Haringey Federation of Residents Associations
www.haringeyresidents.org


We have recently received detailed appeals for support from local residents over 2 highly controversial planning proposals. Please see the details below...

1. New River Train Maintenance 24hr Depot, N8 - Appeal from the New River Village Residents Association
2. Massive Waste Processing Site at Pinkham Way, N13 - Appeal from the Pinkham Way Alliance + Analysis from Haringey Friends of the Earth

Dave Morris
HFRA Secretary





To: Haringey's Residents Associations
From: Laura Leak - Chair, New River Village RA, N8


Dear fellow residents,

As Chair of the New River Village Residents' Association I would like ask for your support in opposing the planning application that has been submitted to Haringey Council by Network Rail and the Department of Transport to build a 280m long by 11m high train maintenance depot that will operate 24 hours a day. In layman's terms this building will be the length of 2.5 international football pitches and higher than a 3 storey building.

The location for this depot is directly opposite the New River Village estate and will run nearly the entire length of the estate. When it is operational it is intended that most of the maintenance work will be undertaken at night and as such it will be brightly light by 12metre high street lamps along the entire length of the estate where there is currently no night lighting. It is intended to service train repairs as well as train washing and as previously stated will run 24x7. In addition to this the build programme is intended to take 2 years and will include overnight construction such as concrete piling.

Network Rail has tried to suggest that this depot cannot be constructed anywhere else but this is not true - they can relocate it to an area that has a fraction of the local residential concentration, but it will cost them more money to do so.

They have also tried to suggest it will bring jobs to the local area and economic benefits to local business but their own report that is part of the planning application admits that job creation locally will be "minor" and the benefit to local businesses "negligible".

Despite meeting with Network Rail they have refused to offer mitigation for the effects of the development such as noise barriers or adequate screening. They have also failed to offer any S106 measures as compensation that will directly benefit the local community, such as giving over their industrial rental land near the estate as an open space.

This is not about "NIMBYism" - as residents we genuinely feel that the effects of this depot will be devastating for hard working local residents that currently live in the area and the thousands of residents that are expected to occupy properties in the future Clarendon Square development that will look directly onto (and be overshadowed by) a brightly lit 24 hour maintenance shed. We are also concerned that the council is not listening carefully enough to our concerns and that is why we need as much support as we can to oppose this planning application.

I am aware how busy you all are so I have set out below a suggested response that you can copy and paste into your objection. However, please feel free to add your own comments or provide your own response.

Please support us. The consultation period only lasts for another 2 weeks so speed is of the essence. Please use the link below and use reference HGY/2011/0612.

http://www.planningservices.haringey.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet

Suggested objection:

**I object to planning application HGY/2011/0612 on the following grounds:

1. Unacceptable light pollution from 24 hour lighting in an area that currently does not have night time lighting.
2. Unacceptable noise nuisance from overnight operations in an area that does not currently support such industry.
3. Unacceptable risk to a designated ecological corridor that is a recognised habitat for endangered wildlife.
4. Inadequate mitigation for light and noise pollution.
5. Negligible benefit to the local community with less than 30 jobs predicted to go to local residents and negligible benefit to local business acknowledged in the submitted environmental report.
6. Inadequate S106 measures to benefit the local community.

On this basis the application should be rejected.

Yours sincerely

  • * * * * * * * * *


Thank you for your support. If you have any queries please contact me on NRVRA@yahoo.co.uk

Kind regards
Laura Leak
Chair, New River Village RA

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Pinkham Way mass campaign takes off

www.pinkhamwayalliance.org


The new Pinkham Way Alliance has been set up to save the Pinkham Way green space in Bounds Green (by the North Circular) from proposals for a new waste processing plant. The North London Waste Authority (NLWA) wants to build one of the largest waste processing sites in Europe, to process waste from seven London boroughs. They plan to do this on land that is currently serving as a mature wildlife habitat and as a green buffer from the North Circular.

