To consider any requests received in accordance with Part 4, Section B, paragraph 29 of the Council’s constitution.
Minutes:
The Committee received a deputation from Stephen Brice and Evelyn Ryan of the Pinkham Way Alliance (PWA) in relation to item 7 - North London Waste Plan - Pre-Submission (Regulation 19) Consultation.
Mr Brice addressed the Committee and outlined the main issues and concerns of the (PWA). The new report did not provide any history, not did it make it clear that the Regulatory Committee were being asked to comment on a draft report to the Cabinet. The PWA considered the proposal to be a continuing waste of money and referred to previous comments made by inspectors in relation to the removal of the site from the Council’s Site Allocations. Two different consultants had advised that the site was unsuitable and unviable for employment use, and in 2012 an inspector had recommended that the site be reviewed for biodiversity. Mr Brice requested that the Committee kept in mind when considering their comments on the report that the waste plan was 12 years old.
The Committee received a deputation from Stephen Brice and Evelyn Ryan of the Pinkham Way Alliance (PWA) in relation to item 7 - North London Waste Plan - Pre-Submission (Regulation 19) Consultation.
Mr Brice addressed the Committee and outlined the main issues and concerns of the (PWA). The new report did not provide any history, not did it make it clear that the Regulatory Committee were being asked to comment on a draft report to the Cabinet. The PWA considered the proposal to be a continuing waste of money and referred to previous comments made by inspectors in relation to the removal of the site from the Council’s Site Allocations. Two different consultants had advised that the site was unsuitable and unviable for employment use, and in 2012 an inspector had recommended that the site be reviewed for biodiversity. Mr Brice requested that the Committee kept in mind when considering their comments on the report that the waste plan was 12 years old.
Emma Williamson, Assistant Director for Planning, responded to the deputation as follows:
“I note your deputation is consistent with the Alliance’s previous representations to the Haringey Local Plan and earlier iterations of the North London Waste Plan. I recognise that you disagree with the conclusions that the Council and Planning Inspectors have reached on this site’s dual designation. Nevertheless, that is the extant policy position for this site.
As provided for through the plan-making process, the PWA will have the right to make a detailed representation to the proposed site’s allocation within the Waste Plan, and to have this considered by an inspector at the “independent examination”, having regard to all other available evidence and views.
Whilst I am sorry that you disagree with the inclusion of the Pinkham Way site within the proposed North London Waste Plan, I am of the view that, in order to be open and transparent and arrive at an evidence based conclusion, the most appropriate way forward remains to consult on the plan as submitted.
The site has been identified as having biodiversity value, sufficient to require a Grade 1 Borough SINC designation. It will be for any subsequent planning application to demonstrate that the development proposal will not adversely impact on the biodiversity value of the site or that such impacts can be appropriately mitigated. Officers believe that the two designations are compatible.
The allocation of a site indicates it is proposed for change in use and/or for new development. Because the Council was not proposing any change to the Pinkham Way site’s designations or use, there was no need to include it in the Site Allocations DPD and this is why the Council agreed to remove the site from the Site Allocations DPD. It remains in the Local Plan.
The Council must take into account the views of the landowners, who in the case of Pinkham Way are the North London Waste Authority and Barnet Council, who have confirmed that they wish to see the site retained in its current designation and have further confirmed that they can deliver employment use development on the site without concern for development viability. There is no specific proposal as yet.
The Haringey Employment Land Review identifies that there is significant unmet need for employment land in the borough, and as such preserving this opportunity is considered appropriate. The site is proximate to the A406, and therefore a suitable location for new employment floorspace.
The Pinkham Way site does not provide informal or formal public use or access. It has also not had a history of private open space use, such as other non-public sites included in the Open Space study, such as private playing fields. While owned by various public bodies, the site is managed as a private asset. Finally, the owners of the site argue that designation of the site as Open Space is not deliverable.”