Showing posts with label Harlesden incinerator. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Harlesden incinerator. Show all posts

Wednesday 1 January 2014

Battling Brent in 2013

Brent was a battlefield in 2013 as campaigners challenged both the Coalition's attack on the welfare state and the Labour Council's 'dented shield' approach to cuts.  Some of these campaigns made national headlines, many were unsuccessful, some won minor concessions and there were a few victories.

 The Home Office campaign to send a van round around areas of high diversity, including Brent, urging immigrant to 'Go Home' aroused immediate opposition which was spear-headed by Brent ace tweeter @PukkahPunjabi using the #racistvan tag. A mixture of mobilisations when vans were spotted, photoshopped parodies, official complaints to tha ASA and EHRC, and protests by politicians including Muhammed Butt led eventually to the vans being dropped.

Following revelations by the BBC that two Willesden letting agencies were colluding with landlords who did not want Black tenants there was another speedy mobilisation by campaigners which was supported by some Labour councillors and some of the Labour candidates for the Brent Central parliamentary nomination. Council leader Muhammed Butt said he would speak to Brent Trading Standards officers about the issue but I have not yet heard of any outcome.

Brent Council was the target for a a demonstration outside Willesden Magistrates Court when the Council summonsed 3,300 people for non-payment of Council Tax. These were low-income people, already hit by benefit cuts, often having to pay the tax for the first time after the Council introduced its Council Tax Support scheme. Council leader Muhammed Butt argued that the summonses were the only way to get to talk to the people affected. The Council later revealed in an under-publicised 'consultation' that it wanted to continue the scheme with just a few tweaks.

The Counihan-Sanchez Family Campaign which began when Brent Council made a local family homeless, broadened out into a campaign on local housing taking up issues regarding the bedroom tax, benefit cuts and evictions. Brent Housing Action was formed to link activists, tenants and housing organisations in a united campaign which also covered Brent's growing private rented sector. The Kilburn Unemployed Workers' group developed  its work of defending and supporting unemployed workers through regular meetings to share experiences and ideas.

Gladstone Park Primary parents formed an action group to oppose the school's forced academisation following a poor Ofsted report. They demanded a democratic say in the school's future and urged the Council to support them in arguing that the school, supported by the local authority had the capacity to improve. Unequivocal support was not forthcoming and eventually governors having argued for the right to choose their own sponsor chose CfBT. The parents' campaign put forward the idea of a federation with an 'outstanding' school in Camden as an alternative but the Council turned this down only for the idea to emerge again last month with the head of that school being appointed as Executive head before CfBT took over in April 2014. Unfortunately that fell through when Camden decided that because of changing circumstances  at her school they no longer supported her appointment to Gladstone Park. The school is left in limbo for the Spring term.

Copland High School was similarly faced with forced academisation following a poor Ofsted.
The school, already suffering financial problems because of the bonus scandal and a very poor building, had an Interim Executive Board imposed on it by Brent Council and a new management that swiftly made staff redundant and life uncomfortable for those remaining. A pupil petition in support of  the school staff brought no response from the Council and lead member for Children and Families, Michael Pavey, declared there was 'no alternative to academisation'.

At a public meeting Pavey later said that the academy sponsor would not necessarily be Ark, despite the fact that pupils had been sent a letter announcing the appointment of Delia Smith of Ark as Executive head teacher.  Copland unions have come out on strike several times against academisation and for a democratic ballot of all involved and will continue the battle in 2014.

The fragmentation of education in the borough continued with the approval by Michael Gove of three secondary free school to open in September 2014. The most controversial is the Michaela Community School, the brain child of Katharine Birbalsingh, who wowed the Tory Conference years ago with her account of teaching in a comprehensive school. In a minor victory Michaela was forced to take down a huge banner on their proposed building for which they had not had planning permission. More importantly an FoI request established that they school had received only 50 first preferences for 120 Year 7 places. The other two schools, Gladstone and,Gateway, whilst recruiting Year 7s for 2014 have still not got premises.

Brent Fightback, sponsored by Brent Trade Union Council, has been active in many of these campaigns and was central to the campaign to save Central Middlesex A&E from closure under the Shaping a Healthier Future proposals. Unfortunately Brent Council failed to rise to the occasion and did not offer the same degree of support as Ealing Council did for their local campaign on Ealing Hospital. Although they joined in the march to Save Central Middlesex they did not advertise their opposition, circulate leaflets or hold public meetings as Ealing had done. They only belatedly came out in opposition and support the campaign that Fightback and Save Our NHS were fighting. The closure of A&E was approved by the Secretary of State and there are currently consultations on the future of the site, including its use as a 'hub' for a variety of activities.

