SGA have supported The Pinkham Way Alliance in their on going representations to The North London Waste Authority, The Planning Inspectorate, and Local Councils against the use of the site for Waste Transfer and processing . The first plan has been shelved however the preparation of a new North London Waste Plan is now underway. Have your say by responding to the ‘have your say’ section of the NLWP website.
Member Email addresses
Once again, we ask that if you have an email address and you haven’t given it to us, please do so. We won’t pass it on to anyone, and it is a quicker, cheaper and more environmentally friendly way for us to contact you.
Walker School Expansion – URGENT
Walker School Expansion- Statutory Notice for increasing Pupil numbers has now been posted on the school gates and in the Enfield Gazette on November 14th.
SGA are still considering comments but here’s what you need to know and can do:
Here is the FULL statutory notice with information about the immediate local context. There is also the report of the Walker School Consultation meetings and comments – November 2012. Please read both. Consultation is underway as to whether or not the school should expand.
If you decide to comment, please consider including:
Whether or not you attended any meetings about the expansion of Walker, or pre-planning meetings and in what capacity, i.e. resident, parent, waiting list parent, former parent
Whether or not the demand for LOCAL (as opposed to Enfield as a whole) places were addressed sufficiently for you to make an informed comment.
Whether or not the two separate processes of the principle of expansion and how that might be achieved on a confined site were clear to you.
Please send copies of comments to your local cllrs and MP.
September 2012 Update
Ground Force Day
This year’s Ground Force day will take place on Saturday September 22nd between 10.30am and 12.30pm. Please join us if you can for our annual clean up of the Conservation Area. Offers of help to Denise Gandhi (8886 3632) or just come along and pick up bags, brooms etc from a table which will be placed by the stocks (near the roundabout). This year we plan to focus on tidying up Minchenden Oak Garden, as well as a general litter pick of the area. Sadly, SGA has been banned from tending the roundabout on Health and Safety grounds.
Update on Proposed Waste Processing Plant at Pinkham Way
At the hearing of the North London Waste Plan a few weeks ago the Inspector found that the Plan was legally unsound. The North London Waste Authority had failed to cooperate with adjacent boroughs outside the capital which receive a significant proportion of the Authority’s waste. The Authority now has to withdraw the existing plan and start again or try to fix the problem.
At a hearing in February the Inspector refused to allow LB Haringey to redesignate the Pinkham Way site as industrial land. Haringey’s Core Strategy (renamed Strategic Policies) is now open for consultation on the Inspector’s changes to the proposed Policies. We will keep members informed of developments.
Minchenden Oak Garden
A plan has been submitted to LB Enfield for Community Funding for the proposed refurbishment of Minchenden Oak Garden. The plan can be seen on the SGA website (www.southgategreen.org.uk).
The intention is to make the garden more accessible and attractive without destroying its present character, and it is hoped that SGA members and other community groups will wish to be involved in the preparatory work. For further information or to offer help, contact SGA Chair Chris Horner on 8886 7833
Subscriptions
Subs are now due for 2012/13. Your subs keep the Association going and contribute to improvements within the Conservation Area. So if you’re not up-to-date with your subscription please would you drop a cheque for £10 to the Secretary at the address below.
Update on the proposal for a Waste Processing Plant at Pinkham Way
Background update
North London Waste Authority (NLWA) and Barnet Council submitted an outline planning application to Haringey Council at the end of May 2011. The application was for a 300,000 tonne Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) Waste facility for the NLWA and a vehicle depot for Barnet’s refuse and transport vehicles. Legal challenges were put to Haringey about the status of the application and eventually Haringey conceded that the application could not be validated. Barnet, NLWA and Haringey eventually agreed the application would be put on hold until after the North London Waste Plan Examination in Public has taken place (currently due summer 2012).
We know now that Private Finance Initiative (PFI) funding for the Pinkham Way Waste Plant was withdrawn from NLWA in October 2010 on the grounds that “on reasonable assumptions, these projects will no longer be needed in order to meet the 2020 landfill diversion targets set by the European Union….” So the question now arises as to where NLWA/developers will get funding, especially in this economic climate. http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2010/10/20/changes-to-pfi-programme/.
We also recently became aware that that NLWA has completed the purchase of part of the Pinkham Way site, without the benefit of planning permission. What will they do with it if they don’t get permission for a waste plant, or indeed if they find it is not suitable for any type of development (see more below)? Was this a sensible use of just over £12 million of public money?
