Andrew Dismore

Introduction

As the London Assembly Member for Barnet and Camden I wish to respond with

objections to the North London Waste Plan (NLWP) outline proposals for the

Pinkham Way.

This is a site of importance for nature conservation and as such is unsuitable for

waste disposal, processing or storage and as such should be removed from the

NLWP.

.

Green space

The site has been vacant since 1963 and as such has established a rare ecological

sanctuary. Over half of the 6.5ha site is semi-mature arboreal coverage. Any use for

a waste facility would result in the loss of greenfield land.

Site Capacity

Throughput of waste estimated at 40,000 tph pa is 20% below the previous version

of the plan and is significantly lower than throughput figures in other waste plans.

This makes the destruction of a site of important nature conservation of even more

concern than other potential sites.

Not a Brownfield site.

Pinkham Way is not “brownfield” or “Previously Developed Land” – because it falls

within the exclusions in the definition of these designations in both the London Plan

and the NPPF, i.e. it has been reclaimed by nature in the process of time and is now

part of the natural surroundings.

Sites and Areas

‘Sites’ are “safeguarded for waste use” ‘Areas’ on the other hand are not

safeguarded in the NLWP. It would be difficult to oppose a planning application for a

waste use if the site is already found ‘suitable’ for that use. By not “safeguarding it”

the planners are ensuring that it can be offered as a replacement site if there is a

wish to relocate an existing waste facility. A site that is not safeguarded would have

potential as a replacement site. To protect the site from development as a waste use

Pinkham Way must be removed from the draft plan altogether.

Traffic

Needless to say that any development of the site would create a considerable long

term traffic pressure in an area of severe traffic congestion.

Conclusion

Pinkham Way is the only ecologically valuable site in the plan designated a SINC

and the only undeveloped open space. Such a site is protected by policies in the

NPPF, The London Plan and in all the 7 North London boroughs’ local plans. It

should not be included in this waste plan.

The loss of such an important ecological site in Barnet would be a reckless and

needless tragedy and result in a Waste Plan with less capacity than if other more

suitable sites were used.

 

 

Andrew Dismore