Pinkham Way – one step closer to victory!

Lynne Featherstone and Haringey Liberal Democrats protesting at the proposed site of a waste processing plant on Pinkham WayI have just sent the below comment to the local papers regarding the North London Waste Authority’s (NLWA) decision to end their procurement process for long term waste management services.

In short – they have decided to keep using the waste facility in Edmonton and keep waste management under control of the local authority (rather than contract them out to a private bidder).

There are now no current plans to use the Pinkham Way site for waste management. I’d like to echo the words of the Pinkham Way Alliance: ‘This is very good news!’

Here’s what I’ve told the local papers:

“The decision to end the procurement for long-term waste management in North London marks a great victory for the Pinkham Way Alliance, the local Liberal Democrats and local residents, who have campaigned hard against the NLWA’s plans.

“From day one, the whole process has been a farce and the strategy deeply flawed. The plan to use Pinkham Way for a waste plant, for instance, was simply inappropriate. They should have been looking at ways to reduce wastage – not thinking of building huge incinerators in unsuitable places.

“It’s all very well the NLWA saying they’re saving us money now by keeping waste management services ‘in house’ – but what about the public money wasted to date on their flawed plans?

“I am of course glad that the NLWA has finally seen sense – but it shouldn’t have taken this long to realise their existing Edmonton site would be suitable.

“We must remain vigilant, though. Although there are now no immediate plans to use the Pinkham Way site, it is still an asset of the NLWA, and different plans to use the site may surface in the future.

“The local Lib Dems and I will be sure to keep residents updated as and when we receive information.”

Lynne Featherstone MP vows to continue the fight against delayed Pinkham Way development

Lynne Featherstone and Haringey Liberal Democrats protesting at the proposed site of a waste processing plant on Pinkham WayJust weeks after campaigners launched a new petition against a 30 year waste contract that could open the way for a new development plan Pinkham Way, the North London Waste Authority (NLWA) has announced the new timetable for the North London Waste Plan (NLWP)

The revised waste plan sets out how 7 north London boroughs plan to deal with waste in the future.

The original plan – which had been delayed significantly as a result of strong campaigning efforts from local residents, the Pinkham Way Alliance and the Haringey Lib Dems – was thrown out as it failed to comply with the law and the consultation was flawed.

The timetable for the new plan mean further delays, as the document will not be signed off by Haringey Council and the other north London boroughs until after the local elections in May 2014, rather than before the elections as originally planned.

Haringey Liberal Democrats and Lynne Featherstone responded to the initial consultation on the new waste plan raising their objections and concerns about Pinkham Way and the need to reduce the amount of waste boroughs generate.

In contrast, Haringey Labour and Labour councillors in Bounds Green failed to respond to the waste plan consultation despite the fact that a waste development or lorry depot on Pinkham Way would badly affect residents.

Lynne Featherstone MP and the Haringey Liberal Democrats have vowed to continue to fight against the waste plan as it stands and any proposals for a waste plant or lorry depot at Pinkham Way.

Cllr Jim Jenks, Lib Dem Environment Spokesperson, comments:

“It doesn’t matter how long the NLWA delays the new waste plan Haringey Liberal Democrats will continue to object to the flawed plan and will fight any proposals for a waste plant at Pinkham Way.

“The waste plan has many problems and does not focus on reducing waste; instead it leaves the door open for a waste plant at Pinkham Way, despite the concerns of local residents.”

“It really worries me the NLWA intends to award a 30 year contract when we have no idea what changes in waste use and technology are going to take place in this enormous timescale.”

Lynne Featherstone, Liberal Democrat MP for Hornsey and Wood Green, comments:

“Last year, we celebrated as plans to build a massive waste plant on the Pinkham Way site were thrown out. This was down to a huge campaigning effort by local residents, the Pinkham Way Alliance, and the local Lib Dems.

“But the battle goes on, and we need a similar effort to protect Pinkham Way from a new waste contract and development plan. The Haringey Lib Dems and I will keep on fighting this every step of the way – representing residents and opposing the plans.

“It’s a shame the same can’t be said for the Haringey Labour – who waved the original, flawed plans through and couldn’t even be bothered to respond to the consultation this time around.”

