Deputations/Petitions/Questions
To consider any requests
received in accordance with Standing Orders.
Additional documents:
Minutes:
The
meeting paused while Cllr Berryman and Cllr Hearn left the
Chamber.
A
deputation was put forward by Mr Stephen
Brice on behalf of the Pinkham Way Alliance in relation to item 9, Pre-Submission
Consultation on the North London Waste Plan.
Mr
Brice was accompanied by Eveleen Ryan and began his representation
by drawing attention to the fact that the Pinkham Alliance had
written a letter to the Monitoring Officer with regards to some
misrepresentations and errors in the earlier draft of the report,
shared with them. The Council’s response, itself, raised
issues and the Pinkham Way Alliance’s reply to the Monitoring
Officer would include a number of additional points about the
report at item 9. Mr Brice continued to highlight the areas that
required attention:
- Paragraph 6.33 – stated that Pinkham Way was also proposed
to be designated as a site for waste planning purposes in the waste
plan. Mr Brice contended that this demonstrated the Councils
intention to re-designate this site, through the back door, as
locally significant industrial land. This was something which the
2012 Planning Inspector had summarily rejected.
- The
Deputation felt that paragraph 6.39, overall, did not make sense.
They contended that the North London Waste Authority had made
clear, in correspondence on the 14th of January, that
their focus and strategy is on Edmonton and there were no plans for
developing Pinkham Way but perceived this site as an asset for the
future. Although, the NLWA were not asking for the site to come out
of the plan, in the Deputation’s view there was a marked
difference from needing the site for delivery of its waste strategy
or the potential for it to be used for waste use as asserted by the
report at item 9. This section also left out the recent statement
of the NLWA which set out that they do not consider the Pinkham Way
site ideally suited for waste and maybe open to offers for the
land.
- The
statement that any proposal for waste use at Pinkham Way would be
smaller than previous proposed developments, had no supporting
evidence anywhere in the document.
- There
was no reference in the report to the consultation response from
Natural England, commenting on the rich diverse bio mix of habitats
at Pinkham Way which would be a loss to Haringey and more widely to
London, if the site was developed. The latter part of this comment
was the form of words used to describe a site of metropolitan
importance. The Deputation contended that this assessment put
Pinkham Way on a par with other Haringey sites of metropolitan
importance such as Queenswood, Highgate
and parts of the Lea Valley.
- The
Deputation referred to Metropolitan sites which reported that the
London Plan includes the best examples of London’s habitats
including sites in urban areas such as abandoned land colonised by
nature and that these were the highest priority for protection. As
a SINC, the site had fulfilled its planning purpose for 40 years.
However, ...
view the full minutes text for item 54