NLWA Procurement Process – delays and withdrawals
The NLWA Procurement process has not been smooth. There have been delays, and bidders have been withdrawing. There are now only two companies left to battle it out for a major £1 billion ‘fuel use’ contract, after US incineration company Covanta decided to ‘suspend’ its bid in February this year. The company was one of three bidders to be shortlisted in April 2011 for a 30-year ‘fuel use’ deal to burn 250,000-300,000 tonnes-a-year of solid recovered fuel (SRF) produced from residual waste, alongside Veolia and a consortium involving energy giant E.ON and Wheelabrator who are now the only two left in the process.
Alongside the fuel use deal, NLWA is also procuring a long-term ‘waste services’ contract. This is for the provision of recycling, composting, residual waste treatment, SRF production, transport and Household Waste & Recycling Centre services. Following the withdrawal of SITA UK Ltd in 2011, just two companies are also left in the running for this contract, which is worth approximately £3 billion. These are: Veolia and a consortium involving FCC and Skanska. http://www.nlwa.gov.uk/procurement/fuel-use
The two contracts will need to be aligned, and a number of issues flow from that, for example, what happens if one or other contractor does not perform as expected, who picks up the shortfall? Are the 7 North London boroughs fully aware of what that means over the life of the contract? What impact will it have on our council tax bills if it doesn’t work out?
The North London Waste Plan
Consultation on the North London Waste Plan (NLWP) closed in July 2011. Amongst other issues with the plan, major deficiencies were found in the technical report supporting the selection of Pinkham Way. We believe that had the scoring been done correctly, Pinkham Way would never have been included as a potential site. The NLWP was due to be submitted by Sept 2011. It was finally submitted on 28 February 2012. There will be an Examination in Public (EiP) by an Independent Planning Inspector to determine whether the plan is sound. The Examination in Public is likely to take place in June or July 2012. More information on this is available on the NLWP website http://www.nlwp.net/examination/examination.html
Barnet Council seems set to win on all fronts if the Pinkham Way selection is confirmed. They will free up their Mill Hill site (currently being used for their transport depot), for a new housing development opposite the Tube station. This not only gets rid of their noisy nuisance into Haringey but also releases prime housing land which will produce a nice financial boost to Barnet. Plus they’ve already been paid £12 million for only part of the site at Pinkham Way which they have never been able to use, which has access difficulties, and which doesn’t have planning permission for anything let alone a waste plant.
Report from Re-Examination in Public of Haringey’s Core Strategy February 2012
Haringey’s Core Strategy was also challenged last Wednesday (22nd) at a second Examination in Public into Haringey’s plan. In particular, their proposal to change the designation of Pinkham Way from Employment land to Locally Significant Industrial Site (LSIS).
The change of use appears to have been stimulated by pressure from NLWA, who not only sent Haringey a long letter in June 2010 requesting a number of changes to their CS, but also held meetings with them. The contents of the June letter indicates a clear intention to get the necessary changes to Haringey’s policy to ease the planning application through the planning process and to ease the NLWP through the EiP. The London Plan has identified SIL (Strategic Industrial Locations) and LSIS (Local Strategic Industrial Sites) as being suitable for waste facilities. Employment Land would not be a natural candidate although it possibly could be if the right case was made out, but it would be harder to prove. It would make it much easier if Pinkham Way was designated LSIS so that it was clearly in the category of sites identified in the London Plan as being suitable for waste facilities.
Under some tough questioning, by Paul Singleton (a Planning Consultant retained by the Pinkham Way Alliance), and by Evelyn Ryan (SGA committee member), and by the inquiry Inspector, Haringey conceded a number of important points:
(a) that Pinkham Way was not an established industrial site as they had claimed in their supporting plan documents;
(b) that Pinkham Way was “not suitable for 24 hour use”
(c) that if Pinkham Way was not designated LSIS it would make little difference because the existing Employment Land designation would allow a Waste facility application to be considered anyway;
(d) that the removal of the existing Employment designation from Pinkham Way would have little practical impact on their employment land availability as there was no actual floorspace on the site;
Evelyn Ryan submitted written evidence, with supporting photographs and plans (some obtained under the Freedom of Information Act), showing that Pinkham Way should not be categorized as brownfield or previously developed land because it falls within the exceptions to the definition of brownfield/previously developed land set out in the London Plan. This specifically excludes “land that was previously developed but where the remains of the permanent structure or fixed surface structure have blended into the landscape in the process of time (to extent that it can reasonably be considered as part of the natural surroundings)”. She argued that the Pinkham Way site falls squarely within the exception and is now in fact greenfield land. The Council’s response was not convincing, and they did not challenge the evidence submitted.