Lynne Featherstone MP backs Pinkham Way Alliance petition

Lynne Featherstone and Haringey Liberal Democrats protesting at the proposed site of a waste processing plant on Pinkham WayLiberal Democrat MP Lynne Featherstone has encouraged local residents to sign the Pinkham Way Alliance’s current petition to halt the £3 billion waste contract for North London.

The North London Waste Authority is intending to award a 30 year waste contract worth £3 billion for the management of waste across all seven of its member boroughs – including Haringey.

The Alliance assert that the contract is deeply flawed, as it is based on waste predictions for 30 years ahead – absurdly far in advance and already shown to be inaccurate and based on guesstimates.

The new contract could also see renewed plans for a waste facility on Pinkham Way.

The MP for Hornsey and Wood Green and the PWA have teamed up before, and successfully stopped the building of a massive waste plant on the Pinkham Way site.

Lynne Featherstone MP commented:

“Last year, we successfully prevented the building of a completely unsuitable waste plant – but the fight goes on.

“The Haringey Lib Dems and I are now supporting the PWA’s latest petition – and encouraging residents to do the same.”

Campaigners rejoice as Pinkham Way application canned

Lynne Featherstone, Richard Wilson and other Pinkham Way campaignersPlans to build a waste plant at Pinkham Way have been withdrawn, after a long fought campaign by local residents. The North London Waste Authority, which had submitted the application for a waste plant at the site, has now backed down and formally withdrawn its application.

The Pinkham Way plant, which would have been built close to local schools and homes, has been resolutely opposed by the Liberal Democrats and local campaigners. Over 1,000 people have signed a Liberal Democrat petition calling for the application to be withdrawn.

Two Labour councillors, Nilgun Canver, Environment Cabinet Member and George Meehan, former Leader of the Council are board members of the NLWA, which had been determined to build the treatment plant at Pinkham Way.

Alexandra councillor and Liberal Democrat lead on this issue, Juliet Solomon, says:

“This is wonderful news and really shows what people power can do. I’d like to say a big thank you to the sterling work of our supporters and the Pinkham WayAlliance, and the tireless opposition which they have shown to this cause.”

Lynne Featherstone MP, Liberal Democrat for Hornsey and Wood Green comments:

“This site was thoroughly unsuitable from the very beginning, and the way in which Haringey Labour nodded the plans through and ultimately wasted taxpayers’ money was utterly disgraceful.

“The cancellation of the Pinkham Way development will be the best possible Christmas present for thousands of residents in Bounds Green, Alexandra and across Haringey.”

Pinkham Way waste contract delayed until March

Haringey Liberal Democrats have welcomed the news that the North London Waste Authority (NLWA) have delayed the bidding period for a contractor to run their proposed waste plant at Pinkham Way.

Originally the authority was due to sign a deal with a contractor for waste services in the seven boroughs covered by the NLWA in the New Year.

The Liberal Democrats in Haringey have been campaigning against a waste plant at Pinkham Way. Over a thousand people have signed the Lib Dem petition against the plant.

The Lib Dems have said the delay is an opportunity to think again about the contract and are urging the NLWA and Haringey Council to call a halt to the Pinkham way project.

Because Haringey Council is a member of the NLWA, two Labour councillors, Nilgun Canver, Environment Cabinet Member and George Meehan, former Leader of the Council are board members of the NLWA.

The delay follows a recent Council debate called by the Local Liberal Democrats and a delegation of local residents concerned about the plans for a waste processing plant at Pinkham Way made a presentation of their case.

Cllr Jim Jenks, Lib Dem spokesperson for the Environment, comments:

“The delay in handing out the waste contract is an opportunity for the NLWA and Haringey Council to think again about Pinkham Way.

“This contract is wrong for Haringey. The last thing that local residents want is this waste plant on their doorstep and the council and NLWA now have a chance to change their minds.”

Lynne Featherstone, Liberal Democrat MP for Hornsey and Wood Green, comments:

“Now is the time for the NLWA and Haringey Council to finally call a halt to these disastrous plans to build a waste plant at this thoroughly unsuitable site.

