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.

pinkhamwaymap

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

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.

logo

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 REMOVED

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.

'EMPLOYMENT' DESIGNATION REMAINS...

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.

...BUT FOR HOW LONG?

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.

NEXT STEPS

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
Chair
Pinkham Way Alliance

xxx

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.

Links

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 www.pinkhamwayalliance.org . It really does help.

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
Chair
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.

www.pinkhamwayalliance.org

(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

 

HARINGEY LOCAL PLAN: STRATEGIC POLICIES REVIEW 2016
REGULATION 19 CONSULTATION


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
Chair
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

xxx

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!

THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT!
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.
 
WHAT NEXT?
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
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

Share this article

Latest Pinkham Way Alliance briefing - July 2015

 

North London Waste Plan – to be considered by Haringey on Tuesday, July 14th .  

The draft plan is going through the 7 Councils’ Cabinets/Committees . It is  being considered/approved for  consultation, which will start at the end of July and finish end-September. This is still quite an early stage –  adoption of the plan is not scheduled until Autumn 2017, so there’s plenty of excitement still to come!!  

The Pinkham Way site is, we’re sorry  but not surprised to say, included. It had also been included in a 2014 draft.   

As long ago as June 2014, PWA wrote to UrbanVision, NLWP consultants, after a Focus Group Meeting whichdealt with site selection criteria, complaining a) of bias as a result of the continuing determination to include the site and b) of untrue statements in the site description

Camden approved the draft waste plan for consultation on June 10th . They have been followed by  Enfield on July  7th, and Barnet (9th).  Haringey (14th), Islington (16th), Hackney (20th) and Waltham Forest (21st) end the process.  

We appeared at the Enfield meeting and sent a letter to the Barnet Committee, which we also attended. We’ll be  sending letters to all the others as well.  

The Cabinets are also dealing with the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), an agreement between the 7  Councils as to how the process of drafting and developing the plan will be organised.  

Initially, the MoU  had a confidentiality clause which stipulated that the whole process be done in secret, and even  the fact that it was secret was to be kept secret – in perpetuity. We objected on grounds of unacceptable  secrecy ahead of Camden’s meeting on June 10th . (Link to letter)  

Discussion of the MoU at that  meeting was deferred and the clause has now been modified. We still, however,  have major concerns at the drive to keep any public scrutiny at bay.  

Pinkham Way – LBH Site Allocations  

You may remember that, in December 2012, the Inspector rejected the Council’s attempt to re-designate the site  as Industrial Land, and recommended a full review of the site for the Site Allocation process. This, he said, should  include;  

  •  Assessment of Open Space value  
  •  Assessment of ‘site specific’ features, such as the culverted stream  
  •  Biodiversity  
  •  the soundness of the dual designation of Employment/SINC  

In March 2013, LBH made a public statement, pledging ‘openness and transparency’ in making decisions on  Pinkham Way, and including the following specific undertakings:  

  • An Open Space/Biodiversity study  
  • Decisions on the designation to take into account the ‘findings and recommendations’ of the Inspector’s Report  
  • Decisions on designation, and subsequently on whether the site should be offered for the NLWP, to be taken by Cabinet in public  
  • In addition to this, the relevant Cabinet member has repeated several times that decisions will be 100%  ‘evidence-based’  

Has Haringey fulfilled the Inspector’s recommendations?  

