"To quote Alan Sitkin, of Bowes Labour Party [the full Labour Party text, which can be read first, is here]:
"Why [did the] NLWA choose the Pinkham Way site in the first place, instead of, for instance, somewhere deeper in Barnet? After all, Barnet is also close to an orbital road, and has land prices that are also lower than in Central London. Above all, it doesn't have a waste plant as Enfield already does, in Edmonton."
"The difficulty is that there are few if any sites available. Regrettably, the Pinkham Way site, having previously been used as a sewage treatment works, is the prime candidate for use as an additional waste recycling site. In terms of new sites, it is the 'least worst' option. Permission is therefore likely to be granted, in land-use planning terms.
The strongest argument is that the NLWA doesn't need more sites, and that the site is not needed for waste recycling purposes at all. Fortunately, this argument is true! It is also highly relevant, since planning permission can only be granted for waste use, if existing sites have been exhausted.
Conservatives argue that existing sites have not been fully exploited. The 'North London Waste Planning Group', formerly chaired by Conservative Terry Neville, itself acknowledged that there is a risk of over-capacity, and this fact is fully documented in its plan. The plan has, by law, to identify potential sites, not [just] actual sites. The plan states that existing sites should be fully utilised, before others are granted planning consent.
The proper question should therefore be: Why does the NLWA need this site at all? The answer is that it doesn't. So why is the NLWA buying the site?
By way of background, the North London Waste Authority was, and still is, chaired by Clyde Loakes of the Labour Party. The NLWA has fourteen members appointed from seven authorities, of which Enfield is one of those seven. Prior to May 2010, the only authorities run by Conservatives were Enfield and Barnet. Since May 2010, only Barnet is Conservative-run, and Enfield is Labour-controlled. The Labour Party also runs the NLWA.
Prior to May 2010, the Labour-chaired NLWA was proposing a hugely-expensive, even unaffordable PFI solution, which required the acquisition at public expense of more land for waste use than was strictly necessary.
The NLWA had refused to use existing waste sites, proposing to acquire a site in or near Conservative Enfield (no surprise there then), to obtain planning permission for it, and to hand it over to the successful PFI contractor. By doing a deal with the successful PFI contractor, the contractor would be given a new site, with planning consent, by the NLWA.
The NLWA believed it would, by this means, get a PFI project cheaper than if the PFI contractor needed to identify a site, and get planning consent itself. That would reduce the risk of delays after the contract was signed, which would force the NLWA to continue to pay expensive European Union land-fill taxes.
The new site would therefore be run in tandem with, and not instead of, existing sites such as Edmonton. One of the sites, Pinkham Way, was owned by Barnet Council. Barnet didn't object to this proposal, because it wanted the capital receipts.
The two Conservative members of NLWA representing Enfield, namely Michael Lavender and Ertan Hurer, were consistently in a minority of two, in objecting to the principle of PFI, and the acquisition of further sites for waste uses. They argued that existing waste sites should be better used, and should be brought back from the private sector operators (London Waste Limited) for this purpose.
They also argued that, although more complex and riskier in terms of timescales, replacement technology should be incorporated on existing sites (such as Edmonton) and the incinerator phased out. This would ultimately improve Edmonton, and avoid a proliferation of waste uses elsewhere. However, NLWA officers were happy to spend public money, and have a simpler solution, but end up with more waste sites than they needed. They wanted an easy life.
Councillors Lavender and Hurer argued that, if the NLWA were to acquire new sites and be granted planning consent, then Enfield and its surrounding areas would end up with an over-capacity of waste sites, and become the waste dump of North London and beyond.
They argued that Enfield would end up with private sector waste operators at both Edmonton and Pinkham Way, and importing waste from elsewhere, and that there would be no incentive to enhance Edmonton, and get rid of the old incinerator. They argued that the improvements to the A406 North Circular Road would be wasted, if an extra 500 lorries per day were to access and leave the Pinkham Way site.
Councillors Lavender and Hurer were proved right on everything they argued - and the PFI proposal failed!