“I will continue to work with the Pinkham Way Alliance, local residents and my Lib Dem colleagues to stop a waste plant being built at Pinkham way.”

Lynne Featherstone MP welcomes the conclusions of Pinkham Way Examination

Lynne Featherstone MP and campaigners, opposing Pinkham Way plansLiberal Democrat MP Lynne Featherstone has welcomed the conclusion of the North London Waste Plan (NWLP) Examination, which effectively puts a stop to the proposed Pinkham Way development.

The inspector found that the submitted NLWP was not legally compliant, and therefore he could not continue any further with the Examination. The decision was based on the fact that there had not been constructive, active and ongoing engagement during the NLWP’s preparation between the North London Councils (including Haringey) and other affected planning authorities.

The issue arose in June 2011, when the North London Waste Authority submitted plans to Labour-run Haringey Council. Despite strong opposition from residents, Liberal Democrat councillors and the Liberal Democrat MP for Hornsey and Wood Green, the Council did not oppose the NLWP and Pinkham Way development.

The conclusions of the Examination mean that the Council can now either recommend non-adoption of the NLWP and Pinkham Way development, or withdraw the plan and start again from scratch.

Commenting on the examination, Lynne Featherstone said:

“I warmly welcome the conclusions of the Examination. For well over a year now, the Pinkham Way Alliance, together with Liberal Democrat Councillors and myself, have been standing up for residents and campaigning against the Pinkham Way development. It has been a tough fight, especially with the Labour-run Council failing to implement a proper consultation, and their refusal to oppose the North London Waste Plan.

“The Council’s carelessness throughout the application has wasted time and money, and has caused an unnecessary amount of stress and concern among residents.

“I am so very glad that the inspector has recognised the incompetence of the Council, and therefore decided not to continue with this examination. I hope that now, finally, the Council will do the right thing and recommend non-adoption of the plan – as they should have done from first instance last year.”

What a waste: Pinkham Way hearing suspended after just two hours

Liberal Democrats have welcomed the suspension of the public inquiry on the North London Waste Plan as a further step in the campaign to stop the development of a huge waste processing plant at Pinkham Way.

The examination in public of the North London Waste Plan (NLWP) was suspended just two hours into a hearing that was due to take two weeks. Liberal Democrats strongly oppose the plans for the Pinkham Way plant, which is part of the 10 year plan.

Liberal Democrat councillor Juliet Solomon (Alexandra ward) comments:

“Today’s suspension is a result of colossal carelessness in the waste plan, especially when one thinks of the time and money that has been spent to get here. The North London Waste planners have been told to think again. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I will continue to fight, along with the Pinkham Way Alliance, to knock the plans out for good.”

Lynne Featherstone, Liberal Democrat MP for Hornsey and Wood Green comments:

“Haringey Labour’s representatives on the NLWA have been determined to force the waste plant upon local people, despite massive opposition. It’s yet another sign of Haringey Labour’s arrogance and failure to listen.”

The Pinkham Way plant is designed to process non-recyclable refuse from the seven boroughs of the North London waste authority, but has met with fierce opposition from local people following concerns about harmful toxins, increased traffic levels and the impact on the local environment.

The inquiry was due to take place at Camden Town Hall for two weeks, but was swiftly halted by the independent Inspector following objections to the Plan raised by other local authorities, who are concerned about the impact the Plan will have on them.

The news will slow down any progress on the existing Pinkham Way plans, which have been backed by seven boroughs, including the Labour-run council in Haringey. 

“Sham” consultation ignores residents’ views on Pinkham Way land says Liberal Democrats

Local Liberal Democrats have branded the re-run of a consultation on a Council strategy a sham after a report published last week showed that the Council has disregarded the responses of many local residents. Despite voicing their strong opposition to the changes which pave the way for the waste plant at Pinkham Way sixty responses from local residents were rejected.

The Council was made to repeat the consultation on the re-designation of land in its Core Strategy, which included the site that is proposed to be a new waste facility at Pinkham Way, due to concerns raised by the Planning Inspector that the Council failed to consult widely enough first time.