The PWA is a representative group drawn from the residential communities in the surrounding neighbourhoods of Barnet, Haringey and Enfield that would be affected by this proposal. It has already:

- gathered hundreds of supporters and the many Residents Associations
- held a mass protest at Barnet Council
- held a 200-strong public meeting hosted by Bounds Green & District Residents Association
- garnered mass publicity
- met regularly over the last 2 months
- set up a very informative website. Why not check it out?!

Our Aims and Objections

Its very simple; we want Barnet, Haringey and the North London Waste Authority (NWLA) to hold a proper, open debate with all residents, community groups, schools, businesses and conservation groups (Natural England and Friends of the Earth) on the subject of waste management and recycling across north London to arrive at a solution that we can all agree on.

To do this we demand:
  • The current planning process, that includes the Pinkham Way site, is suspended immediately
  • A panel is formed to represent the interests of local residents, community groups, schools, businesses, conservation groups and other stakeholders (such as the Mayors office) in open meetings with Barnet, Haringey & NLWA (and other boroughs as required)
  • Open meeting to take place to discuss waste management and recycling across Haringey (and other London boroughs as required)
  • Only when a consensus view is reached by the Steering Group do any (revised) plans proceed

Our objections include, but are not limited to, the following:
  • The majority of local residents have not been consulted on such a significant proposal which has far-reaching and detrimental implications for individuals and their communities.
  • There has been a paucity of communication and information.
  • The proposal violates the basic human right to a healthy existence.
  • The proposed facility could produce on elevated health risk with a large number of human health hazards and reduce life expectancy for residents.
  • The wider negative environmental impact would be severe.
  • The proposal would generate a significant increase in traffic in an area which is already heavily congested.
  • Pollutants from the increased traffic would have a further detrimental impact on the health of the residents.
  • Noise pollution from the increased traffic and from the operations of the plant facility would be of on unacceptable level.
  • The proposal would considerably reduce the available green open space and sites of ecological merit with a commensurate negative impact on such ecologies.
  • The proposal is not in accordance with Local, Regional, National and European Policies, Regulations and Guidelines.
  • The area close to the proposed site comprises predominately residential communities with several schools nearby.
  • The proposal would result in an unacceptable loss of amenity for residents.
  • The scale and type of development proposed would consequently have a significant, negative impact on the present character of the area.
  • The proposal fails to take account of all the long term risks and costs that would be attached to this development.

Haringey Friends of the Earth - some detailed analysis of the Pinkham Way proposals

1. Do we need more waste facilities?

Today we produce about 1.2million tonnes a year of waste from households in the seven boroughs of North London. Of this about 25% - 300,000 tonnes is recycled. Of the residual waste, about 600,000tonnes are incinerated at Edmonton, and the remaining 300,000 sent to landfill. European waste targets and costs and the lack of availability are forcing London to cut back on what we send to landfill. So we need to either build new plants to process the residual waste or reduce it. Friends of the Earth says that we should be reducing the waste we produce (through reducing packaging, making goods that last longer, and buying less stuff) and making it easier to recycle more (by standardising packaging, providing better facilities etc). In the long run this is the only way to avoid having more waste plants. The government is currently reviewing its waste targets. Friends of the Earth is lobbying the government to cut residual waste by 50%, by reducing the waste we produce and recycling more. So, we urge all those who dont want a waste processing plant at Pinkham Way to support our campaign to influence the current review of waste policy.

Sign one of the campaign postcards or take the on-line action at www.foe.co.uk/what_we_do/talking_half_rubbish_27167.html (If we could achieve 70% recycling in the area, with the current levels of waste arisings, this would eliminate more than 300,000 tonnes of residual waste and the need for the site at Pinkham Way would disappear. We know its harder to achieve high recycling rates in areas with lots of flats, and in the seven NLWA there is a high percentage of flats. So maybe we couldnt hit 70% recycling by 2016, when Pinkham is due to open for business. But if we could reduce the overall waste stream by 15% and achieve say 60% recycling, we would achieve much the same reduction in residual waste.)

