Sunday, 6 March 2011

Petition started: "Pinkham Way - Say No to Waste Facility & Depot"

Click above to link to the Petition
"I object to the proposed planning applications submitted to Haringey Council for the development of the following at Pinkham Way:
  1. Waste Management Facility submitted by the NLWA
  2. Depot facility for the refuse trucks and operators’ vehicles submitted by Barnet Council.
On the grounds that:
  • I consider myself to be at risk of harm from the proposed developments
  • There has been no Statutory Consultation
  • Homes, schools and neighbouring recreational facilities, including public parks, a golf course and allotments, will be invaded by vermin
  • The local road network cannot sustain a daily flow of 560 garbage trucks
  • The smell and noise pollution emanating from garbage trucks, particularly those parked over night will cause tangible distress to residents
  • My property will be devalued
  • The delicate and rare wildlife established on the site will be destroyed.
The petition with the above wording is at:

Link to See All Posts.

Comments made by the first 120 or so signatories on the petition are shown below.

Comments: I think it’s time for a judiciary review – not least to ascertain how the price for the land was achieved.

Comments: This massive industrial development will totally destroy a valuable part of the green corridor linking Coppets Wood / golf course / tunnels / bluebell wood / allotments / Albert Road park and the rare plants inside. We should not be destroying our limited and very valuable green spaces; we should be preserving and enhancing them.
Comments: Winton Avenue has enough dangerous through traffic without these lorries causing more!

Comments: Totally oppose the building of this in such a highly residential area. The road networks are already splitting at the seams.

Comments: The consultation process in this matter is beyond appalling. It has been kept under the radar to ensure that those who will be affected are not in a position to question the process and raise objections. Additionally, I note that the initial consultative questionnaire merely focused on environmental matters, the "touchy feely" issues that most people would endorse. It didn't actually openly give residents the opportunity to say no to the development or readily address concerns. In brief, there has been no consideration for the locals and the damage this site will cause.

Comments: The proposal is not at all suitable in this residential area. Noise and pollution would certainly be detrimental to the quality of the environment in this location.

Comments: This site needs to be away from schools, neighbourhoods and our already overcrowded roads. Don't see how 600 refuse trucks a day won't impact our area. These sites are usually isolated, not in the middle of suburban communities.

Comments: Haringey council have sold the land to the developers, with the express intention of granting permission for the waste management facility, to be built on this site. Haringey feel they can bulldozer ahead without considering the impact and effect on the local community, schools and environment. Haringey's interest is not with its own constituents, but with making money at the expense of the very people who trust them to have our very best interests at heart.

Comments: Already with numerous traffic calming measures, our local roads are subject to trucks tearing along them as a short cut to the North Circular. Add another 560 heavy trucks A DAY to this and it will become downright dangerous.

Comments: The consultation survey that I filled in only addressed the planting issues around the site - I haven't been consulted about the impact of the smell, noise or volume of traffic it will generate.

Comments: There is only one other of these plants in the London area - it is next to the Thames at Frog Island in a heavily industrialised area, it is also much smaller than the one proposed at Pinkham way - which is in a heavily populated area with schools, outdoor leisure facilities and a retail park close by. All these homes and existing facilities will be adversely affected by the proposals. Also the traffic congestion on the A406 will be terrible, given the large numbers of lorries that will have to double back on slip roads, to access the site.

Comments: The prospect of 560 lorries a day having to use the Colney Hatch Lane flyover junction doesn't bear thinking about. Over a full 24-hour day, that is one lorry every 2 minutes 36 seconds, but as most will be in daylight hours, it will in fact be worse than that. This only shows up the folly of the half-baked A406 upgrade that we are suffering, rather than the full upgrade to match the rest of the road, i.e. dual three lane carriageways and grade separation at all junctions.

Comments: I strongly object to this site being used for waste disposal, which I would consider a serious blight on our local environment. Traffic congestion is a huge problem in this area, and this amount of refuse disposal trucks would have a significant impact on local roads. This is a green, well-established and much-cherished residential area, which is totally unsuitable for such use. It would deeply affect the quality of life for local residents, and produce an unpleasant industrial area that people would understandably wish to avoid visiting, working or living in.

Comments: Living in Albert Road N22 and having children attending Rhodes Avenue Primary and Alexandra Park School, [I think] the Pinkham Way site is xxx [no] place for a waste development site. In addition, access to Friern Barnet Retail Park will be compromised That is: waiting for 540 vehicles entering and leaving the proposed waste site each day will cause more traffic and pollution, in addition to waste spillage, thus creating a further concern for road users. The Pinkham Way site should be redeveloped for parkland only.

Comments: There has been no statutory consultation-- it feels as if we are being bullied into something that will seriously damage our health and our way of life. I feel betrayed by the local government that it hasn't taken the local people and issues into account, and i want to protest more vehemently.

Comments: Disgusting in a residential area.