Liberal Democrats say that the council’s rejection of 60 responses shows Labour’s contempt for public opinion and reveals that the consultation was a ‘tick-box’ exercise rather than a chance for the Council to listen to the community. Liberal Democrats have written to the Chief Executive of Haringey Council and the Planning Inspector to voice their concern of the way in which residents’ views have been disregarded.

Despite the large number of consultation responses from residents raising concerns the Council has decided to make almost no changes to its plans in advance of the Examination in Public in February.

Residents will have a further say on the proposals for Pinkham Way after the North London Waste Authority said recently that it will consider further representations in the summer when its North London Waste Plan is consulted upon.

Cllr Juliet Solomon (Alexandra Ward) comments:

“It is clear from how the Council has replied to local residents who have taken the time and effort to submit responses to the consultation that the Council had already made up their mind. This consultation was a mere tick box exercise for the ruling group who seem adamant to push through proposals and steamroller public opinion to ensure the Pinkham Way plans get through to the next stage.

“Let’s hope the delay in further consultation gives the Council an opportunity to start to really listen to local people. Residents do not want the waste plant and it is time the Council started to sit up and take note.”

Lynne Featherstone MP adds:

“It’s really worrying that local residents’ views have been utterly ignored by the Labour Council in this way. They had to re-run this consultation because it was so poorly handled last time, and now they are more or less doing the same thing again.

“This shows utter contempt for local residents’ views’ and local democracy. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I will continue to fight the waste plant at Pinkham Way every step of the way, and do our best to make sure local people’s concerns are heard and heeded. The fight is not over.”

Pinkham Way – the (Liberal Democrat) response to the consultation

We (local residents, Pinkham Way Alliance, the three local MPs: Theresa Villiers, David Burrowes and myself, Liberal Democrats on Haringey Council (ably led by Cllr Juliet Solomon) and others are all fighting against plans to build a giant waste processing plant at Pinkham Way.

Haringey Council were found (as we all had been saying) not to have consulted properly on the Haringey Core Strategy and have been forced to go back and consult again – properly.

I am posting here the Liberal Democrat response to this consultation – the Core Strategy Fundamental Changes (Core Document CSSD-03) and the Sustainability Appraisal Sept-Nov 2011, written by Cllr Solomon. I am supporting this response. It is long – but for those with an interest in this battle – it may be helpful.
We, the Liberal Democrat Group on Haringey Council, are responding to the September 2011 re-consultation on the Local Development Framework. The policy with which we are concerned here is SP8, and, in particular, the designations for Pinkham Wood on the North Circular, (which is already subject to a submitted planning proposal for a waste processing centre).
We have not, rather surprisingly, been formally asked for our views, other than on a “round-robin” email, even those three of us who are ward councillors for the ward containing the site with the contested designation. As elected representatives of the ward, we are clearly major stakeholders; our omission from being formally requested to join in the consultation would be our first reason for suggesting that the consultation of affected stakeholders was, if not inadequate, not completely thought through, as we are treated as though our stake was equal to that of all other councillors, which is clearly not the case.
The new consultation is concerned with Publication of a Development Plan Document (Regulation 27) – additional Regulation 27 on Affordable Housing & Employment Land Designations November 2010 (consolidated with further evidence to support changes to the Employment Land Designations, September 2011)
Section 1. Overall problems.
Following on from the Inspector’s letter after the EIP, the Council has spelled out what it considers to be the key questions that consultees should answer. Some of these are the first points we shall deal with, and they are numbered here, by us, for convenience of reference.
1 Is the document justified?
No. The Council fails to set out clearly the reasons and justification for a change of land-use designation of the Pinkham Way site.. In the post-EIP papers in the planning portal, there seem to be some hints, but that is all.
In their letter of 27th July to PINS, the LDF team says (para 2.5) “The council considered the employment land designations in the Core Strategy of the Friern Barnet and Bounds Green sites are justified by evidence base and are in line with the London Plan and carry through the recommendations as set out in the Employment Land Study.” It is unfortunate therefore that the only justification to appear in the Core Strategy is the following:
“A change in designation will ensure this DEA is targeted towards more traditional industrial uses. Complies with pre-application discussions which have already taken place to use part of site for recycling centre and other part as waste station.”
This is not a justification for a change in designation. The justifications for the designation should be prior to, and independent of, any actual or intended applications. All this says is “somebody wants to develop here – let’s fix the LDF so that it can carry on”. This very approach should in itself render the document unsound as it suggests an order that is contrary to that suggested in PPS 12. (mostly Section 4.2 ff.)
One particularly concerned local resident queried the change in designation, as did a number of others, but the answer he was given by the Council in their letter of 28th June (see below) did not provide the evidence base he was seeking
“The Council felt that the wording was not clear enough, and some of the sites which came under this designation were not suitable for this level of flexibility. If the Core Strategy Proposed Submission draft designations were left unchanged, the concern was that this would lead to applications for uses which would not be suitable for their location. This also accords with the London Plan, and the DRLP.
Therefore, the Council decided that Friern Barnet site and the Bounds Green site needed stronger employment land designation. They were designated as Locally Significant Industrial Site (LSIS). This approach also accords well with the concept of sustainable communities. Both of these sites are in the west of the borough where there is comparatively less industrial land availability. The fundamental changes document (Nov 2010) was consulted on according to planning regulations, and there were no objections to designating this site as a LSIS.”
It should be pointed out, although it may be unnecessary to do so, is that the reason there were no objections was because of the rather secretive way in which this so called consultation was carried out, and the restricted number of people informed. This first consultation clearly did not begin to accord with the Council’s SCI.
Locally Significant Industrial Sites (LSIS)
“5.1.10 These are well established industrial areas and the aim is to retain them solely for uses that fall within B1(b), (c), B2, B8 uses or uses that share strong similarities to this use class.”
In terms of being a “well used industrial area” which is apparently one of the criteria for LSIS designation, an area which has been wild backland for fifty years does not seem to us to qualify for this description. Until a security fence was put up round the site, relatively recently, the area was used for walking, playing, observing wildlife etc., all the kinds of activities that might be associated with small areas of relatively natural open space in the middle of the urban well as a certain amount of dumping, much of it (apparently)old Barnet lampposts.
If we now consider some of the Council’s other consultation questions (below) , the answers become relatively straightforward.