There was also a huge national campaign in defence of the NHS and its privatisation in which Brent campaigners played a part. Privatisation involves out-sourcing service such as Blood Transfusion as well as smaller ones in particular NHS districts. In Brent you can often find yourself referred to a private service by your GP and the battle to ensure that local commission groups procure from within the NHS is a continuing battle.


The Bin Veolia in Brent Campaign challenged Brent Council on ethical procurement. They argued that council tax money should not go to Veolia, a company that profits from its operations in  support of  illegal settlements in Occupied Palestine. Labour councillors refused to make a political decision but instead hid behind legal arguments from officers. Despite support for the campaign from thousands of local residents, the Trade Union Council, Brent Central Labour GC, Hampstead & Kilburn Labour GC and potential Labour parliamentary candidates as wellas the Lib Dem Council opposition, Brent Council approved the awarding of the contract to Veolia.

During the campaign Executive members at times spoke about the possibility of the Council adopting an ethical procurement policy but little has been heard of it since. The Council has continued to out-source services and has refused to answer, on grounds of cost, my Freedom of Information request asking how many of its out-sourced suppliers and services pay the London Living Wage.

Brent Green Party consistently opposed the building of a new £100m Civic Centre as a grandiose and wasteful vanity project. It is now open and has encountered problems with IT and its telephone system. In a fairly typical PR failure the Council spent more than £90,000 on an opening ceremony claiming this was a tiny drop of expenditure amidst the millions of pounds cut from their budget by the Coalition.

Brent Council has a policy of selling off its land to developers to help finance new facilities which they then claim are 'at no cost to residents'. They approved the redevelopment of Willesden Green Library which involved a land transfer to Galliford Try in exchange for a new Cultural Centre to replace the Willesden Green Library Centre.  The Cultural Centre  will have a smaller foorprint than the Library Centre and will not include space for the Willesden Bookshop.

The luxury flats built by the developer went on sale in Singapore with a unique selling point: assuring would be purchasers that they would not include keyworker housing or affordable housing on the same site - i.e.no poor people on site.

The Keep Willesden Green campaign were defeated in their  valiant attempt to keep the public space in front of the library but did retain the historic Victorian library.

An independent campaign for the 2014 local elections has emerged from the struggl, and the resulting community solidarity, in the form of Make Willesden Green which is standing Alex Colas as a candidate.

Library campaigns have been particularly resilient and good at building social solidarity in their areas through a variety of activities including pop up libraries, reading festivals, pub quizzes, 'Light of Learning' runs between the closed libraries as well as taking on the Council, All Souls College, developers and the Secretary of State.

An issue that needs resolving early in 2014 is the alleged fraudulent submissions to the planning department supporting developer Andrew Gillick's plans for Kensal Rise Library. Brent Council has passed the details to the police but no action has yet resulted.

Another development issue to be resolved in 2014 is the future of Willesden Green's Queensbury pub. The Brent Conservative Party sold the building off to a developer who plans a 10 storey block of flats. After a concerted campaign the Council granted the pub Asset of Community Value status, not least because of its use by toddler groups. The developer has revised plans to offer a smaller pub/wine bar/community space but opposition continues on the basis of the inadequacy of the offer and the inappropriateness of the new building in the local context.

One of my great regrets of 2013 is our failure, despite an energetic cross-party and cross-borough campaign to stop an enormous development on the Barnet side of the Welsh Harp. Luxury tower blocks (again!) will loom over the reservoir, bird sanctuary, nature reserve and SSSI.  Campaigners addressed the Barnet Plannning Committee to no avail, protested about hat appeared to be a very biased presentation by the planning officer and took the issue to Boris Johnson's planners at the GLA. The development will go ahead in 2014.

The campaign against the Harlesden Incinerator had similarities in so far as it was again just across the border from Brent, this time in Ealing, but affecting Brent residents. It also involved some cross-party support and local residents.

The campaign was successful in getting the decision deferred for further investigation about the dangers posed by emissions.