Comments: Living in Albert Road N22 and having children attending Rhodes Avenue Primary School and Alexandra Park School, the Pinkham Way site is NO place for a waste development facility. Furthermore, access to Friern Barnet Retail Park will be compromised, that is; waiting for over 540 vehicles entering and leaving the proposed waste site each day will cause more traffic and pollution. In addition, waste spillage from over 540 vehicles a day, creating further concern for road users. The Pinkham Way site should be redeveloped for wood-pasture and parkland use only.

Comments: The application process and negotiations for this development have been carried out without public consultation or canvassing of residents. This is a disgrace, and the project should be scrapped, as well as having a public investigation into the whole process. Haringey can ill-afford more scandal.

Comments: I am a member of Muswell Hill Golf Club, and feel that this site should be preserved for the delicate and rare wildlife established there.

Comments: I object on the grounds of items 2, 3, 4 and 5 above, as a golfer at Muswell Hill golf club. The trucks will bring odours and vermin onto the course, and the noise will severely disrupt the pleasant atmosphere of the golf course.

Comments: So, under the guise of the NLWA, Haringey value the land, buy the land and ultimately grant the planning permission too - conflict of interest anyone?

Comments: 'eco park' my behind, you mean rubbish tip!! Save the butterflies and protect the wildlife that could be endangered by this silly idea.

Comments: The North Circular is clogged up enough already. This will seriously affect the environment that I frequent. If there was consultation this would not be approved. The noise and smell will affect the surrounding area. The rare wild life will be driven from the area; instead the surrounding area will be infested with vermin.

Comments: I can't believe that you intend to contaminate the air and environment of so many leisure amenities!

Comments: I oppose both number one and number two above.

Comments: I oppose both number one and number two above.

Comments: As a member of Muswell Hill Golf Club, I object strongly to this development. [The] noise and smell will be most unpleasant, and I believe such a plant would inevitably attract foxes which already do damage to some of our greens.

Comments: I oppose the plans.

Comments: The quality of life in this residential area will be destroyed. The area has too much traffic already, and the North Circular crossings cannot cope with more traffic. Some COMMON SENSE should be used.

Comments: This is an utter travesty and threatens local wildlife, as well as making having significant negative impacts on the health and well being of local residents and park users.

Comments: This is an inappropriate form of land use for an intensely built-up suburban area, and for a road - the A406 - which is already beyond its capacity.

Comments: Even the concept of the disposal plan so near to 3 large and popular schools is disgusting. How can anyone even conceive this concept? It is [an] ill-thought and extremely unkind and child unfriendly plan. The plan must be scrapped and never again must these green belts be brought into disrepute or jeopardised. It is our basic civil rights and our children’s rights as law-abiding tax-paying residents that we are never subjected to this hazard. The dumping plan is a health hazard to us residents and an abuse of our personal freedom and rights. We 5 people reject the Pinkham Way rubbish disposal plan and the trucks depot scheme.

Comments: Please do not build such a plant in direct neighbourhood to homes, schools, and neighbouring recreational facilities. Do not intoxicate our immediate living environment. .

Comments: We are very concerned with this proposal, as we live very near, and it will affect our family's quality of life. .

Comments: I would like to think that a proposed site as such, would be located in a much less built-up residential area. The site proposal is very close to neighbouring residential areas. If this is the case, we might as well all burn our rubbish in our gardens, and save on the transportation trucks!! - What a ridiculous thought! - But this is effectively what will happen if the site plans proceed.

Comments: While there may be a need for a waste management site, it is completely unreasonable to place it in the heart of an urban suburb. The facility at Pickets Lock, Edmonton is bad enough, but to add a further site fewer than 6 miles away, I believe would show a complete disregard for the quality of life of the local residents in the area.

Comments: I oppose both projects 1 and 2 on the grounds of (i) the additional traffic congestion and disruption during both the construction and operation of the site; (ii) the potential impact on local air quality (odours, dust and noise); (iii) and the impact on local property prices. Such a project should not be located next to an already congested area and so close to residents.

Comments: While there may be a need for a waste management site it is completely unreasonable to place it in the heart of an urban suburb. The facility at Pickets Lock, Edmonton is bad enough but to add a further site fewer than 6 miles away, I believe would show a complete disregard for the quality of life of the local residents in the area.

Comments: The stretch of the North Circular trucks will have to use to access the site is already under ridiculous strain with daily tail-backs. Adding 560 heavy vehicles per day is lunacy. With waste being brought from all over London day and night, there is no way of ensuring that the truck drivers only use the North Circular and don't cut through the high streets and residential streets. This is a compact area of schools, housing and shopping. It is totally unsuited for this kind of traffic.