2 Is it based on robust and credible evidence? It would seem not.
3 Is it the most appropriate strategy when considered against the alternatives? No alternative is presented.
4 Is the document effective? See 5 below, so in all probability not.
5 At the moment the status of the site as a Grade 1 Site of Borough importance for Nature Conservation is to be kept; we note, however, that this is not mentioned in the consultation document. In the old saved UDP, any employment uses to which it would have been put would have had to make sure that the ecological designation was respected. And indeed we find it hard to see how, if several acres of trees are pulled down (i.e. all the woodland), and the scrub is converted to an industrial site, the Council envisages that this will be possible.
8 Is it consistent with national policy?
Certainly not with the key Government principles on Biodiversity (PPS 9, page3). Almost certainly not with air quality standards, which would fall below acceptable on even more occasions than is currently the case with any increase of traffic on the local roads and A406. Nor does it concur with PPS 12 in that its consultation has been at odds with its own Statement of Community Involvement.
Section 2 Deficiencies in Consultation
Probably our most significant point with regard to the reconsultation, as representatives of the local and affected community, is that, like previous so-called consultations on the same policy, it is simply inadequate. It does not comply either with the letter or the spirit of the SCI. Italicised sections below are just a few of the parts of the SCI which appear to have been entirely overlooked in the consultations.
2.4 (Haringey Statement of Community Involvement, 2011)” As set out in Haringey’s Consultation Strategy, the Council recognises the fundamental importance of undertaking effective community involvement and consultation to ensure that decisions are based on ‘sound’ reasoning, and these are transparent and accountable to the community. The Council defines consultation as ‘a process of dialogue which leads to a decision’, so it is the commitment of the Council to ensure that consultation:
• reaches more people;
• demonstrates to the community that their views are heard;”
Curiously, although for local traffic calming consultations, a leaflet is sent to all those in the area, whether car owners or not, consultation on the use of the Pinkham Way site, which could affect a very large number of people, has not involved all those people living locally, who might reasonably have been expected to be consulted. The Council has, it says, targeted this reconsultation, as with the previous November version, to “those who had made previous representations in relation to Regulation 27 on the original Core Strategy” as well as their Consultees database. This is despite the fact that the Inspector thought the decision to target last November’s abbreviated consultation to those who had made previous representations in relation to Regulation 27 on the original Core Strategy. . .” could appear to be prejudicial to interest of fairness and natural justice.” And also despite the fact that as soon as people knew this was happening, they made it clear that they wanted their views heard.
But the council is targeting this reconsultation to precisely the same people, with the addition of a few who, having heard of plans for the site, have made sufficient fuss. This reconsultation does not just “appear” to be prejudicial; more importantly, it is prejudicial. For this and other reasons, we have asked if there was to be a leaflet drop. The reply was “There will not be a comprehensive leaflet drop in the area. In line with our SCI, community involvement activities will be planned in a consistent way to ensure the methods used are the right ones in each case, recognising that there are limits to our resources. In this case, we are carrying out the consultation in line with how to consult on a planning policy document and not a planning application. We have placed public notices in all of Haringey’s papers and to ensure beyond borough boundary coverage notices have also been placed in both the Enfield and Barnet Independent. “ (Ciara Whelehan to Juliet Solomon, 12/10/2011).
It should, however, be noted that
1) the SCI does not distinguish between policy documents and planning proposals, and suggests that similar consultation methods are appropriate to both, so this comment is spurious, and
2) notwithstanding the importance the Borough claims to give to maximising community response, it should be noted that, for this very controversial policy change and associated proposal, the only paper that is circulated to ALL residents in the Borough, the” Haringey People”, is not included in the consultation; it makes no mention of the issue or, indeed, of the requirement that Haringey should to reconsult in its August/September and October/November editions, which are the only relevant ones.
However, Haringey claim that they have put a notice in the “Haringey People”. “ In addition, press releases have been placed in all of the Haringey local papers, a notice in Haringey People and to ensure beyond borough boundary coverage a press notice has been placed in both the Barnet and Enfield Independent.” Email from Whelehan to Solomon, 23/9/2011.
I reproduce here the only vaguely relevant article that has ever appeared in the Haringey People, in the August/September edition. As can be seen, not only does it fail to mention the LDF and the inspector’s report, but it also fails to use the opportunity to publicise the reconsultation.