They were successful in arguing, and voting, for the Edmonton site being brought back into public ownership. 'London Waste Limited' was bought by the NLWA in early 2010. They were successful in arguing that existing tenants of the Edmonton incinerator should be given notice to quit, to make room for enhanced technology there. They were also successful in blocking the purchase by the NLWA of other sites in the Lea Valley Regional Park (i.e. at Ponders End) by working with the late Sir Simon Milton, Boris Johnson's Deputy Mayor at the GLA. This was all in the local press, and Labour councillors on the NLWA were livid.
They were successful in arguing, and voting, for the Edmonton site being brought back into public ownership. 'London Waste Limited' was bought by the NLWA in early 2010. They were successful in arguing that existing tenants of the Edmonton incinerator should be given notice to quit, to make room for enhanced technology there. They were also successful in blocking the purchase by the NLWA of other sites in the Lea Valley Regional Park (i.e. at Ponders End) by working with the late Sir Simon Milton, Boris Johnson's Deputy Mayor at the GLA. This was all in the local press, and Labour councillors on the NLWA were livid.
However something happened in May 2010. The Conservatives lost control of Enfield Council.
At Enfield's annual council meeting in May 2010, Alan Sitkin voted to remove Michael Lavender and Ertan Hurer (the only members who argued against these proposals, and were always proven right) because they were causing too much trouble for the other Labour-controlled authorities on the NLWA."
"Surely, Enfield's leading Tories (Mr. Burrowes, plus Conservative councillors sitting at the time on the NLWA Board) could have stopped their friends in Barnet's Conservative administration from making money off property sales, while forcing their waste on our borough. But they didn't."Alan Sitkin, of Bowes Labour Party
"Barnet Council's decision to sell property was its own, not Enfield Council's. The NLWA's decision to purchase the site was also its own. The Labour-controlled NLWA is submitting the Pinkham Way planning application to Labour-controlled Haringey. The purchase, planning application, and planning consent will all be determined by the Labour Party.
Enfield Conservatives did, and continue to, disagree with the NLWA's position on this issue. They argue that it doesn't need the site.
Barnet Council has kept quiet, and pocketed the cash. On this, Alan Sitkin has a legitimate gripe at the NLWA (and perhaps Barnet) but not against Enfield Conservatives, who have been, and remain, the only major political group against this. (We assume the Greens and Liberals will also come out against the proposals.)
Barnet Council has kept quiet, and pocketed the cash. On this, Alan Sitkin has a legitimate gripe at the NLWA (and perhaps Barnet) but not against Enfield Conservatives, who have been, and remain, the only major political group against this. (We assume the Greens and Liberals will also come out against the proposals.)
The NLWA purchased the Pinkham Way site in February 2011, for £12.1-million (i.e. after the date Alan Sitkin voted to remove Michael Lavender and Ertan Hurer from the NLWA, the only two members of the NLWA who were opposed to this.) Enfield Conservatives remain opposed to the NLWA's acquisition of the site for waste purposes."
"In truth, when Enfield Labour took over the Council in May 2010, we inherited a fait accompli, where the NLWA had already purchased the Pinkham Way site for the express purpose of building a plant-cum-depot there - and stood to lose a lot of money if it did not complete the project. We need to be clear on this point. Unless an alternative solution is found, Pinkham Way is the concrete outcome that was already on the cards when we arrived in power."Alan Sitkin, of Bowes Labour Party
"This is in no way true. First, the site was purchased in February 2011, i.e. after May 2010, not before. Secondly, the site was purchased by the NLWA, not by Enfield Council. Thirdly, the NLWA has not yet even agreed to appoint an external contractor to use the site, or finally agreed what will go there.
 |
| 'No to Pinkham Way' meeting, 17 June |
If planning permission is refused, the NLWA will have to revisit some of the sites that were previously considered, or (and this is what it should do) accept the fact that it will have to juggle uses on the existing sites.
Furthermore, there is no real time imperative here - the extra capacity at the site may not be necessary until 2041, and the NLWA only needs an extra four hectares until 2027. There is a real opportunity here to pause, hear the views of local residents, and incorporate them into the plans.
In fact, the NLWA will have a surplus of waste sites which, having been granted planning consent for this purpose, will create an over-capacity, with both Edmonton and Pinkham Way importing waste from other areas - and also result in the extended life of the Edmonton incinerator."
Link to the Labour Party text, or link to HOME (see all posts).
No comments:
Post a Comment