To consider any requests received in accordance with Part 4, Section B, Paragraph 29 of the Council’s Constitution.
The Committee received a deputation from a group of residents in relation to Agenda Item 9, Briefing on the Changes to Waste Legislation, including the implications for both waste reduction and recycling in Haringey. The deputation also related to specific concerns about the Edmonton Incinerator proposals. The deputation party was made up of Sydney Charles, Helen Mayer and Carmel Cadden. The following points were put forward as part of the deputation:
Reduction and Recycling.
The new legislation would render Haringey’s 2021 Reduction and Recycling submission to the GLA obsolete and the amount of residual waste for incineration would be drastically reduced going forward.
The deputation party put forward the following questions:
• How could the Council monitor and influence how North London Waste would advance its waste management and adapt to resulting reductions in residual waste.
• When would Haringey update its Reduction and Recycling Plan with its target of 38% recycling by 2022, which it now says it would not meet.
• Would Haringey apply for an exemption to continue co-mingling?
• How would Haringey use income from the Extended Producer Responsibility Scheme and ‘new burdens’ compensation?
• How did Haringey propose to facilitate the following:
• more local and in-store collection including Deposit Return?
• community drinks container collections?
• practical advice around more waste separation?
• food waste collection from all estates?
• plastic film collection?
• engaging residents?
• engaging community organisations to help with implementation?
It was suggested that there were already widespread concerns about overcapacity of the new Incinerator, due to major changes since its inception in 2015. The new legislation would reduce residual waste and increase over-capacity even more.
The Mayor’s Office had already estimated a 950,000 tonne surplus for the London Region. Drinks containers would go on the Deposit Return route
Concerns were raised that there was not enough flexibility in the new design to adjust to reductions in residual waste - because the number of treatment streams had been reduced from 5 to 2. It was contended that NLWA planned to import waste if local supplies reduce.
There were other serious concerns including carbon emissions, ultra-fine particle pollution, and fewer circular economy jobs. As a result, it was felt that the current design was increasingly environmentally and financially unsustainable. However, there was an opportunity to review, adapt and future-proof the scheme going forwards.
The Deputation Party requested that:
The Chair thanked the deputation party for their presentation and advised that she would put the questions that were within the purview of the Council, rather than the NLWA to officers for a written response and that the NLWA would be invited to a subsequent meeting of the panel to respond to the points around the incinerator. (Action: Clerk).