“Pinkham Way Plans on hold. The submission of a plan to build a waste processing plant in Pinkham Way has been put on hold following intervention by Haringey Council. The council has lobbied the North London Waste Authority about the lack of detail in its proposals. It has also argued for consultation on the plan to happen after an independent planning inspector has tested the detail of the wide-ranging waste plan for north London. The NLWA will submit a detailed planning application for consultation with residents and consideration by the council’s planning committee after the inspector reports in April 2012. Cllr. Alan Strickland, Cabinet member for Economic Development and Social Inclusion, has promised to hold a thorough consultation once the planning application is lodged.”
This gives no indication of the results of the LDF EIP, or any indication that the Council was going to reconsult on sections of that. By their omission, they are effectively telling the public, in this journal, what amounts to a misleading half-truth.
But The SCI says (Page 4) “2.3 In delivering the vision for Haringey the involvement and participation of the local community and other stakeholders in the preparation of the LDF and processing of planning applications is essential. “
My understanding of the word “essential” is that anything essential is a sine qua non, an activity without which something (in this case the LDF work) cannot continue. And the council knows well that contacting the local community either through the most ubiquitous journal, the People, or through a leaflet drop is probably the only (and therefore essential) way of making sure that this happens. But they excuse themselves from this requirement by saying
“Our Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) clearly states that if anyone wishes to be involved in planning policy/planning applications to contact the Planning Policy Team so their details can be added to the consultation database.”
Two points arise from this. Firstly, the public will not know what is being considered unless they are told; for example, nobody reading the article reproduced above would have any idea about the reconsultation; and secondly, being “added to the database” is surely not enough. People who write in should be sent the material for responding; and we are aware of cases of people who have written to express their interest and not received any response. Where they have, one of the things they have been told is;
“Please note that this a re-consultation exercise on the Core Strategy which is being undertaken following discussions at the Core Strategy Examination in Public for a proposed amendment to a strategic policy, which in respect of Pinkham Way strengthens existing employment policies that already apply to that site. “ Again, this is disingenuous, because while the redesignation may strengthen existing employment policies, it also effectively renders the present ecologically protective designations totally ineffective – and of course, these do not get a mention anywhere in the consultation document. One could ask why.
There are, it turns out, many parts of its own SCI which the council appears not to have consulted, which is a pity as in our view, if heeded, it would be an extremely valuable document. I will not go through the problems of all of these in detail as I believe the overall picture is already clear and I have no doubt that a number of other respondents will reinforce this point. I will merely quote some passages from the (excellent) SCI which I think show how little this has been heeded.
From the SCI page 4
“The council will
• actively engage the whole community by using a variety of formats and
media and be mindful of local avenues for accessing people, particularly
within the voluntary sector;
• give enough time for people to be consulted;
• choose the right method for the type of stakeholders being consulted;
From Page 5
“2.10 It is a legal requirement that all Council set out how they will involve local
communities in planning decisions and plan making process. Additionally, consultation approaches must be tailored to the make up of the local population, the needs and interests of the various community groups in the area in an effort to encourage people to participate in the planning process.
from page 8 The Council are committed to getting less actively engaged groups and individuals involved, and to supporting those who are already involved to support those who are not yet engaged or fully engaged.
p.13 3.5 Local representative bodies will be regularly consulted, when and where appropriate. The approach to consultation will be flexible, accessible and proactive, and the scale of consultation will be equal to the likely impact of the proposed plan.”
As is clear without further comment, all these laudable aims are being overlooked in this case.
Although we have outlined a number of reasons why there are problems with the changes to policy SP8, the one we have emphasised (as has Haringey’s SCI)is the need to involve residents in the policy-making of the borough plans. This rhetoric needs to be put into practice and proper consultation undertaken if the plan is to be passed as a sound document.
To conclude, as shown above, the Haringey Liberal Democrat group not only considers this second consultation flawed but fundamentally the Council has failed to substantiate an adequate justification for the redesignation of the Pinkham Wood site and therefore the Council should abandon its proposals.

