One of the largest MBT waste processing sites in Europe is coming to North London and it's much closer than you think. The North London Waste Authority (NLWA) wants to build an industrial-scale waste processing plant in our community to manage waste from up to seven London boroughs, and other parties. They plan to do this on land that is very close to houses and schools and is currently a mature wildlife habitat that acts as a green buffer from the North Circular. It will also increase traffic congestion in an already congested area and further pollute the already poor air quality, which will affect the health of nearby residents.
The Examination in Public (EiP) of the North London
Waste Plan (NLWP) was to have taken place for six days over this week and next,
with sessions examining the soundness of different aspects of the plan. At an EiP, a planning authority must
demonstrate to a Planning Inspector that their proposed plan is sound. The first morning was for NLWP, the waste
planning authority for the seven North London
boroughs of Barnet, Haringey, Enfield,
Waltham Forest, Camden, Islington and Hackney, to demonstrate
that their plan is legal. For example, the
Localism Act imposes a legal duty on Planning
Authorities to cooperate with one another regarding the sustainable
development or use of land that has a significant impact on at least two
planning areas.
South East Waste Planning Authority Advisory Group (SEWPAG) and East of England Waste
Technical Advisory Body (EEWTAB), representing the waste planning authorities of the
East and South-East of England
had submitted a joint written statement prior to the hearing. They complained that the NLWP had failed to
cooperate with them. Because some
districts generate more waste than they can cope with, and others have more
capacity to manage waste than they need, there is a system of “apportionment”
where waste authorities are allocated the amount of waste that they must
manage. Some are therefore helping
others. Most of the landfill of London’s waste that
happens outside London
is accepted under this apportionment system, and some extra to it.
Although the NLWP envisages gradually reducing North London’s reliance on such landfill to zero by 2031,
the East and South-East waste authorities would prefer this to be sooner, are
doubtful of the accuracy of the NLWP’s landfill reduction figures, and would,
anyway, prefer smaller apportionments: but there is little they can do about
that. However, they claimed that nearly
all the authorities who accept waste from North London
had received no communication, let alone cooperation, relating to formulation
of the NLWP. Oxfordshire County Council had
written to the NLWP and received no reply.
Some types of landfill site were
due to close, and others to open, so discussion about alternative provision was
necessary but lacking. “This additional
work has not been carried out” alleged these authorities, who take nearly a
million tonnes of waste per year from North London.
The
PWA planning team studied this joint SEWPAG and EEWTAB submission as part of
our preparation for the hearing, but could not assess, in advance, how much
impact it might have.
As it was, the NLWP official could do little to rebut
these allegations, save for mention of having met at regional advisory board
meetings, one of which he missed while taking annual leave. There was no answer in terms of specific
discussions to agree particular matters of concern. Instead the NLWP’s main defence came from the
barrister they hired to argue that the legal duty to cooperate applies only to
strategic matters, and the matters complained of were not strategic. Hence, she reasoned, NLWP was legally compliant.
The North London Waste Authority’s barrister had
evidently worried about this problem prior to the hearing. He distributed, to all of us at the table, a
three-page written legal submission which argued that the complaint did not
relate to the development and use of land in the NLWP, and that cooperation and
engagement had taken place within the processes of the making of the London
Plan, and of the Regional Technical Advisory Boards.
Readers may feel that commonsense should have guided
the NLWP to make sure, through face to face discussion with their Councillor
and officer waste management partners outside London, that the latter were supportive of
the NLWP, or at least reluctantly acquiescent to the point that “cooperation”
was a reality. And that colleagues would
cover for one another’s annual leave.
Even after this very full discussion, the Planning
Inspector was left in such serious doubt whether the NLWP was legal, that he
decided to adjourn the EiP, to give himself two weeks to consider the matter in
depth, and give his detailed written opinion one way or the other. Thereafter, the NLWP and any other interested
party will have a further week in which to respond, before the Inspector
finalises his decision on this point. If
he rules that cooperation has taken place, the hearing will resume, but not
before September 2012. If he rules that
there has not been cooperation, that is what he called a “showstopper”, and the
NLWP will have failed its EiP for being unlawful. A new Plan will then have to be produced,
consulted on and examined, before North London
has a valid Waste Plan.
Further details will be made available on the NLWP examination website.
The PWA team were content with this outcome, because
it is consistent with our considered view that the NLWP is deficient in
multiple respects, and not only in its selection of the Pinkham Way site. But those of us who have worked as local
government professionals were saddened by the state of affairs revealed at the
hearing.