At the turn of the year it appeared that the proposal is unlikely to go ahead because the site is needed for the HS2 project, which in the broad sweep of things may not represent a victory for the environment but may relieve the local residents.

My favourite positive story of the year has to be the opening of the new Chalkhill Park in Wembley. A lot of pressure had to be exerted to bring the project to fruition but it is transforming the estate through providing a public and social space for all ages.

The picture shows the official opening with the Chalkhill Primary School Carnival but in reality children had opened the park themselves weeks previously, unable to resist the swings and climbing equipment.

Next year is going to be hard but it does give us an opportunity in the local and Euro elections to use the ballot box to register our views on what has been going on. Of course I hope that many will choose to vote Green but I also hope that all readers will continue to campaign energetically for environmental and social justice - locally, nationally and internationally.










Wednesday 6 November 2013

Harlesden Incinerator decision deferred again

This message from Peter J Lee of Ealing Planning Department means that the Harlesden Incinerator is OFF tonight's Ealing Planning Committee Agenda.

I write to inform you that it has been decided to DEFER consideration of the Energy Recovery Centre (known to many as the Harlesden Incinerator) application from this evenings meeting as we have not yet received the updated comments of the GLA following the Secretary of State’s decision to re-issue the HS2 Safeguarding Order to take account of their decision to proceed with the Northolt corridor bored tunnel option. 

As you know this re-issue did not take place until 24th October 2013 and the GLA haven’t yet confirmed what their position is in respect of this change in circumstance which could have a significant bearing on their original Stage 1 comments where they raised no significant objections to the proposal.


Friday 25 October 2013

Harlesden Incinerator: Open letter to Ealing Council leader


Guest post by Mark Walker

Open letter to Julian Bell, leader, Ealing Council

Mr Julian Bell
Leader
Ealing Council
Town Hall
New Broadway
Ealing W5 2BY

Dear Mr. Bell

I am writing to ask that you take account of the serious health and pollution risks to the North Acton ‘island triangle’ community from Clean Power Properties Ltd’s proposed energy recovery plant and withdraw your council’s consideration of it.

As you will know, Clean Power plans a combined anaerobic digestion (AD) & advanced conversion technology (ACT) plant at the Willesden Freight Terminal, which facility would handle 198,000 tonnes of commercial & industrial waste annually. Food waste in tanks will be turned via AD into biogas while the ACT process chars non-food waste also to produce gas which is likewise burned for energy.

The plant is wholly unsuitable for our residential area of 200 homes as it will generate low level gases like sulphur dioxide and benzene for many years. Your council’s own environmental health department advised in August that the application be rejected since the developer cannot prove that it will not harm the local community.

It’s well-known that AD plants cause pollution, as DEFRA itself admits in its recent research. ACT plants have never been successful operated within communities and those in construction are large scale and well away from people’s homes. Some of ACT’s pressurised autoclaving operations carry particular risks, as the fatality at the Sterecycle plant in 2011 and subsequent collapse of the operating company has tragically shown. These are not technologies to be located next to local families’ homes.

Clean Power’s waste site will be fed by an average of 67 lorries every day, using the narrow Channel Gate Road, passing only 3-4 metres from local people’s small Victorian houses. Residents have for years been troubled by day and night noise, vibration and lorry pollution from the freight yard’s operations. Approving this proposal would lock local families into 16-hours-a-day vehicle pollution for a generation.

The North Acton community has already been plagued by odours of rubbish from the Powerday materials recovery site on the other side of Old Oak Lane - for almost a decade. Local people know, far better than your planners or an offshore developer’s paid advisers, the stupidity of siting waste plants by people’s homes – where the quality of life is frequently spoiled by simple (to an outsider) matters like a lorry that isn’t cleaned or a containment building not being correctly sealed during a shift.  Powerday’s operations have generated over 300 telephone complaints to the Environment Agency in the last three years alone. For Clean Power to now propose another waste plant - only 300 metres away from an existing one - is highly inappropriate, as East Acton ward local councillors and our local Ealing MP Angie Bray have stated already. The Powerday experience shows beyond any doubt that where waste sites are located in the midst of residential areas, unpleasant odours and other polluting impacts cannot be mitigated by planning conditions or environmental regulations.