Comments: I am concerned at the scale of the proposals and the fact that an environmental impact assessment has not yet been undertaken. My understanding was that this should accompany the plans and should have been available at the presentations to the general public. This also did not give many of us enough notice to attend. The North Circular Rd cannot cope with the present flows of traffic, let alone the vast proposed no of HGVs, which no doubt will find alternative routes to the site. Nice idea, wrong site. Place it within easy reach of the M25 on the Cheshunt / Herts border, and [possibly] in the waste area that surrounds the River Lea. Finally can Haringey council give us appropriate opportunity to see the plans and proposals, for their current systems for informing the local community are poor indeed? In any questionnaire perhaps “None of these proposals” should be added.

Comments: Outrageous on many levels. I find it hard to believe this site was even considered.

Comments: I am very concerned about the negative environmental consequences the location of such a site would create, i.e. increased traffic in an already traffic-choked area, potential degradation of air quality, with release of methane gases and exhaust fumes from lorries attending the site, and the loss of a "green" area and flora and fauna it supports. I am also concerned about the lack of consultation and information [for] the neighbours who live close to the site.

Comments: I am completely against this refuse site going ahead.

Comments: I don’t agree with Barnet being the waste dumping ground for whole of North London. Each Borough should look after its own!! Just look at the traffic today. Surely anyone can see that there is no room for more. Look at alternative ways or an alternative location.

Comments: This facility would be much too near to residential areas and would produce far too much traffic, on already very overcrowded roads.

Comments: Another example of misguided thinking. Instead of encouraging greater recycling, Haringey is happy to go ahead with a plan which will deprive the borough of one of its precious green spaces. Please think again and find your environmental hat (I know you have one somewhere!)

Comments: This would be the worst thing to happen to this area since Tesco shat on the side of the A406.

Comments: It's badly thought in several ways: Congesting an already congested junction and area; Contaminating the air and land of an area where air quality is already under attack by the North Circular and its feed-in roads, and: A change of use from a residential area, much loved and valued, into a wasteland.

Comments: The planned site with the quantity of rubbish to be dumped and the number of trucks in and out per day will infringe upon local people’s quality of life and greatly add to traffic congestion and increase air pollution. This is a residential area, with a park and golf course adjacent to the proposed site, and it will have a detrimental affect on the area. This must not be allowed to happen, even if it is a very lucrative plan for some people.

Comments: The local network cannot sustain [the] above. Furthermore, I object to Barnet [being] the dumping ground for other boroughs, creating unnecessary pollution from traffic and the plant itself. This is not to mention that our property will be devalued.

Comments: This industrial facility belongs on an industrial estate, not in a residential / retail / green space area and regardless of the apparent zoning of the plot.

Comments: The proposed waste management site should be relocated in an area which is far less densely populated.

(Some grammar and spelling above has been changed, for clarity.)

Link to See All Posts.


  1. a total discrace more money wasted in a totaly impractical scheme and in a residential area .who dreams up these plans? VOTE NO!!!!!

  2. I suffer from asthma and already have severe problems when the wind is in the East and blows the pollution from the incinerator at Edmonton . I have complained about this pollution for many years , writing and report by phone to the Environmental Agency when the levels of pollution are perceived to be high. Although the agency staff are very understanding and take every report seriously , the Edmonton incinerator continues to pollute and i have to stay indoors with the windows and doors close. God knows only what the long term effect this pollution will be on the health of us and the next generation living in the area.
    One incinerator in North London is one to many for me. Please don’t build a second incinerator in such a high densely populated area. I am now planning to move out of the area precisely because of the continuous stream of acrid air which is generated by the Edmonton incinerator . I am sure that there are many other people who are suffering from pollution emitted from the Edmonton incinerator. We do not want the Pinkham Way incinerator to be built.
    Thank You
    Palmers Green

  3. Please "like" the Facebook page: 'SAY NO to Pinkham Way Waste Facility'

  4. It is appalling that this site should be thought appropriate. Even just one point, dangerous gas being stored, should rule it out.
    There is a school, a university site, trading estate, numerous businesses and residential properties surrounding the proposed site, not to mention a very busy ring road passing through. The area has been blighted enough!

  5. I'm all for being green, I feel it's important to do our part for the environment. But I strongly oppose the plans to
    make my home the 'dump' of North London. This is a residential area, with schools, a facility of this magnitude should
    not be made near people homes.


  7. Matthew Glendinning23 November 2011 at 22:52

    Firstly, I an encouraged at how organised the opposition is to this ludicrous scheme. But I am irate at how Haringey Council is complicit in Barnet council's plans to offload waste on their neighbours in a residential area. I am also astonished at the non-consultative stance of the NLWA, a public body which is behaving like an aggressive private company. While I hope the PWA has the legal and lobbying expertise to counter these plans, the bit that worries me is that the NLWA must think they have a chance of pushing this though. If it gets to the planning permission stage, can someone tell me who has the veto. The Mayor? The Home Office? It should be politically impossible for this to go through - as residents, we've got to make sure that's the case.

  8. Boris has already said he is content that Pinkham Way becomes a waste site (meaning for black-bag waste, as planned by the NLWA).

    The Secretary of State is not likely to call in the scheme, since it is not against his policies.