Filter by Area
AndySlaughterMP - Hammersmith Date posted: 21 Jul 2011 07:48
Thank you for signing the petition. It is outrageous for TFL to close down this valuable link, which is now an important rail interchange. It is particularly harmful for those with limited mobility who will now be nearly 20 minutes from the nearest underground station.
I have been working closely with the excellent ‘My Olympia’ campaign and it was with much difficulty that I have convinced Richard Parry, Strategy & Commercial Director for London Underground (LU), to come to a public meeting to discuss this proposal with local residents. The meeting will be held at 7pm on Tuesday, 26 July in the Pillar Hall of Olympia. This will be an opportunity for you to put your points across directly to LU and to demonstrate the importance of this valuable service. It is crucial that this meeting is well attended and I encourage you to join me on the 26th of July in the hope that we can get LU to re-think this ridiculous plan!
If you have any questions or comments, please don’t hesitate to get in touch with me at firstname.lastname@example.org and I will be happy to help you.
DavidBurrowesMP - Enfield, Southgate Date posted: 20 Jul 2011 10:17
Below is my formal letter of objection to the North London Waste Plan:
I am writing to formally object to the legal soundness of the 'North London Waste Plan', published May 2011, on the following grounds:
1.1.The consultation on the North London Waste Plan only consulted with residents within a particular distance from the site, and not those in the area along the North Circular who will be negatively impacted by the heavy traffic attending the depot.
1.2.The original consultation on the draft plan also received fewer than 400 responses for all of the seven Boroughs, which considering there are around 15,000 individuals in the Enfield Southgate area bordering this site, seems wholly insufficient.
1.3.Anecdotal evidence would suggest that very few residents in Enfield were consulted due to the fact that the site itself lay in Haringey, certainly those in the Bowes, Palmers Green and Southgate Green areas felt that at no point had their input been sought on these plans.
2. Deliverability of the North London Waste Plan without the commitment of all seven Boroughs
2.1.Point 4.4 of Planning Policy Statement 12: Local Spatial Planning states that:
"The delivery strategy is central. It needs to show how the objectives will be delivered, whether through actions taken by the council as planning authority, such as determining planning applications, or through actions taken by other parts of the Council or other bodies. Particular attention should be given to the coordination of these different actions so that they pull together towards achieving the objectives and delivering the vision. The strategy needs to set out as far as practicable when, where and by whom these actions will take place. It needs to demonstrate that the agencies/partners necessary for its delivery have been involved in its preparation, and the resources required have been given due consideration and have a realistic prospect of being provided in the life of the strategy. If this is not the case, the strategy will be undeliverable."
2.2.The North London Waste Plan, which must be in conformity with core strategies, would therefore need full support and engagement from all seven boroughs in order to be deliverable by the above definition.
2.3.It is clear that in regards to Enfield Council this is not the case. I would draw your attention to the following public statements by Cllr. Achilleas Georgiou, Deputy Leader of Enfield Council:
Signed a piece of literature with the title 'NO to Pinkham Way'
Signed a letter to a local newspaper in which he stated 'nowhere in or near Enfield should host further waste facilities: not Pinkham Way'
Wrote in a leaflet and on a blog that the Pinkham Way site is 'morally and ecologically wrong'
Stated at a recent public meeting that those authoring the NLWP had 'made a mistake' and that he had 'deep objections' to the Pinkham Way site.
2.4.It is clear that a rejection of the Pinkham Way site is in effect a rejection of the waste management approach put forward in the North London Waste Plan, and therefore a rejection of the plan itself. Therefore the strategy has failed to set out that each of the seven boroughs 'have been involved in [the NLWP's] preparation, and the resources required have been given due consideration and have a realistic prospect of being provided in the life of the strategy' and therefore the plan is legally unsound.
3. Detrimental impact to the local area and internal inconsistency with NLWP4 - Protecting Amenity
3.1.There are a number of areas where the proposed site at Pinkham Way will not be able to deliver on Policy NLWP 4 - Protecting Amenity, rendering the plan internally inconsistent and therefore legally unsound.
3.2.The Pinkham Way site cannot be delivered consistently with Policy NLWP4 part b due to the high number of waste trucks travelling to and from the site. Although the waste management site itself and the MBT technology it contains will not produce considerable emissions, the pollution and toxins generated by the traffic along the North Circular will be extremely damaging.
3.3.This will be exacerbated by the heavy traffic along this stretch of road, which serves as a vital link from North to Central London. The high volume of trucks will increase congestion to unbearable levels, particularly around the busy Bounds Green junction with the A406. This factor, as well as contradicting point b of NLWP4 Policy, also contradicts point g.
3.4.Primarily the site is inconsistent with point d as the scale form and character of the site are not suitable for an area undergoing considerable regeneration. The area surrounding the site has finally secured funding for regeneration and investment, which are summarised in the North Circular Area Action Plan and the New Southgate Master Plan. The proposed site will obstruct the steps put forward in these plans and will therefore not be a 'good neighbour'
DavidBurrowesMP - Enfield, Southgate Date posted: 22 Jun 2011 10:51
Below is the press report of the Public Meeting last Friday, which I felt was extremely positive. Our next step is to exert pressure on Enfield Council at their next meeting on 6th July, when they will be voting on the proposal. Contact me on email@example.com for more information.
