council and the allocation does not specify this is the use that will be on site. Respondents were also concerned about views from Friern Barnet Bridge Park to Alexandra Paces being disrupted. Any development would require an impact assessment on long distance views to be undertaken.

The letter also complains that though 1154 members of the public requested that the PWA submission be regarded as coming from all of them (in accordance with precedence), the Cabinet meeting paperwork referred to a "petition" with 1154 signatures.

Full text of the letter from Stephen Brice, Chair of the Pinkham Way Alliance

5th November

Dear Councillor Demirci,

Cabinet Meeting - 20 October 2015

I write to you first as one of your constituents, and second, as Chair of the Pinkham Way Alliance. Among our members are hundreds more Bounds Green constituents, who, like me, are entitled to expect you to represent their interests and opinions honestly. Many of them would have been among the 1154 people who signed their names in support of the PWA submission to the Council's Site Allocations consultation earlier this year.

I was thus astounded to hear you say at the Cabinet meeting on 20 October that among the petitions received was one from Pinkham Way Alliance with 1154 signatures.

The Pinkham Way Alliance has never sent a petition to Haringey. As you know we have always sent detailed submissions, in this case 26 pages of comment and analysis of the Council's published planning policies and evidence, together with substantial supporting evidence and attachments.

As you will also know, the arrangement by which PWA supporters can sign their names to a central submission with no loss of value was established on the instructions of the Local Plan Inspector in October 2011 and has been in operation ever since. If the Council now wishes our supporters to send in separate submissions we can arrange that for the future. Please let me know.

In spite of this large number of submissions, reflecting the community's long-established, well-informed concern about this site, reference to the PWA submission was omitted from the list of submissions on page 86 of the Cabinet Report. Your comment that "a petition" had been received did nothing to remedy that omission.

Members would have had to search out Appendix F, via a separate web link, to find any reference to the size of the response on Pinkham Way. Even then it was misrepresented.

I would also point out that there was no reference in the Cabinet Report to the GVA viability study on Pinkham Way, which gave rise to further extensive submissions by PWA. As you know, that study had been suppressed and only came to light after a FOI request. Our challenge to this viability evidence should have been taken into account and made public as part of the consultation responses.

We have come to the view that PWA's evidence, including the challenge to the GVA viability study, is so inconvenient for the Council that there has been a systematic attempt to bury it.

Both you, Cllr Strickland and the Council in general protested that, this time round, the Council would be open, transparent and evidence-based. Since the evidence emerged that the employment designation was undeliverable, however, we have found the reality to be quite the opposite.

Stephen Brice

Chair - Pinkham Way Alliance


Log in to comment

Share this article

The Pinkham Way Alliance, which is campaigning against industrial use of a nature conservation site adjacent to the North Circular Road, is participating in a London-wide study into air quality.  If the monitoring confirms that the air near this stretch of the A406 is already very seriously polluted, this will help strengthen the campaigners' arguments against use of the site for processing household and industrial waste, which would inevitably result in even more lorry traffic along the North Circ.

Despite assurances from various quarters that plans to build waste-processing facilities at Pinkham Wood have been abandoned, the site is listed as a potential waste site in a newly revised draft of the North London Waste Plan which is to go out to public consultation this month.  Possibly with the intention of disguising this, the site is listed in the new draft as "Friern Barnet Sewage Works" - a reference to an entity which has not existed for many decades.

Log in to comment

Share this article

The Pinkham Way Alliance has issued the following message about what happened at last week's meeting of Haringey Council.

As Stephen Brice says, the new draft of the North London Waste Plan (PDF, 9MB) does include Pinkham Way in its list of proposed future waste sites - though it refers to the site as the "Friern Barnet Sewage Works" - something which has not existed for a very long time!

A profound thank you to the 200 or more of you who attended the Haringey Cabinet meeting last Tuesday night. A fantastic turnout!

Limited to 90 in the viewing gallery, there were more of us outside than in – apologies to those kept out. Be assured that your presence there was priceless.

Not least, because the impromptu meeting that we held outside afterwards was extremely heartening for those of us who have been leading this campaign for so long now.

Make no mistake, Haringey will be aware of and disturbed by how many of us turned up. And so they should be, because we witnessed a display of feigned democracy, one that I found actually embarrassing.

A group of electors in the chamber, raising serious questions about Council policy and integrity. Yet when the Chair asked Cabinet members for questions... not a solitary word.

In fact, the draft version of the North London Waste Plan (NLWP), affecting around two-million residents, was approved (to go forward to public consultation) in a matter of seconds.

You can read the full speech I would have made, had I not been cut short.
Two other councils (so far) have held off approving the draft plan before Haringey has finished a review of the site.

It's clear however that Haringey has caved in to bullying and steamrollered Pinkham Way into the draft waste plan, regardless of clear evidence and consultation rules.  Exactly what happened from 2009 onwards, since when Haringey officers have spent thousands of expensive hours trying to force this through, even as staff and budgets are cut.

In the light of Haringey's real priorities, and especially the regeneration of Tottenham, this is shameful.

Public consultation on this new waste plan draft could start at the end of July, ending in late September. The summer holidays, in other words – the ideal time for it to elicit the least possible comment.

We will, of course, be submitting a detailed response, and asking you to sign your name in support. In the meantime, please do not respond on the plan yourself. We have to supply a full copy of our own submission for every individual respondent, which results in high printing costs.

For now, have a great summer, and we'll be in touch again in a few weeks.
Kind regards,
Stephen Brice
Pinkham Way Alliance
Join the Facebook group
Join the Facebook group
Follow us on Twitter
Follow us on Twitter
Make a Donation
Make a Donation
Log in to comment