Agenda item

[Report of the Assistant Director for Planning. To be introduced by the Leader of the Council. ]

In order to progress the North London Waste Plan to adoption, consultation needs to be undertaken on the Pre-Submission version of the plan. This is a formal stage of consultation prior to Examination. The report will further progress to full Council in January.

[Cllr Hearn and Councillor Berryman remained absent for this item ]

The Leader introduced the report, advising that every local authority had a statutory duty to have a plan that makes them self-sufficient in waste disposal. Haringey Council has decided to achieve this through a partnership with its 6 neighbouring boroughs.

This was an important stage in the production of the North London Waste Plan (NLWP) – Pre-submission publication. Since consultation on the Preferred Option draft was undertaken, borough officers and members from all seven authorities have been working collaboratively to resolve the complexities of planning for the management of north London’s waste alongside meeting councils pressing need for additional housing and the regeneration of redundant or surplus industrial land.

The revised NLWP had properly engaged the county authorities that currently receive some of north London’s waste, fulfilling the Duty to Cooperate. It identified sufficient designated employment areas suitable for the future provision of the waste facilities North London councils need to manage the waste generated in north London. The areas selected were the result of robust assessment and an acknowledgement that new facilities should not be concentrated in only one or two boroughs. It also safeguarded all existing waste facilities, ensuring that these continue to contribute towards managing north London’s waste arisings.

The Leader  recognised that waste and recycling are issues that can raise passions. People were rarely keen to have their own waste processed or incinerated on their own doorsteps. This Council, along with its neighbouring boroughs, have had  to take a big picture view of how best to manage and dispose of the waste of just over 2 million Londoners.

The administration was comfortable that it was proposing a balanced plan, that takes on board conflicting agendas and priorities. As a result, the North London Waste Plan is a justified and robust waste policy document that Haringey Council should welcome and endorse.

The Leader drew attention to paragraphs 6.33-6.42 which outlined the response to the Regulatory Committee comments.

Following the meeting of Regulatory Committee on the 18th October, it was noted that there were some factual errors in the Site Assessment of the Former Friern Barnet Sewage Works. This was located at pages appendix 3 – Site Assessment Sheets for Haringey Sites, Sheet A22-Hr Friern Barnet Sewage Works, pages 346 - 350

The Leader clarified that the Former Friern Barnet Sewage Works was not a site allocation in the Local Plan, but is designated as Employment Land and as a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation.

The Leader further clarified that the most recent flood mapping undertaken for the Borough confirmed that the site in Flood Zone 2, and not Flood Zone 2 and 3, and that no part of the site falls within Metropolitan Open Land, highlighting that the Pinkham Way site is not a publicly used and accessible site.

The Leader asked Cabinet to delegate completion of these clarifications to appendix 3 to the Assistant Director for Planning. He also requested that Cabinet agree to delegate authority to the Assistant Director for Planning to include any further required information in the report pack to full Council. This was subsequently agreed by Cabinet.

In response to Councillor da Costa’s questions:

•           The fact that there were no immediate plans for the Pinkham Way site did not mean that it was not needed in the future. The waste plan further points out that there is a potential need for consideration of this site in the future.

•           The Assistant Director for Planning referred to table 11 and 13 in the waste plan which sets out the restrictions on the uses that would be possible for the Pinkham Way site. Therefore, this site could not be used for an incinerator. The Assistant Director for Planning explained that, in terms of how the potential areas for waste disposal were set out for Haringey, this current waste plan document was different to how the previous waste plan was completed. This waste plan was identifying areas of search rather than actual sites. Therefore, areas where it may be proposed, in the future, to locate a site. The reasons why Haringey had included more hectares areas of land areas compared to other London boroughs was that some of them are  inner London borough so had smaller sites . In addition the Council had identified industrial sites and the Pinkham Way site which are large sites. However, this did not mean that the Council were over allocating and simply meant sites were larger in Haringey but that not that the entire area of the sites would be used or that all of the sites would be used.

•           The Council together with the North London waste team had sought legal advice concerning the assertion that the Pinkham Way was a vegetated site that had blended into the local area and was deemed green open space and could not be built on. This advice led the Council to conclude that the inclusion of the Pinkham way site in the waste plan did not conflict with the national planning policy framework.

RESOLVED

To note the recommendation from Regulatory Committee that Pinkham Way be removed from the list of identified sites in the NLWP. For the reasons set out in paragraphs 6.33-6.42 of this report, Cabinet agreed to not to accept the Committee’s recommendation;

To delegate completion of the above outlined clarifications, at paragraphs 7 to 9, to appendix 3 to the Assistant Director for Planning.

To delegate authority to the Assistant Director for Planning to include any further required information in the report pack to full Council

To recommend to Full Council:

i)The approval of the NLWP (set out in Annex 1) for publication, consultation and subsequent submission to the government as being ready for examination; and

ii)To agree that the Director of Housing Regeneration and Planning in consultation when appropriate with the Cabinet Member responsible for Planning, and in conjunction with the other north London boroughs, are authorised to submit appropriate changes to the NLWP in the run up to, and during, the public examination into the document, in response to objectors' submissions, requests from the Planning Inspector and any emerging evidence, guidance or legal advice.

Reasons for decision

To enable the NLWP to progress to adoption, and to ensure the North London Boroughs have an adopted plan to manage waste arising in the area and to deal with planning applications for waste facilities.

Alternative Options considered.

The Council could decide not to progress with the North London Plan. However as a Waste Authority the Council would still be obliged to produce a Waste Local Plan. This is a requirement stemming from Article 28 of the European Union (EU) Waste Framework Directive which states that all member states must prepare a Waste Management Plan. The National Waste Management Plan for England, supported by the National Planning Policy for Waste (NPPW), identify that the National Waste Management Plan will be supported by each WPA’s Waste Local Plan and as such it is a statutory requirement to prepare this document.

Any Waste Plan must be prepared in line with the requirements of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011 and the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012. Given the advanced stage of preparation of the NLWP, which has been a robust and sound process, and the delay in putting in place up to date waste management policies, a decision not to proceed with the NLWP would result in the Council needing to commence a Haringey only Waste Local Plan. This option has been rejected by officers as not being a reasonable alternative.