To receive the report of the Executive Director Place seeking Council approval of the North London Waste Plan (set out in Annex 1 to the report). (Report No: 108) (Key Decision Reference: KD: 4709)
Council is asked to note that the plan was due to be agreed and recommended to Council by Cabinet at their meeting on 14 November 2018.
The Cabinet decision will be reported to Council on the Council update sheet at the meeting.
Councillor Caliskan moved and Councillor Savva seconded a report of the Executive Director Place on the North London Waste Plan Regulation 19 Publication. (Report No: 108)
1. That Cabinet had approved the report and recommended it to Council at their meeting on 14 November 2018.
2. That the waste plan was a policy document that Enfield had worked on together with six other North London boroughs. It would help ensure that future waste development takes place in the right place and that in future there would be grounds to reject inappropriate proposals.
3. Without a plan the Council could have to allow waste developments in sites set aside for Cross Rail 2 or Meridian Water for example.
4. Council were being asked to agree to putting the plan out for a final round of consultation, before the plan was submitted to the Independent Planning Inspectorate.
5. Officers were to be congratulated as they had worked hard to ensure that this plan would work for Enfield residents.
6. Any new waste site proposals would still have to go through the full planning permission process. The plan would not approve new waste proposals. There were no plans for additional waste facilities in Enfield.
7. If there were any changes proposed, the Council would have the chance to review the plan.
8. Concern from the Opposition Group that although there were now fewer waste sites proposed for Enfield than in the original plan, there were still worries about the possibility of increased traffic, especially on the North Circular Road, across the borough and the issue of wildlife on the Pinkham Way site.
9. That Enfield did already have a large amount of land given over to waste because of the North London Waste site in Edmonton, but that this plan would mean a reduction in the number of sites designated as potentially suitable for waste overall.
10. The Pinkham Way site was in the London Borough of Haringey, so it was felt that protesters should be addressing their concerns to the relevant local authority. The Pinkham Way site was listed as strategic industrial land as well as being a site of special importance for wildlife.
11. Bowes ward councillors had abstained the last time that this issue had come forward, but this time there were no firm proposals for waste development. Any future proposals would still be subject to planning permission.
12. This plan had been over ten years in development. Mistakes were felt to have been made in the early stages by the seven boroughs, due to issues over consultation.
13. Concern from Opposition members that, including the Ely Estate site, a site adjacent to the Edmonton facility, would increase waste in the borough and that more effort should be made to ensure that waste development was spread more fairly around all the other boroughs.
14. Councillor Caliskan summed up by saying the Enfield councillors had a duty to do what was best for the residents of Enfield. The plan was a policy planning document and there was no specific proposal for any of the sites. If the local authority want to amend the plan in any way and come to an agreement – Enfield Council will reconsider the plan.
Following the debate, the proposal was put to the vote and agreed with the following result:
1. To approve the North London Waste Plan (set out in Annex 1) for publication and subsequent submission to the government.
2. To authorise that the Executive Director of Place, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Property and Assets, and in conjunction with the other North London boroughs, to submit appropriate changes to the Waste Plan in the run up to, and during, the public examination of the document.