Agenda item

Motion A (2011/12)

Councillor Solomon has given notice that she will move in the following terms:

“This Council is opposed: 

·        To the use of the Pinkham Way site as an industrial scale waste plant

and

·        To the proposed relocation of Barnet Council’s waste lorry depot (which provides no advantages to Haringey’s residents)

This Council notes:

·        That there needs to be a long-term solution to the waste problem

·        The motion passed by the Muswell Hill, Fortis Green, Alexandra and Highgate Area Committee on 16th June 2011 against the proposals at Pinkham Way which said “That this Area Committee opposes the North London Waste Authority (NLWA) plans for a waste facility at Pinkham Way, and calls on the NLWA to drop the plans.”

·        Lynne Featherstone MP and local residents’ and residents’ groups campaigns against the plans for Pinkham Way

This Council deplores:

·        The secrecy with which the plan, proposal and change in land-use designations has been developed over the last two years

·        The lack of communication with residents and members by Haringey Council’s Labour representatives on the North London Waste Authority (NLWA)

·        Labour’s change of the land designation in November 2010, without wide consultation of local residents, which facilitated the progress of the Pinkham Way plans

·        The failure of Labour members on the NLWA to object to the Pinkham Way plans and represent the interests of our community 

This Council is alarmed:
   

·        At the scale of the proposed development at Pinkham Way and likely impact on local residents and schools

This Council resolves:

·        That the Leader of the Council should write to the Chief Executive of the NLWA to express councillors’ concerns over the consultation and the lack of information provided to residents and to request the application be withdrawn

·        To ask current and past Haringey Council members of the NLWA to detail their role in the decision-making process on the Pinkham Way development

·        To reaffirm the ecological designation of Pinkham Way and provide the maximum protection

·        That contrary to the process involved with the waste plan and this proposal that the interests of residents become central to decision-making”. 

Motion B (2011/12)

Councillor Watson has given notice that he will move in the following terms:

Local Government Pension Scheme

“This Council Believes:

·        The arbitrary 3.2% increase in employee contributions to the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) announced by George Osborne will force many current members of the scheme to leave. This will have damaging consequences for them as individuals and for the future viability of the scheme itself.

·        The characterisation of local government pensions as ‘gold plated’ is unjustified and in 2009/2010 the average LGPS annual pension was just £4052.

·        The LGPS, being a funded scheme, can be sustainable and affordable.       

This Council Resolves:

• To write to the chancellor asking he looks again at his proposals and demand the government enters into substantial dialogue with Local authorities and the trade unions to secure the future of the LGPS”.  

Motion A (2011/12)

It was moved by Councillor Solomon and seconded by Councillor Jenks that:

“This Council is opposed: 

·        To the use of the Pinkham Way site as an industrial scale waste plant

and

·        To the proposed relocation of Barnet Council’s waste lorry depot (which provides no advantages to Haringey’s residents)

This Council notes:

·        That there needs to be a long-term solution to the waste problem

·        The motion passed by the Muswell Hill, Fortis Green, Alexandra and Highgate Area Committee on 16th June 2011 against the proposals at Pinkham Way which said “That this Area Committee opposes the North London Waste Authority (NLWA) plans for a waste facility at Pinkham Way, and calls on the NLWA to drop the plans.”

·        Lynne Featherstone MP and local residents’ and residents’ groups campaigns against the plans for Pinkham Way

This Council deplores:

·        The secrecy with which the plan, proposal and change in land-use designations has been developed over the last two years

·        The lack of communication with residents and members by Haringey Council’s Labour representatives on the North London Waste Authority (NLWA)

·        Labour’s change of the land designation in November 2010, without wide consultation of local residents, which facilitated the progress of the Pinkham Way plans

·        The failure of Labour members on the NLWA to object to the Pinkham Way plans and represent the interests of our community 

This Council is alarmed:
   

·        At the scale of the proposed development at Pinkham Way and likely impact on local residents and schools

This Council resolves:

·        That the Leader of the Council should write to the Chief Executive of the NLWA to express councillors’ concerns over the consultation and the lack of information provided to residents and to request the application be withdrawn

·        To ask current and past Haringey Council members of the NLWA to detail their role in the decision-making process on the Pinkham Way development

·        To reaffirm the ecological designation of Pinkham Way and provide the maximum protection

·        That contrary to the process involved with the waste plan and this proposal that the interests of residents become central to decision-making. 

