Is the Pinkham Way planning application withdrawn for now, or it is informally "resting" until 2012?
The submitted outline application is invalid, and therefore not registered. Haringey still requires further information before it can become valid. This is expected in August or September 2011. After receipt of this information, the application will become valid, and will be put into the public domain. However, the application will not be progressed further, until after the receipt of the independent Inspector’s report into the Examination in Public of the North London Waste Plan. The NLWP identifies Pinkham Way as a potential waste treatment site.
The independent Inspector’s report is not likely to be concluded before April 2012. Only after this will the application be moved forward, consulted on, assessed, and reported to Haringey’s Planning Committee.
Has this been agreed with the North London Waste Authority (NLWA) and with Barnet Council, and in a documented way?
Yes. Haringey Council has a letter confirming this.
What will decide when it is "reactivated"?
After receipt of further information, expected in August or September 2011, the application will become valid, and will be put into the public domain. However, the application will not be progressed further, until after the receipt of the independent Inspector’s report into the Examination in Public of the NLWP.
Is it after the determination by the government (following public hearings and recommendations by planning inspectors) of the "North London Waste Plan", AND/OR of Haringey's "Local Development Framework"?
After receipt of further information, expected in August or September 2011, the application will become valid, and will be put into the public domain. However, the application will not be progressed further, until after the receipt of the independent Inspector’s report into the Examination in Public of the NLWP. [We get the idea. You could have just said, "See above."]
Please explain the underlying statutory basis for the ability to delay this matter by merely "resting" (unless the applicants have withdrawn the planning application).
The submitted outline application is invalid, and therefore not registered. Haringey still requires further information before it can become valid. This is expected in August or September 2011. After receipt of further information, the application will become valid, and will be put into the public domain. However, the application will not be progressed further, until after the receipt of the independent Inspector’s report into the Examination in Public of the NLWP. [Good grief.]
In the (presumed) absence of a planning application, is all consultation with the public suspended until 2012? If not, what exactly is being consulted on?
After receipt of further information, the application will become valid, and will be put into the public domain. However, the application will not be progressed further, until after the receipt of the independent Inspector’s report into the Examination in Public of the NLWP. [Aaagh!]
Members of the public will be able to continue to send in their comments to a web site address, but these will not be dealt with until at least April 2012, following the Inspector’s report. The processing of the application, and public consultation, will begin formally only after the Inspector’s report.
Is it understood by the Authority that a resubmitted planning application would be "outline" or "full" when, and if, it is resubmitted?
There will be no resubmission. The application has been submitted (outline), more information is being asked for to make it valid – this is likely to turn the application into a hybrid.
Does the Authority conclude that discussions of Haringey officers and councillors with the NLWA and with Barnet are not exempt from successful Freedom of Information Act requests (particularly if the planning application has been withdrawn)? (For instance. at full council, it was mentioned that the CE and Leader of Haringey have met with the CE and Leader of Barnet.)
With regards to the issue of FOI requests, this would be a matter for the monitoring officer to decide on, depending on the contents of the minutes /notes from any meetings. [Even now, we are sharpening our pencil ...]
See the similar
NLWA version of reality,
and see the earlier
Haringey Journal article, and our quizzical seagull.
NLWA version of reality,
and see the earlier
Haringey Journal article, and our quizzical seagull.
No comments:
Post a Comment