You more than anyone will also be aware of this application’s non-compliance with the West London Waste Plan, the ongoing strategy for the area’s waste processing that comes under your direct remit. The WLWP has identified possible waste sites but Clean Power’s chosen site never made the study’s shortlist.  This application is thus based on a discredited site and goes against your own council’s three-year investment in strategic waste options, consultations and expert conclusions.

Clean Power talks repeatedly of its clean, green technologies but offered the planning committee no evidence whatsoever of safely working sites among residential areas, in Britain or anywhere else.  Your members’ bemusement at the lack of any plant performance data or site approvals from the developer was plain to see.

TITRA residents’ group has repeatedly asked your planning officers for Clean Power site certificates or fact-finding site visits and received nothing – not one sheet of paper or one working waste site address. What person, still less a responsible London borough, would buy goods from a tradesman without industry approvals and proper references?  Clean Power appears to be a salesman without any proper goods, let alone any satisfied customers.

Your council’s approval of this ill-advised energy recovery plant would be to condemn local people to a risky experiment in ‘green’ energy that will harm residents’ health and degrade the area with polluting activity. The pragmatic option would be to site a waste processing plant on an industrial estate next to food producers and other manufacturers’ operations – not in the middle of an existing residential area.

I urge you to seek safer and more practical alternatives to Clean Power’s unproven waste processing technologies. Approval of this high risk development would be a disaster for the already-blighted North Acton triangle. And it would demonstrate beyond doubt that you and your council have abandoned our community and your own principles of giving people a decent hearing and looking after their well-being.

Yours sincerely
  
Mark Walker

Member of Island Triangle Residents’ Association committee
North Acton
Ealing
London NW10



Call for action on air pollution at local, national and European level


A Green member of the European Parliament has called for increased urgency in the fight for clean air after the World Health Organization (WHO) labelled polluted air as carcinogenic.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), part of the WHO, pointed to data confirming that 223,000 deaths from lung cancer worldwide in 2010 resulted from air pollution. [1]

Air pollution, which is primarily caused by emissions from vehicles, has already been linked to other lung problems as well as heart failure and premature death. In the UK alone 29,000 people every year die because of air pollution. [2]

Despite air pollution’s impact on people’s health the UK Government has been accused of trying to water down European laws which could reduce the levels of the noxious fumes in the air. [3]

Keith Taylor, the Green Party’s MEP for the South East of England and a leading campaigner for clean air, said:
The evidence from the WHO suggests that the risk from air pollution is similar to that from second hand tobacco smoke. Surely then we should expect controls on air pollution from transport similar in strength to those brought in to protect the public from passive smoking. With this new evidence being published it's clear that failing to act on the air pollution problem would be utterly unforgivable. 
Try as it might the UK Government can no longer pretend that the air pollution problem can be ignored, not when the World Health Organisation classify it as a group 1 carcinogen.
It’s time for the EU to adopt stronger air pollution laws that fall in line with World Health Organization guidelines and it’s time the UK Government works on behalf of the health of its citizens and stops trying to undermine this vital legislative programme.
I'll continue to campaign for clean air across and fight against any moves to weaken vital air pollution laws.
Neasden, North Circular Road and Park Royal are areas of Brent which already suffer from air pollution problems and this will be exacerbated by proposals such as the Harlesden Incinerator. Brent Green Party wants to see action at national, London and borough level to tackle the issue.  We believe that within the council a joint approach through the environment and public health departments, supported by transportation and planning, could result in an effective medium and long term solution to the problem.

Ends
1)     “Air pollution is a leading cause of cancer”- http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/17/us-cancer-pollution-idUSBRE99G0BB20131017
2)     Government report on deaths in UK linked to air pollution: http://www.hpa.org.uk/ProductsServices/ChemicalsPoisons/Environment/Air/
3)     Blog post by Keith Taylor (with links to government proposals to weaken air pollution laws): http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/keith-taylor/air-pollution-kills_b_2457096.html

Monday 23 September 2013

Park Royal fire reignites Harlesden's safety concerns

The bio-chemical fire earlier today at Midland Road, Park Royal, highlights residents' concerns about the issue of air quality in the area and the dangers posed by some of the local industrial facilities. The  Kilburn Times report is HERE  As the heavy smoke spread across parts of Ealing and Harlesden and residents were told to close their windows, questions were again being asked about the safety of plans for an incinerator in the Harlesden area. Ealing Council are due to consider the planning application again after postponing a decision in the summer. The plans have been opposed by Brent Council.