2. Is this the right way to process residual waste?

Mechanical-biological treatment (MBT) covers many different technologies. Friends of the Earth sees some MBT techniques as playing a useful part in reducing residual waste and minimising CO2 emissions from our waste stream.

a) MBT should include a sorting and recycling phase. This should maximise the extraction of recyclables, including plastics, which are made of fossil fuel and which if burnt will add to CO2 just as much as burning coal or oil.

b) It should ideally include Anaerobic Digestion of biodegradable waste (mainly food and garden waste) to produce methane as a renewable fuel which can be injected into the gas grid and displace fossil gas.

c) Any residue from these processes will be quite low in calorific value, so will not be so competitive as a fuel, and could be used as a soil stabiliser, to treat contaminated soils, or land-filled, where it will not release any further methane. One concern with the current proposal is that the operator will want to maximise income from sales of solid fuel, and will therefore seek to minimise extraction of plastic from the waste. Any planning application for a MBT plant should include an assessment of CO2 impacts. The development should only be acceptable if the lowest carbon options are pursued. This needs to be specified in any planning permission and not deferred until detailed planning application stage.

Some people have raised concerns about the hazard from methane resulting from AD. AD has been operating routinely at sewage works including Deephams in Edmonton - for many years with no problems. The best use of the gas would be to inject it into the gas grid, so not much should be stored on site. But of course a proper risk assessment should be carried out.

3. Is this the right place?

Siting new waste plants should


a) aim to minimise impacts from traffic, and

b) avoid nuisance to neighbours. We should also

c) avoid harm to wildlife, which is frankly under more than enough pressure in the UK as across the world; and if possible create new and better habitat.

a) Transport

A proper environmental assessment should include what the current mileage and CO2 emissions are from moving waste across N London and on to final disposal; and how this would be affected by a) moving Barnets depot and b) siting the MBT here. Has there been an assessment of whether two smaller sites would be better, reducing the distance waste is transported? If the proposed development results in increased mileage and emissions then it suggests it is not the best location. (But note emissions from waste fleets should be dropping over the next few years anyway Haringeys new contract with Veolia specifies a 40% cut in emissions from waste vehicles collecting the refuse. So any comparison should include other expected changes in their business-as-usual comparisons).

b) Air pollution

There should be a proper assessment of air pollution impacts. The plant should be fully enclosed to prevent dust escaping. There should be a condition allowing only low-emission vehicles to bring waste to and from the site.

c) Noise and odour

There should be a thorough noise assessment as part of any planning application. For the development to be acceptable it needs to show that the noise from traffic movement on the site and the noise and odour from waste operations will not be significant at nearby homes and gardens, and will not disturb wildlife. It is not good enough to delay this to a detailed planning application by then it will be too late to prevent a development going ahead. Then tough conditions should be applied on any development to ensure that noise levels are indeed kept within the described levels.

d) Wildlife

The 6.6 hectare site has been designated a Site of Borough Importance Grade 1. The proposed development will effectively remove what is there now, and will then create habitat on about one third of the land (2.4ha). Some additional habitat would be created on as green roofs (1ha) and undercroft (0.2ha). The remaining habitat land will consist of a strip around the edge of the site. It is not clear what wildlife surveys have been carried out by the developers. There should be a proper survey of the site that includes different seasons, and includes specific surveying for bats. If the site is a roosting or breeding area for bats then the site should be protected. The proposed development would significantly reduce space for wildlife. If the development is allowed to proceed it should be on condition that the developers pay for compensatory habitat creation elsewhere.

Conclusions

1. We should lobby for stronger waste reduction and recycling policies nationally and across N London that would make this site unnecessary. The proposed MBT plant will not commence construction until 2013 by this time we could get residual waste on a clear downward trajectory that would make new sites unnecessary, but this will require determined policies from government.

2. Any planning permission should be conditional on the developers providing evidence that a) It will lead to a reduction in net mileage and emissions from vehicles compared to business-as-usual, and that two smaller sites would not be better; b) Air pollution, noise and odour will not be a problem to residents or wildlife; and carrying out thorough wildlife surveys to identify key species, whether they will be adversely affected, and whether this can be mitigated.

3. Conditions should be set specifying the above and requiring compensatory habitat creation.

4. It should only proceed on condition that any MBT process will maximise recycling, including of plastic, minimise residual waste, and will not be used to create a fuel.