Liberal Democrats urge local people to fight plans that paved the way for Pinkham Way

Lynne Featherstone MP is today contacting thousands of constituents, in order to ensure that local people get the best chance to respond to a consultation that could have major effects on the plans to build a waste processing plant at Pinkham Way.

The Hornsey and Wood Green MP is keen to ensure that local residents are aware of and get some advice on how to best respond to a consultation on the designation of land at the Pinkham Way site.

Labour-run Haringey Council has been forced to re-run the consultation that paved the way for the plans for a waste processing plant at Pinkham Way, after being reprimanded by the planning inspectorate. The initial consultation, which changed the land designation from employment to industrial land, was so poorly run that Haringey has been shamed into re-running it.

Liberal Democrats, who are fighting the plans at Pinkham Way, are keen to make sure no one misses out on the chance to respond this time. As well as leafleting thousands of homes close to Pinkham Way, Liberal Democrat MP Lynne is today also contacting thousands of residents, to urge them to respond before the 3rd November deadline.

Any residents who want more information about how to respond should contact Lynne’s office on 020 8340 5459 or email

Lynne Featherstone MP comments:

“The way Labour ran the consultation last year was disgraceful, and I’m glad that the Planning Inspector agrees with us and has forced Labour to do a re-run.

“The change in the designation of land from employment to industrial paved the way for the North London Waste Authority to submit plans for Pinkham Way. Anyone who is worried about Pinkham Way should take them time to respond to this consultation and object to the change of land designation – we have everything to gain from a strong response from local residents!”

Alexandra Councillor Juliet Solomon adds:

“The change in land designation and the way the consultation was carried out last year was one of my main points of concern when I stood up to the Labour Council on this in July.

“The last consultation was carried out in a shoddy way, with not enough local people being consulted. It’s good that this sneaky behaviour has not gone unpunished, and now it’s down to all of us to respond – please get in touch with Lynne’s office for details on how to do so.”