Share this article

The Pinkham Way Alliance is urging people to sign online in support of its response to the draft North London Waste Plan (NLWP). Their submission - "the culmination of 8 years of work and your activism" - calls for removal of the Pinkham Way nature conservation site (close to the Enfield/Barnet/Haringey borough boundaries) from a list of potential sites for new waste processing facilities.

Pinkham Way Alliance logo


Please add your name, below, in support of our response to the draft North London Waste Plan (NLWP). We’re calling for Pinkham Way to be removed.

This submission is the culmination of 8 years of work and your activism.

It documents in detail the disgraceful disregard that’s been shown for evidence and planning process, and for us as residents.

The councils and waste authority ignore our evidenced arguments, but soon we’ll have the attention of an independent Planning Inspector.

Make sure all you’ve done so far is followed through with maximum impact. Add your name, and, if you haven’t already, please help us pay for professional consultants.

Please sign by midnight on Wednesday 10 April. Every adult (18+) in your household can sign individually.

Your name will count as your submission to the NLWP; please do not make any additional individual submission.You can read an overview of our submission to the NLWP.

If you’ve given money already, many thanks. We’ve made a decent start, but there’s a long way until we reach our £10,000+ target, and we’ve only got until the end of summer to get there.

Rightly or wrongly, a submission made by respected planning consultants will carry more weight than the same submission by a residents’ group.

Please sign by midnight on Wednesday 10 April. Every adult (18+) in your household can sign individually.

Best wishes,Stephen Brice
Pinkham Way Alliance

Log in to comment

Karl Brown's Avatar
Karl Brown posted a reply #4471 02 Apr 2019 08:40
What’s this all about? There’s a complete iceberg of underwater aspects but just looking at some of the easy pickings:
North London (that’s us) generates 2.86m tonnes of waste pa (latest figures)
It has capacity of 4.42m tonnes to manage it.
That’s surplus capacity of 1.6m tonnes pa, or 35%.
Enough? North London is also net exporter of waste, so the available capacity should be even higher.
But apparently it’s not enough.
Equivalent capacity-gap maths recently saw an agreement to a large new incinerator at Edmonton which quickly had the waste authority identifying waste “opportunities” in a 50 mile radius (think eg Oxford and Reading) to fill it up.
Then there’s the £1m pa special budget line in the council’s accounts repaying the £60m outstanding loans which are a residue from an earlier Pinkham Way debacle. (That’s roughly this year’s cut in Enfield’s public health grant). It’s also on top of the approximately £40m in various associated costs and professional fees we’ve all met via the authorities cash flow (our Council Tax).
But earlier PWA efforts did help drive £900m of savings when the original “procurement “plans for Pinkham Way were dropped.
That’s what we do, because the history indicates this organisation needs to be held to account.
That’s why your signature, and even donation, in support of the current work is important.
Google Pinkham Way Alliance. Look at the photos. Add your name to the submission before it closes next week. It makes sense.
Karl Brown's Avatar
Karl Brown posted a reply #4472 03 Apr 2019 14:14
I should add this is a consultation relevant to the 7 boroughs / 2 million people of North London, so PWA encourage you to pass details on to relevant friends, family and networks.
PGC Webmaster's Avatar
PGC Webmaster posted a reply #4474 04 Apr 2019 00:30

This is a view of the woodland that north London councils want to earmark for industrial development - as a site for a waste processing plant. Photo is by Keith Attenborough and is one of a stunning series of wildlife photos - flora and fauna - on Flickr . Time to put a stop to this madness!
Karl Brown's Avatar
Karl Brown posted a reply #4478 04 Apr 2019 10:10
So lots of capacity headroom, a forecast of waste going ever upwards and yet consultants for the London Waste and Recycling Board produce a report to inform the London Plan which envisages a central scenario from a waste prevention strategy reducing total waste levels by 30% over the next 30 years, and 60% if we really go for it. So on one hand its lots of existing capacity and forecasts of ever more waste, on the other a sharp reduction in waste levels being expected from a more sensible approach to waste prevention. Would you go ahead and concrete over those photos of Pinkham Way against that background?

(BTW, this is the existing trend of our own waste – LACW being Local Authority Collected Waste.)

Karl Brown's Avatar
Karl Brown posted a reply #4492 13 Apr 2019 14:08
2,184 (two thousand one hundred and eighty four) residents chose to counter sign the representation put forward by the PWA yesterday to the Regulation 19 North London Waste Plan (NLWP). If even a minority choose to turn up at the public inquiry, currently expected in the autumn, it will make for a very full-house.

Tightly argued from many fronts across its 103 pages it is hard to see there being much of a case, if any at all, to include the Pinkham Way site in the NLWP. I’m sure a copy will be available on the PWA web site soon for those looking for useful bedtime reading.