The photographs of the scene (below) were contributed by a local resident:




Wednesday 21 August 2013

Jenny Jones claims Mayor's Office incinerator approval an 'environmental disaster'

The Mayor’s office today granted planning approval for the Viridor Energy Recovery Facility (ERF) incinerator in Sutton for the treatment of four London council’s waste (Croydon, Kingston upon Thames, Merton and Sutton. In Boris Johnson’s absence, Edward Lister the Mayor of London’s Deputy Mayor for Planning made the decision on behalf of the Mayor of London.

The decision does not bode well for any appeal to Boris Johnson on the proposd Harlesden incinerator which means campaigners will have to redouble their efforts to get it over-turned at the reconvened Ealing Planning Committee.

Earlier this month the Mayor's Office decided not to intervene in the Welsh Harp/West Hendon development.

As you will see the Beddington issue contains elements relevant to both the Harlesden Incinerator and the West Hendon Development.

Jenny Jones said:
The Mayor’s decision is an environmental disaster for south London and the recycling and composting industry. The Mayor has failed to observe his own planning and waste policies which state that incineration is the least desirable form of waste management. Instead he has put the interests of big business first, before legitimate environmental concerns and the interests of local residents that will be affected by his decision
Jenny Jones' letter of objection:

Beddington Farmlands Waste Management Facility Planning application No: D2012/66220

I am very concerned at the type of waste facility proposed at the existing landfill and recycling site in Beddington. Specifically, its detrimental impact on the natural environment, on local air quality, and on undermining the waste hierarchy. 

Metropolitan Open Land:
This is an inappropriate development on Metropolitan Open Land and contrary to London Plan policy 7.7 which gives MOL the strongest protection.

Air Quality:
Contrary to London Plan policy 7.14, the development proposal will lead to further deterioration of local air quality from both vehicle movements associated with the delivery of waste and removal of ash, and from the flue gases emitted through the chimney stacks, particularly as this is already an Air Quality Management 

Area. Biodiversity and conservation:
The site is of exceptional importance for birds in London, with nationally important populations of several species and one of the longest species lists in London (82 bird species were recorded at the Beddington SMI during the 2011 breeding season). As a Metropolitan wildlife site, it is part of the key strategic framework for biodiversity described in policy 7.19 and is in the Mayor’s Biodiversity Strategy. The scheme will result in the permanent loss of wildlife habitat and a change in absolute character of the Beddington Farmland. It also does not address the issues of the failed Conservation Management Plan and current decline in the conservation target species. It is therefore contrary to London Plan policy 2.18 and 7.19. 

Waste issues: 
The Energy Recovery Facility (ERF) is a combined heat and power incinerator proposed by Viridor, the South London Waste Partnership’s preferred bidder for the treatment of four London council’s (Croydon, Kingston upon Thames, Merton and Sutton) with a maximum waste capacity of 302,000 tonnes per annum (tpa). According to Viridor they expect to incinerate 200,000 tpa of residual municipal waste collected from households from the partnership area. Type of waste facility:

The Mayor’s London Plan (para 5.86) policy on energy recovery from waste states that ‘energy recovery should be carried out through advanced conversion techniques, ie gasification, pyrolysis or anaerobic digestion’. The ERF is therefore contrary to this policy. 

Residual waste:
Only genuine ‘residual waste’, the element that cannot be recycled or composted, should be considered for energy generation. However, as the South London Waste Plan has not set out plans to maximise recycling/composting targets, which according to the Scottish Government and Welsh Assembly are in the region of 70 per cent, or even 80 per cent according to the Friends of the Earth, hundreds of thousands of tonnes of recyclable and compostable material will be incinerated over the period of the contract. The resolution passed in May 2012 by the European Parliament calling for a limit on incineration with energy recovery to ‘non-recyclable materials only’ by 2020 needs to be taken into consideration. Particularly as it is likely to pave the way for far more ambitious and stringent incineration polices in the forthcoming review of the EU Waste Framework Directive, and within the lifetime envisaged in this application. 

Waste capacity and 30 year contract:
Whilst incineration may offer the easiest alternative to landfill and avoiding escalating landfill charges, this short term solution, will have long term detrimental consequences. It won’t provide incentives to maximise recycling/composting rates, nor will it discourage unsorted residual household black bag waste. Instead, vast amounts of climate changing carbon dioxide and pollution will be produced and valuable natural resources that could be recycled will be incinerated.

