Pinkham Way Alliance: "Why is Barnet supporting the NLWA proposal?"

"Another myth busted, Councillor Clyde!

"Some people think it is the £12 million that Barnet were paid for the land by the NLWA, but that’s simply not true. It sounds like a lot of money to ordinary people like me or you, but for Barnet, the amount is relatively small.

"The real value for Barnet, is the land that is freed up at their existing facilities in Mill Hill [another post here has a reference and a map].

"They get to park their fleet of vehicles in Haringey, to develop the land in Mill Hill for a bundle, and collect a steady stream of rates forever more.

"To quote from the minutes of the Barnet Cabinet special meeting, held on 11 August 2009, section 3.2:

"The proposal will further support the Council’s priorities, by providing a site to relocate the parking of the Council’s refuse fleet and recycling facility, from the present location at Mill Hill Depot. The depot relocation will assist the Council to unlock the development potential of the existing Mill Hill East site."

"But don’t believe us, here’s a link to the minutes which you can read for yourself."

---

We add: Someone last night at the Enfield Pinkham Wood meeting asked: 

"What happens if the NLWA fails to get planning permission? Why has it bought a nature reserve? Is that part of its brief?"

Why did Barnet sell the land, and the NLWA buy it, without any planning permission? We are told it was purchased: "freehold, without any conditions."

The land had already been deemed suitable for domestic waste use by Haringey's part of the interim 'North London Waste Plan'. No-one else was therefore about to buy it, particularly in the current market!

This 'Pinkham Way Incinerator' website (the corporate "we") actually attended the 2009 Barnet Council meeting referred to above. All the juicy bits occurred in the private session of the Hendon Town Hall meeting, after we had to leave the committee room. 

We have been trying to establish "why now?" for the NLWA (given that public authorities must not speculate in land values, or use public money to do so) ever since that 2009 meeting.

---

From the Barnet report:

(4.4) There are strategic and financial risks for the Council if this disposal does not proceed. The strategic aim, to re-provide a modern depot on the site, could be compromised if a capital receipt fails to materialize, and, currently, the time frame for the development of the new facility at Pinkham Way dovetails with the Area Action Plan and comprehensive redevelopment proposals at Mill Hill East.

Should the Pinkham Way disposal and development be delayed, there are operational and financial risks which would result from a forced operational continuation at Mill Hill, and delays to the delivery of the Area Action Plan at Mill Hill East.

(4.5) NLWA’s current proposals for Pinkham Way are complimentary to their proposals at Brent Cross Cricklewood, which are supported by the Council.

There are risks NLWA proposals may change as the specific waste solutions are worked up. However, at this stage, the proposals for Pinkham Way do not cut across the rationale for proposals within the area of the planning application at Brent Cross.