Mind you, not everyone sees things this way, not least the sites planning authority – Haringey borough. Attached is a note providing comments from their web site after their Cabinet overturned the recommendation of their own Regulatory Committee and agreed to include the site in the NLWP.

Some headlines from what they state on their web:

“of some local nature conservation value” – The site was made a Grade 2 Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) in 1979, upgraded to Grade 1 in 1988, and is seen by Natural England as being of Metropolitan Importance, a category classed in the London Plan as having “the highest priority for protection”.

“no suitable alternate options”: that would be the near 100 hectares of Industrial Land, identified and agreed by the 7 partner boroughs, all specifically being the category of land identified in the London Plan as being suitable for waste use - Industrial Land.

Of the 7 North London Boroughs making up the NLWP, “all of whom have contributed land” – true, provided you exclude Camden and Islington who didn't.

“We (that’s Haringey) must do our fair share”. The “fair shares” run from no contribution (0%) at all (Camden and Islington), through 2% of the total (Hackney), 7% Barnet to the highest contribution at 37% of the total from Haringey. So that’s a fair share of more than over a third of the NLWP total.

“There are no alternative sites”: ignoring existing sites and considering the fresh land only, then true if you exclude the near 100 hectares of agreed Industrial Land, otherwise your pants are on fire.

“Including Pinkham Way is the only option”: again, excluding the near 100h of fresh land; London and local policy on intensifying use of the many existing waste sites; ignoring the manipulation of sites expected to close over the next decade outside of both London and local policy requirements; accepting some heroic upward forecasts of future waste expectations (the established trend is just the opposite); ignoring the impact of the Circular Economy (that’s basically reusing much of our waste) prepared by the London Waste and Recycling Board for the GLA seeing a 30% reduction in waste levels; and some other key points then perhaps yes, if you put your head deep enough into the sand.

“nothing to indicate it has any function as an area for recreation”, or you could look to the detail of the Village Green application and conclude otherwise.

And on and on and on and . (And don't forget that the NLWP has chosen to plan for about 40% more waste than the GLA requires it to.)

Those who have delved into the murk find it frequently stinks, so many thanks to all those who added their signature in support of what has been a lot of effort over a very long time. We can't unwind the £100m of the wasted cash of ours unnecessarily sunk in to this site so far, but we can now hopefully stop it getting any worse.
Karl Brown's Avatar
Karl Brown posted a reply #4499 23 Apr 2019 09:41
For those with a lot of time on their hands, or an interest, the PWA submission to the Regulation 19 North London Waste Plan is now available to download from the PWA web site ( ). In this process, the assumption is that the R19 NLWP is “sound”, ie should be approved without amendment. It is up to others, such as PWA, to prove why that is not the case. PWA would seem to have done a good job in that but it will be up to the independent inspector in the public hearing expected in the autumn to examine the evidence and make their decision. That means 2020 is likely to be a year of champagne or tears, certainly for the jumping spiders, various amphibians and other wildlife currently residing there or simply using it as a green corridor.

Find us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter

See also...

  • 01 July 2020
Open letter to waste authority chair shows that challenges to huge incinerator project continue

At last week's board meeting of the North London Waste Authority, the concerns of a remarkably broad coalition of opponents of the plan for a huge new incinerator were brushed aside by the authority's chair. But challenges to the project have not gone away, the latest being an open letter which, using unvarnished language, calls out the authority on one of the most basic items of data being used to justify the project. Read more

  • 13 June 2020
A tour of Firs Farm

In this video Louise Dennis takes us on a tour of Firs Farm - the wetlands, the ancient hedgerow and the Spinney, explaining their function and their importance. Read more

  • 10 June 2020
Beware: Rogue tree surgeons at work!

In response to a complaint from the Friends of the Lakes Estate Conservation Area about unauthorised tree surgery, an Enfield council officer has written warning against scams operated by rogue tree surgeons - in this case, by a firm called Acacia Tree Surgery. Read more

  • 03 June 2020
Urgent! Help keep the air clean and roads safer in central London

Two campaigning organisations have issued urgent appeals to respond to the Mayor of London's consultation on temporary changes to the Central London Congestion Charge and support the proposals, in order to help prevent the return of heavy traffic with consequent implications for air quality and increased road danger. The appeal has been made by Mum's For Lungs, a group set up to try to protect schoolchildren from toxic traffic fumes, and London Living Streets, which brings together London members of the charity which campaigns to rebalance the interests of road users. Read more

Subscribe to the weekly newsletter

Enter email then copy the letters in the captcha box


By submitting this form you agree that Palmers Green Community can send you a weekly email newsletter and store your email address

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link at the bottom of every newsletter