The meeting agreed to waive Council Procedure Rule 15 to permit the debate to extend beyond the 30 minute guillotine for an individual motion.

An amendment to the motion was moved by Councillor Strickland and seconded by Councillor Egan that:

(delete all after “This Council” and insert)

This Council “notes:

·        The proposed use of the Pinkham Way site by the North London Waste Authority (NLWA) as an industrial scale waste plant

·        The proposed relocation of Barnet Council’s waste lorry depot to the Pinkham Way site

·        That the North London Waste Plan will be subject to an Examination in Public by a Planning Inspector, commencing in February 2012

·        Haringey Council’s Constitution makes clear that Full Council is not the appropriate forum to make a decision on a particular planning application. The Constitution delegates this responsibility to the council’s cross-party planning sub committee.

·          

This Council further notes:

·        That there needs to be a long-term solution to the waste disposal and recycling needs of the seven North London boroughs.

·        That prior to the start of any formal consultation, Haringey Council has taken a pro-active approach to informing residents about the Pinkham Way planning application, including presentations at Area Committees and a meeting between the Leader of the Council and the Pinkham Way Alliance.

·        That the since the submission of the Pinkham Way outline planning application, planning officers have raised concerns with the Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Economic Development and Social Inclusion about the Council’s ability to progress the planning application without further detail.

·        That as a result of negotiations led by Haringey Council, the NLWA have recognised the Council’s concerns and agreed that an application, with more details to be submitted, should not be determined by Haringey Council until after receipt of the independent planning inspector’s report into the North London Waste Plan in 2012.      

·        The motion passed by the Muswell Hill, Fortis Green, Alexandra and Highgate Area Committee on 16th June 2011 against the proposals at Pinkham Way which said “That this Area Committee opposes the North London Waste Authority (NLWA) plans for a waste facility at Pinkham Way, and calls on the NLWA to drop the plans.

·        Campaigns by local elected representatives, local residents and residents’ groups against the plans for Pinkham Way.

This Council would encourage: 

·        Full and open discussion on the range of waste sites including Pinkham Way.

This Council will consider on its merits:    

·        The scale of any proposed development at Pinkham Way and the likely impact on local residents and schools. When assessing the potential impact the council will look at concerns such as traffic, noise, odour and other relevant issues.   

This Council resolves: 

·        That the Leader of the Council should write to the Chief Executive of the NLWA making clear the importance of the waste authority providing the detailed information needed in order for the council to proceed with a full and fair consultation and to provide any additional information requested to enable the council to properly consider all of the relevant issues.  

·        To ask the NLWA to detail the decision-making process on the Pinkham Way development

·        To note the ecological designation of Pinkham Way and the protection that designation provides

·        To run a fair, transparent and open consultation process on the planning application to ensure that affected residents in Haringey, Barnet and Enfield can exercise their right to have their views considered”.    

The amendment to the motion was declared CARRIED, following a recorded vote, as follows:

For the Amendment: The Mayor (Councillor Adamou ), Councillors Amin,  Bevan, Brabazon, Bull, Christophides, Cooke, Diakides, Egan, Ejiofor, Gibson, Goldberg, Griffith, Khan, Kober, Mallett, Reith, Stanton, Stennett, Strickland, Vanier, and Watson.

Against the Amendment: Councillors Alexander, Allison, Bloch, Butcher, Davies, Engert, Gorrie, Jenks, Reece, Scott, Solomon, Strang, Weber, Whyte, Wilson and Winskill.

Absent:  Councillors Basu, Browne, Canver, Demirci, Dogus, McNamara, Meehan, Rice and Waters. Present but did not vote or participate: Councillors Beacham, Erskine, Hare, Newton, Reid and Schmitz.

On being put the substantive Motion was declared CARRIED (21 for, 16 against).

Motion B (2011/12)

Motion B was not reached due to the late hour.