  • Although the Council did a borough-wide Open Space study covering 90 sites, Pinkham Way was not included   
  • No study done on de-culverting the stream which runs north across the site. (The EA made strong recommendations for this in their SA submission of March 2014). We submitted work on this as part of our March 2015 submission.
  • Biodiversity study – consultant made this comment on the site: ‘ … large, undisturbed site … a rare resource for Haringey of high ecological value’.
  • (The site’s overall ‘wasteland’ habitat is one of 11 London Priority Habitats; within it there is a small area of Open Mosaic, a UK Priority Habitat. The site has around 1500 trees and well over 100 species of plants, plus a small number of endangered birds and other species. Identified by ex-London Wildlife Trust Habitat Survey Officer, in PWA Ecological Study 2013, as ‘important’ link in Green Chain) The site’s Employment Designation
  • The Council’s advisors dismissed the site’s suitability for employment on its own. Atkins suggested that an assessment for viability by introducing a higher value element such as housing should be done – a study which was done for other major sites in Haringey and submitted as evidence by the Council.
  • Although this borough-wide viability assessment was submitted as evidence by the Council for the Site Allocation consultation in March 2015, no assessment of Pinkham Way was included.
  • A Freedom of Information request some six weeks after the consultation ended finally revealed a separate assessment. This purported to show that housing was viable to support employment, but only by using lower development costs than the assessments of all other LBH sites. Estimated remediation costs used in the study appear substantially lower than latest published guidance, which indicates a sum between 2 and 5 times as great.
  • PWA has challenged the assessment’s validity
  • Why should this apparent manipulation of figures be necessary? It should be remembered that, in order to be included in the NLWP, the employment designation MUST be retained.
  • The Public Examination for Haringey’s site Allocations is scheduled for Feb 2016. While we can’t stop Haringey ignoring inconvenient evidence ad infinitum, there comes a time when ALL the evidence is independently examined by a Planning Inspector, and this is what will happen in February. THAT INCLUDES THE EMPLOYMENT DESIGNATION.
  • We anticipate that the inspector will find the site’s employment designation to be unsound. In that
  • case the site would be designated just as a SINC.
  • If it stays in the NLWP simply as a Grade 1 SINC, Priority Habitat etc, its inclusion could not be sustained.

Has Haringey assessed all available evidence?

No. Considering it has omitted to gather evidence which it should reasonably have gathered – and which it was recommended to gather - the Council cannot possibly argue that.

Has it assessed all evidence submitted?

No

  • On May 20th , PWA met LBH planners, the planners having previous undertaken to have studied PWA’s March 2015 SA submission by the time of the meeting. At the meeting they admitted they hadn’t. Subsequently, they claimed to have assessed our evidence and stated that the site would still be put forward for the draft NLWP
  • Early in June, the Agenda Reports for Camden were published, among them the draft NLWP, which included the Pinkham Way site.
  • The draft was dated May 6th . So the NLWP draft was completed without our evidence having been considered.

How does this leave the LBH Cabinet?

On July 14 th , the Cabinet will not, in our opinion, be ‘making decisions’ within the interpretation of the March 2013 statement. The decision has already been made, and the Cabinet’s position undermined by its own officers and those of other councils acting in secret, who have done exactly the same as in the previous plan. (This is why we pressed Haringey to make their statement in 2013.) In effect, the Cabinet is being challenged by them to overturn the decision to include the site. Our view is borne out by the submission of Enfield Council to LBH’s March 2014 SA consultation, advising Haringey ‘to ensure first’ that any decision on the site ‘does not prejudice waste site provision in relation to the NLWP’.
It’s our view that Enfield was speaking for the other NLWP councils.

The closing paragraph’s beginning ‘I really do suggest you give consideration to the above points’ is, to be polite, rather over-assertive!

Stephen Brice
July 9th 2015.

VITAL MEETING THIS TUESDAY 6.30PM
It is imperative that we’re there in strength in Wood Green next Tuesday (14 July), to show Haringey that breaking all but one of its 2013 pledges about Pinkham Way has not gone unnoticed. Far from it.

Haringey has recently told us that a Waste Transfer Station (WTS) would be an acceptable use of Pinkham Way.
BROKEN PROMISES
In March 2013, Haringey gave us a handful of public promises about how it would proceed with respect to Pinkham Way...
To do a biodiversity study
TRUE
"a rare resource of high ecological value"
To be "open and transparent"
FALSE
Material evidence hidden
To assess its Open Space value
FALSE
Site omitted from borough-wide study
To follow Planning Inspector's recommendations
FALSE
Two out of three ignored
To make any decision to include site in the North London Waste Plan (NLWP) publicly at Cabinet level
FALSE
Planning officers have already included it

Read Haringey’s full 2013 pledge (and weep) here.

Read our new briefing on the NLWP and Haringey's manoeuvring here.
 
PLEASE BE THERE THIS TUESDAY
Haringey Cabinet is due to vote on whether to approve the draft of the new NLWP, which currently includes the Pinkham Way site.

I’ll be asking the Cabinet to postpone approval of the draft NLWP until the site has been reviewed in accordance with the Planning Inspector’s 2012 recommendations, and the outcome of that review is known.

I’ll be speaking near the start of 6.30pm, and you’ll be free even before 7pm.