The Inspector asked the Council what the implications would be for the NLWP if Pinkham Way was not brownfield land and the Council said “we would have to take advice from the North London Waste Plan manager. There would be some implication but we would have to discuss it” In other words, there would be an impact, because the London Plan directs waste authorities to allocate sites for waste in a particular order, first allocating industrial sites and then locally significant industrial sites, brownfield sites etc. Sites which are greenfield and SINCs would be the last to be considered suitable for waste development and then only in very exceptional circumstances.
The council chamber and public gallery were packed for most of the day until the debate on Pinkham Way finished at about 5.30pm. The Inspector was quite impressed with the turnout because he commented on it more than once. A big thank you to those who attended. It was a remarkable day. The outcome of the hearing will be known when the Inspector publishes his report at the end of April/early May 2012.
It was mentioned during the EiP hearing that Coppets Wood (opposite Pinkham Way but in Barnet) has the same history as Pinkham Way (former sewage works – same period) and is now a nature reserve managed by the local community. It was also mentioned that a Village Green application had been lodged with Haringey Council by one of the residents who lives adjacent to the Pinkham Way site. We await the outcome of that application.
North Circular Action Area Plan – Enfield Council
Some discussion took place about the North Circular Action Area Plan currently being developed by Enfield Council (some of it is already implemented). The millions of pounds of public money spent on upgrading the NCR would be wasted if Pinkham Way were redeveloped as a Waste Site because the improvements would be overwhelmed by the additional congestion caused by more than 1,000 trips per day by waste trucks using the proposed waste plant and depot. A good response to Enfield’s consultation on this action plan would be useful and we would urge everyone to have a look at the Enfield website to see what is being proposed for the area around the NCR. Enfield is one of the 7 North London boroughs who comprise the NLWA and therefore are in a position of possible conflict about whether to support or oppose the NLWA plans for Pinkham Way. This might be a useful focus to raise with your local Enfield Councillors.
Future co-ordination of our efforts
At a recent briefing meeting with the SGA committee members, David Burrowes MP agreed to hold another public meeting once the Localism Act is on the statute book. There was agreement about the importance of involving heads of local schools. It is possible that under the Act the community may be able to put together a bid for the land. However, there would be the difficulty of determining its value in the absence of planning consent. However, eco-system analysis, developed primarily as a Treasury evaluation tool, might facilitate valuation of the site.
Details of the Examination in Public of the NLWP will be notified when we know more.
© Southgate Green Association
Objections to Pinkham Way proposals
SUMMARY OF OBJECTIONS SUBMITTED TO THE NORTH LONDON WASTE PLAN (Proposed Submission Version May 2011) ON 8 JULY
‘The Plan’ is unsound because it is riddled with contradictions and confusion.
The Plan period is up to 2027 NOT to 2041. All the evidence covers the period up to 2017. There is no evidence for the claim that “in order to meet the longer term management of municipal waste until 2041 some larger sites are needed immediately and hence … two sites totalling 9.23 hectares are identified. If NLWA wish to plan for the period 2017 to 2041 they should produce a new plan for that period. Their own evidence suggests that “Further assessment of new and emerging technologies will need to be undertaken by the NLWA as they progress towards letting a new contract for waste management services from 2014.
The evidence does not support the need for this MBT plant, on the contrary, waste levels are falling. The evidence shows that existing, and already planned capacity, will far outstrip the amount needed until at least 2021. There has been a steady slowing of growth in municipal waste … and “the residual waste stream has actually fallen whilst extensive improvements in local recycling and composting services have occurred …” When the work is undertaken to analyse waste management needs beyond 2027, that will be the time to identify whether or not additional sites will be needed.
Errors of fact and methodology in the assessment and scoring of sites
- Pinkham Way should not have been included at all as it falls into the category of a site within an area in the show stopper category.
- Proximity to railheads and/or navigable waterway wrongly marked. It is not near either. Adding 3 instead of subtracting 3 gives an error of 6 points in favour of a site for a factor that ought to count against choosing that site.
- Air quality – not properly considered. If it were the score would not favour the proposed site. Adding to the existing problem in this area more than 1,000 trips per day by heavy vehicles is inconsiderate and dangerous
- Prevailing wind and topology not taken into account. Southgate Green at ground level is approximately 26m higher than the Pinkham Way site, and therefore only 9m below the top of the proposed chimney. Bedroom windows in Southgate Green would be perfectly aligned with the chimney emissions!
- Visual impact can not be mitigated. The height of the proposed building (23m) and chimney (35m) ensure that there is no form of mitigating measure that could prevent a significant negative visual impact on the surrounding residential areas. The evaluator multiplied 3 by 3 to score 9 turning a detriment into a bigger benefit. The correct score should have been minus 9, so the evaluator has introduced a substantial error in favour of the site.