Greenhouse gas emissions and carbon intensity floor assessments (CIF): 
Viridor’s ERF plan does not offer significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Their ‘Needs Assessment and Carbon Balance’ document only compares the ERF to the landfill site, not other available waste treatment options such as recycling, reuse or other renewable energy sources. The Working out of CIF is based on the displacement of gas, however, well within the lifetime of the plant renewable energy is very likely to outstrip gas as the major supplier. There is a good chance the ERF could be displacing and preventing energy that could come from more environmentally friendly options. For the reasons set out above, I strongly urge you to direct refusal. 

Jenny Jones Green Party Member of the London Assembly

Thursday 15 August 2013

Speaking from HEART on Harlesden Incinerator




Rita Taylor, speaking yesterday on behalf of HEART (Harlesden Environmental Action Residents and Traders)addressed the issue of the West London Waste Action Plan and the fact that the site chosen by Clean Power was NOT one of the 6 sites earmarked by the Plan for possible use for a waste facility. The Ealing Planning Committee deferred a decision pending further information

Wednesday 14 August 2013

Cllr Van Kalwala makes the case against the Harlesden Incinerator


Recorded at Ealing Council Planning Committee August 14th 2013

Decision on Harlesden Incinerator deferred

Outside Ealing Town Hall this evening
The Ealing Planning Committee tonight deferred a decision on the proposd Harlesden Incinerator after councillors expressed concern that they did not have full enough information to make a decision. This was particularly the case with the Council's expert on  some of the chemistry involved in emissions and air quality being on leave.

Councillors were particularly concerned that the Regulatory Officers from Ealing, Brent and Hammrsmith and Fulham had all expressed, to different degrees, opposition to the plans.

Planning Officers had argued that because the plans would be reviewed by both the London Mayor and the Secretary of State that they did not sufficient grounds to recommend rejection although they recognised that it was a contentious application which raised serious health and safety issues.

Councillors gave short shrift to officers' argument that the impact of the existing Power Day facility close to the site could not be taken into consideration, and questioned why the site had been chosen when the survey carried out by the West London Waste Authority for suitable waste processing sites had failed to shortlist the Harlesden/Willesden site because there were 'ample' more suitable alternatives available.

It became very clear that councillors were determined to get cast iron guarantees on the facility's safety and pollution caused by lorry movements and were not satisfied with the reassurances they had received.

The decision will now go to a further committee meeting by which time further and better information should be available which both sides will be able to deploy.


Saturday 10 August 2013

Community mobilises for clean air and no incinerator




Mark Walker of TITRA speaks to the Planning Committee. He is interrupted by the noise of a lorry accessing the proposed site. There will be many lorries  if the proposal is approved.

Local residents came out in force this morning to greet Ealing councillors who were making a site visit to the proposed Harlesden Incinerator development. Representives of TITRA (The Island Triangle Residents Assocation) spoke to the councillors and will be addressing the Planning Committee at Ealing Town Hall on Wednesday August 14th as will Cllr Zaffar Van Kalwala who represents the Stonebridge ward which is close to the site.

There will be a demonstration outside the Ealing Town Hall on Wednesday from 6.15pm.



Friday 9 August 2013

Harlesden Incinerator: Action Tomorrow and Wednesday


Local residents are being urged to get down to Channel Gate Road in Park Royal LOCATION for 11am tomorrow (Saturday) morning when there is a visit to the proposed Harlesden Incinerator site by Ealing Planning Committee. Opponents of the incinerator want a massive turnout to show councillors the strength of feeling in the area.

This will be followed by a demonstration and lobby outside Ealing Town Hall LOCATION at 6.15pm on Wednesday August 14th before the Planning Committee meets to make its decision.

Details of the planning application Reference PP/2012/3267 can be found HERE

The campaign can be followed on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE


Monday 5 August 2013

Organise for upcoming decision on Harlesden Incinerator


It's funny isn't it, how crucial decisions affecting the lives of local people are often made in the dead days of the summer school holidays? Following Barnet Council's go ahead for the controversial tower block city on the edges of the Welsh Harp, Ealing Council will decide on the equally controversial 'Harlesden Incinerator' on August 14th. DETAILS

The plans for yet another waste facility in an area which borders Brent but where the decision is made by a different local council (as with the Welsh Harp), has met widespread opposition, not just for the impact on air quality in an area devoid of any 'green breathing spaces' but also in terms of the numbers of heavy trucks that will come trundling through the local streets.