Haringey Cabinet Meeting, 6.30pm, Tuesday 14 July, Civic Centre, Wood Green, N22 8LE
Lastly, when we make our case at a planning inspection again in February, we'll require funds to pay for professional representation, as before.

We estimate £15,000+. Please donate if you can.
Kind regards,
 
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

Share this article

The Pinkham Way Alliance has today sent an urgent message to its supporters warning of a new threat to Pinkham Wood.

pwa logo newsletter top

 

HERE WE GO AGAIN...

I’m very sorry to have to inform you that plans for a huge waste plant at Pinkham Way are back.

This is a very serious turn of events, and on Tuesday 14 July, we must briefly attend a council meeting in Wood Green to let Haringey know how angry we are.

ANOTHER WASTE PLANT?!

Barnet Council aims to relocate its 6-acre Cricklewood Waste Transfer Station (WTS) to the PW site, working again with the North London Waste Authority (NLWA).

Any plant handling black-bag waste can have major problems with odour and fly infestations.

WTS facilities are a particular fire risk. Statistics show that, between 2011 and 2013, there was a fire at a UK WTS almost every three days. And Barnet’s would be directly adjacent both to the A406 and to the East Coast Main Line. Just the place then.

The number of daily lorry movements will approach that of the previous, abandoned waste plant proposal, on one of the most polluted and congested road stretches in London, whose problems result, as we know too well, in regular traffic saturation on local roads.

HOW IS THIS HAPPENING?

As ever, the planning policy underlying the situation is complex. But the shabby manoeuvrings of Haringey and of some of the North London Waste Plan (NLWP) officers and advisers are dismally familiar.

I’ll be in touch again soon to give you more detail. If you want to know more now, you can read about it on our website.

WE MUST BE THERE IN FORCE ON TUE 14 JULY

If permitted, I’ll be addressing the senior Haringey politicians briefly at the start of their cabinet meeting, on Tuesday 14 July, 6.30pm, Haringey Civic Centre, Wood Green, N22 8LE.

The Haringey cabinet is on the verge of making key decisions about the future of Pinkham Way. Without question, we must fill the public gallery and more.

My speech will be short; your visit will be over in barely half-an-hour. Please put the date in your diary, and let your friends and neighbours know.

Kind regards,

Stephen Brice
Chair
Pinkham Way Alliance

Barnet's plan to build a waste plant on Pinkham Way contradicts the view that the fact that the North London Waste Authority now wishes to build a huge waste incinerator in Edmonton means that Pinkham Wood is now safe from development.

The public consultation on the Edmonton proposals has only five days left to run, as explained int his message:

Hello,

We're emailing you regarding the North London Heat and Power Project, as you asked to be kept informed via email.

The North London Heat and Power Project is all about proposals to replace the existing Energy from Waste facility at the EcoPark in Edmonton with an Energy Recovery Facility by 2025.

There is now one week left until the end of the second phase of consultation. If you would like to give feedback on proposals before they are submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) in the autumn, please do so before 5pm on 30 June.

PINS will then hold its own examination, before making a recommendation to the Secretary of State who will make the final decision on the project. If you want to comment after 30 June, please see http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/planning/ for how to do this.

To submit feedback on proposals before 30 June, comments must be made in writing by:

  • Completing a feedback form on our website: www.northlondonheatandpower.london
  • Email:
  • Sending a hard copy of the feedback form to: FREEPOST HEAT AND POWER

All comments welcome - you can write as much or as little as you like.

Kind regards,

North London Heat and Power Project Team

Phone: 020 8489 3940

Twitter: @NLHPP

Facebook: North London Heat and Power Project

For earlier discussion about this project, see our forums.  A crucial point is that this £500 milllion project is being planned at a time when North London does not have an agreed waste plan and therefore no forecast of how much waste there will be to burn at Edmonton.  As you can read in the North London Waste Plan May 2015 newsletter, adoption of a new plan is some way off:

Launch consultation (Regulation 18):     Spring 2013
Consultation on draft plan (Regulation 18):     Summer/Autumn 2015
Consultation on proposed submission plan (Regulation 19) :    Summer 2016
Submission (Regulation 22) :    Autumn 2016
Public hearings:     Winter 2016/17
Inspector’s report :    Summer 2017
:Autumn 2017

Log in to comment