- Site Access from Trunk Roads wrongly assessed. The maximum score of 5 ignores the road distance resulting from the markedly differing height of the site compared to the A406 roadway. There is no direct access from the A406. Vehicles arriving from the east must exit the A406 on the westbound slip road to the Colney Hatch Lane (B550) flyover, and cross four traffic lanes at the traffic signals to position themselves to turn right. Then turn right onto the Colney Hatch Lane and right again at a second set of traffic lights to get on to the eastbound slip road leading to the Friern Retail Park, turning right at the roundabout to access the road bridge (Pegasus Way) at the end of which is a second roundabout and access to the site. Distance from the A406 = 0.78 miles or 1.27k
- Vehicles exiting to the east must first take the westbound slip road (known as Orion Way) from the site to the Colney Hatch Lane flyover, and cross four traffic lanes of traffic at the traffic signals to position themselves to turn right. Then turn right onto the Colney Hatch Lane and right again at a second set of traffic lights to get on to the eastbound slip road leading to the A406 eastbound. Distance to the A406 = 0.7 miles or 1.22k
- Vehicles arriving from the west must exit the A406 on the eastbound slip road to the Colney Hatch Road flyover, cross the flyover at the traffic signals, on to the eastbound slip road leading to the Friern Retail Park, turning right at the roundabout to access the road bridge (Pegasus Way) at the end of which is a second roundabout and access to the site. Distance from the A406 = 0.85 miles or 1.38k
- Vehicles exiting to the west must take the westbound slip road from the site to the Colney Hatch Lane flyover, cross two traffic lanes to position themselves to cross the flyover at the traffic signals. Then on to the westbound slip road leading to the A406. Distance to the A406 = 0.75 miles or 1.27k
- Routing of vehicles to site scored a maximum of 5 by ignoring the impact on existing congestion on Colney Hatch Lane flyover which is already a notorious traffic congestion spot in the locality. Every trip to and from the site must use this bridge.
- Breakdown/Sustainability. The slip roads referred to above are 7 metres wide, comprising a single motor traffic lane and a cycle lane. Were a refuse truck to break down on one of these roads other traffic, especially other refuse trucks, would be unable to continue. With an average of 83 trips per hour (one every 45 seconds), the frequency and length of these vehicles would rapidly tailback to fill the slip roads, Pegasus Way Bridge, Colney Hatch Lane flyover and inner lanes of the A406, along with traffic using Tesco’s huge supermarket and petrol station etc. How long it would take to remove a broken vehicle. They may first need to clear the obstructing tailback by reversing all these cumbersome vehicles out. How many hours would it take to clear these tailbacks, what if an emergency vehicle (fire ambulance etc) needed to gain access to the site?
Conclusions on NLWP Proposed Submission May 2011
The Report is not soundly based; it is riddled with inconsistencies and is not based on proper evidence. It is not clear about the period it is planning for and the methodology used for scoring in the supporting London Waste Plan Technical Report May 2011 is wrong in its method and calculation. If the scoring had been applied correctly for all the headings associated with the Pinkham Way site the score would have been 59 and not the erroneous 102.
Evelyn Ryan
(A copy of Evelyn Ryan’s full statement can be supplied on request. A copy of the objection submitted by The Pinkham Way Alliance can be seen at http://www.pinkhamwayalliance.org/. See also The North London Waste Plan and the full set of supporting evidence on their website http://www.nlwp.net/
Proposal to Develop Minchenden Garden
Proposal to reinvigorate Minchenden Oak Garden
We are currently developing a proposal to be submitted to Enfield Council to reinvigorate and refresh Minchenden Oak Garden – a hidden gem in Southgate (opposite the entrance to the Walker Ground in Waterfall Road).
The oak tree in this garden is estimated to be 800 years old and is thought to be a survivor of the ancient Forest of Middlesex. Southgate Green Association is proposing the restoration and enhancement of the Minchenden Oak Garden, which is managed by LBE on behalf of the local community.
Southgate Green Association proposes that the Garden is restored, re-landscaped, repaired, and made accessible to provide the community with a resource for recreation, contemplation and learning for all ages.
The proposals and ideas are outlined in our presentation. We understand that Enfield Council has set aside a sum of money for community projects such as this to benefit each Ward in Enfield and that a substantial sum of money has been allocated to the Southgate Green Ward.
You can see the plans for the proposals at the SGA AGM. If you like what you see, please confirm your support for this project and urge Enfield Council to allocate part of the funds for this worthwhile project by signing the petition. If you are unable to attend the AGM please write to us indicating your support for the project.