It appears likely that the intention is to rubber stamp plans which did not even figure in the options outlined in the grand West London Waste Authority plan.

There is a Harlesden Town meeting on Monday August 12th and perhaps that will be an organising opportunity for a vociferous Brent presence at the meeting on the 14th.

Friday 7 December 2012

Harlesden incinerator plans put on hold

The Brent and Kilburn Times is reporting that the application for an incinerator at Willesden Junction have been put on hold by Ealing Council. This follows a letter from HS2 regarding their need for the proposed site.

Wednesday 5 December 2012

HS2 or Incinerator - what a choice for Willesden Junction!

Well, here's a dilemma!

The Brent and Kilburn Times is reporting LINK that the Willesden Junction site ear-marked for an incinerator may be required by HS2 to transport waste from nearby tunnelling operations.HS2 under its safeguarding rights would have prior claim to the site.

Brent Greens are opposed to both the incinerator proposal and HS2 - perhaps we should campaign for a much needed green space on the site or an Alternative Technology Centre


Friday 16 November 2012

Brent Greens oppose Harlesden incinerator plans

The site
Brent Green Party has joined opponents of the Energy Recovery Plant (locally known more directly as the Harlesden incinerator)  proposed for the Willesden Junction site on the borders of Brent.  They have sent the following objection to Ealing Council Planning Committee  LINK

CONTEXT
Brent Green Party is concerned about the negative environmental impact of the major part of the planning application, relating to the pyrolysis plant. We do not have equal objection to the anaerobic digestion part of the plant, since we recognise the potential benefit of utilizing CH4 released by biomass for energy rather than putting it in landfill, where it would be released anyway, contributing to climate change.

However, we cannot support the application taken as a whole and state our OBJECTIONS here:

AIR QUALITY
-         Insufficient modelling of potential air quality impacts and their assessment and foreclosure of the need for additional health impact assessments in line with Environmental Agency stipulations.

-         Insufficient assessment of the need for appropriate mitigation measures in light of potential air quality impacts at the planning application stage in line with EA stipulations.

CO2
-         Pyrolysis produces bio-oil and syngas which when combusted for energy, produce vast amounts of CO2, wholly inconsistent with the achievement of EU emission targets.

WATER COURSES
-         Contamination of London canals from run off pollutants during construction, not sufficiently mitigated by drainage measures.

-         Region is water stressed in terms of supply of mains water and site water demand will exacerbate this, in excess to the rainwater-harvesting techniques designed to reduce onsite mains water demand.

PEDESTRIANS
-         During construction, adverse effects on users of playground in Harley road, residential properties and pedestrians in Old Oak Lane Conservation Area, users of the Grand Union Canal and pedestrians walking through Metro Multi Trading Estate.

CONSTRUCTION
-         Adverse noise pollution during construction.

-         Medium to low risk impact of dust generated during construction.

-         Potential for ground contamination during construction period.

-         Potential for ground contamination from storage/handling of oils, chemicals & waste materials from the new plant, not met by proposal to place in storage facilities.

For these reasons we strongly object to the proposal in its current form.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Shahrar Ali, Spokesperson for Planning and Environment
Brent Green Party, PO Box 54786, London NW9 1FL
Contact shahrar.ali@greenparty.org.uk

Wednesday 7 November 2012

Powney opposes Harlesden waste plant

Cllr James Powney has blogged his opposition to the Harlesden Waste Plant LINK on grounds very similar to those submitted by Brent planning officers to Ealing Council:
Having gone into more detail on the proposed waste plant to the south of Harlesden, I have now written to Ealing Planners objecting to the plans.  The objections that I consider valid on planning grounds are:

1) the proposal ignores zoning of waste activities outlined in the West London Waste Plan
2) the proposal claims reduced vehicle movements, but this is very implausible, and Harlesden Town Centre suffers from this to an extreme in any case
3) there are significant odour pollution issues that are not clearly deat with
4) there are also noise pollution issues yet to be addressed
5) air quality is likely to suffer.

I encourage all other  Kensal Green and Harlesden residents to object.  The Ealing officer responsible is Peter Lee at leeP@ealing.gov.uk.