Agenda item

i.                                                                    Pinkham Way

The Chair asked that Councillor Solomon give a brief comment and outline of the issues raised during the Forum part of the evening.  The Chair also advised that any Committee Member who also sat on the Council’s Planning Sub-Committee or was a potential substitute member should consider whether they would wish not to comment or give a view on this item as if they did then it would preclude their participation in the agenda item when considered by Planning Sub-Committee in the future.

Councillor Solomon commented on the proposals and process as outlined by Mr Dorfman from the Council’s Planning Service which in her view had been somewhat misleading. In particular the information contained on the Council’s website in relation to the application being in ‘outline’.  She stressed that there were no visual plans of the actual size or appearance of the proposals and that the visual concept would only be forthcoming once the outline planning permission had been granted, and a process was then gone through for a designer to draw up a ‘mock up of the facilities – only at that point would residents have any idea of its size and appearance and this would be after permission had been given for a certain scale of facility to be built.

Councillor Solomon also commented that this proposed development site, as far as she could gather, was not contained in the London Plan as a strategic site. She added that the planning process for this initiative was an on-going one and that Members had to be vigilant of the process in order to ensure that residents were fully informed when needed.

Councillor Williams commented that the site was viewed as being a strategic site but this seemed to imply a predetermination of the use of the site already and that this issue was being explored by objectors from a legal perspective.

Councillor Hare stressed that he had earlier questioned whether the Planning officer Mr Dorfman had the necessary expertise to assess an application of such size and that he would wish to know further how he would be investigating the more technical aspects of the application, and how such outcome would be verified.

The Chair reminded Councillor Hare that it was not appropriate for him to question the professional capabilities of an officer of the Council.

Councillor Solomon reiterated her earlier comments that the Committee needed to keep a watchful eye on the progress of the application.

Councillor Solomon then moved the following resolution.

At this point the Clerk to the Committee asked that Members please state if they were abstaining from the proposed MOTION.

Councillor Solomon MOVED 

“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. 

Whilst we recognise the need to plan reasonably for waste disposal, this must not be through the location of huge plant in a residential area with the additional movement of large lorries that will result.

We further oppose plans for the use of the site by Barnet LB as a lorry park. The London Borough of Barnet should make arrangements for the parking of such vehicles in its own Borough. “

 The motion was seconded by Councillor Williams.

On a vote the MOTION was carried.

Councillors Alison, Newton and Hare abstained from voting on the MOTION

RESOLVED

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. 

Whilst this Committee recognise the need to plan reasonably for waste disposal, this must not be through the location of huge plant in a residential area with the additional movement of large Lorries that will result.

That this Committee further oppose plans for the use of the site by Barnet LB as a lorry park. The London Borough of Barnet should make arrangements for the parking of such vehicles in its own Borough.

Councillors Alison, Newton and Hare asked that their abstention to the above resolution be recorded as they could be substitutes for Planning Committee.

ii.                  Making the Difference 2011/12

The Chair told the Committee that she had been advised earlier that week that there would be a budget of up to £25k for Making the Difference for the Committee area for 2011/12 following some discussion by the Council as to whether this would be possible.

The Chair advised that there were now some logistical issues to overcome given that the available funding had to be spent by 31 March 2012 and therefore there would not be the previous levels of local consultation as before. It was also acknowledged that there were no Neighbourhood Management staff to help deliver projects so that proposed projects would need to come from recognised resident groups with a bona fide constitution within each ward who would also need to implement any funded projects themselves within the budget allocation.

Frontline services were instructed to prepare draft application forms and terms of reference based on the previous areas application material as a matter of urgency. The draft material would be forwarded to the Chair who would circulate to Committee Members to agree any amendments before the application material was distributed. Applications would then need to be forwarded on to groups almost immediately with a response date and that Councillors would need to use their individual contact lists as well as the database of Frontline Services.

Frontline Services would need to check eligibility, viability and value for money of all applications before forwarding them to Committee Members well in advance of the 15 September meeting

The Chair advised that the Making the Difference applications would be discussed and the funding allocation decided on at the 15 September meeting.

ACTION: FRONTLINE SERVICES PROVIDE CHAIR WITH DRAFT MtD APPLICATION FORM AND TERMS OF REFERENCE INCLUDING RESPONSE DATE

iii.                Other issues raised by the Committee

·        An ability to influence the format of future meetings in order to not have repetition wherever possible between the Forum and Committee, but the recognition that the Area Committee is the a constituted committee of the local authority with the ability to receive deputations, petitions and questions from local residents

·        Feedback on how there can be improvements to the Area Committee set up

·        An information sheet to all residents telling them what is now happening with the new area committee and forum

·        The neighbourhood ‘kin’ contact list and the need to ensure that this is tapped into, as well as the HAVCO contact list – acknowledging the issue of data base security

·        A need for better future advertising of the Committee

There being no other business to discuss the meeting terminated at 21.30hrs.