On Friday 17th May over 350 people packed into Broomfield School to voice their disapproval at the plan to develop a waste management site at Pinkham Way. The meeting was organised by Enfield Southgate MP David Burrowes who was joined by Theresa Villiers MP for Chipping Barnet, Pinkham Way Alliance representatives and local councillors from Barnet, Enfield and Haringey.
David Burrowes said "it was an excellent well attended meeting despite the bad weather. Enfield residents came out in force and we now mobilising significant opposition to the plan. NWLA say they have effectively consulted but only a handful of the 350 people who attended had heard of the plan before the last month."
The North London Waste Plan (NLWP) is out for consultation until July 8th and David Burrowes called for objections to the plan.
He said " we need to object to the NLWP to stop Pinkham Way in its tracks. We need to show that the plan fails to establish 'soundness'. In my view there has been a failure of policy and process which means the plan is in the wrong place at the wrong time. I will be meeting with the CEO of NWLA on Tuesday and raising concerns on behalf of my constituents before formally lodging my objections."
DavidBurrowesMP - Enfield, Southgate Date posted: 2 Jun 2011 09:25
Hi Bill, As a Green I can assure you that you should be against this scheme, I completely agree that the waste has to go somewhere but the damage caused by excessive traffic and the inevitable reduction in air quality make this site unnacceptable.
In terms of traffic, the number of total daily trips comes to 1120, broken down as:
560 one way trips equates to 1120 two way trips. The effect of this traffic on the North Circular and surrounding areas will be catastrophic, and there is a real chance to fight on these grounds as a similar site in Derby was recently rejected due to the adverse effect it would have on traffic conditions (http://www.letsrecycle.com/news/latest-news/waste-management/shanks-disappointed-by-derby-appeal-refusal).
In regards to Air Quality, numerous studies by the three councils (Barnet, Enfield, and Haringey) have shown that there are areas where the emissions from the proposed site could tip air quality to illegally low levels. At present the only study that has been made public has been done by Haringey, but I fully expect an Enfield report would draw similar conclusions, especially around parts of Bowes.
In answer to your final question, the proposed site borders Enfield, Haringey and Barnet and has been picked partly because planning responsibility remains unclear. I have started the campaign from Enfield Southgate to highlight the problems it will cause to my constituents, but of course Haringey and Barnet voters can support the calls to say NO to Pinkham Way (and have been, through the Pinkham Way Alliance).
DavidBurrowesMP - Enfield, Southgate Date posted: 26 May 2011 04:25
Hi Jeffrey, I can assure you that this is not simply a NIMBY campaign. As I have pointed out in my letter to local residents, the plans potentially put at risk the hard earned investment we have gained in the N11 and New Southgate areas.
I agree we should have a fully informed debate, and hope you do come along to the public meeting (which is at 7:00pm, Friday 17th June at Broomfield School).
Further details of the campaign can be found on my website (www.davidburrowes.com)
CatherineMcKinnellMP - Newcastle upon Tyne North Date posted: 20 Jul 2011 09:25
As the Newcastle North Member of Parliament, I have been actively involved in the review into the provision of children's heart surgery services in England.
As you may be aware, the purpose of this review was to consider how the 31 child heart surgeons which currently operate across England can best provide a uniformly high quality of safe service - following a number of tragic cases in Bristol and Oxford where disproportionately large numbers of children died following heart surgery. Clearly, all parents want to be reassured that their child is in the safest possible hands when undergoing any kind of hospital treatment and the review is a consequence of this.
It is also worth noting that the review has recommended 4 potential options, for which units should continue to provide children’s heart surgery. These options are:
• Newcastle, Liverpool, Leicester, Birmingham, Bristol plus two in London
• Newcastle, Liverpool, Birmingham, Bristol, Southampton plus two in London
• Newcastle, Liverpool, Birmingham, Bristol plus two in London
• Leeds, Liverpool, Bristol, Birmingham plus two in London
Therefore, of the four options on the table, three would mean the Freeman’s child heart surgery unit remaining open.
I recently co-sponsored an Early Day Motion on this issue: http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2010-11/1847, as well as speaking at length during a debate on the review which took place in the Commons recently. My contribution to the debate can be read here: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm110623/debtext/110623-0002.htm#11062335001751, whilst the full transcript of the debate is available here: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm110623/debtext/110623-0002.htm#11062335000003
I have also submitted my views to the consultation, supporting the retention of children’s heart surgery services at the Freeman. I believe that the final decision on this review must be made on the grounds of what is safest for young people who require heart surgery, and – on that basis – I am firmly of the belief that there are no clinical reasons for the unit at the Freeman to be closed.
GordonHendersonMP - Sittingbourne and Sheppey Date posted: 5 Jul 2011 09:51
GordonHendersonMP - Sittingbourne and Sheppey Date posted: 5 Jul 2011 09:49
NickDeBoisMP - Enfield North Date posted: 21 Jun 2011 08:19
I can assure you that the Localism Bill will not lead to the loss of culture or lead to poor planning decisions.
I believe that this landmark Bill heralds a ground-breaking shift in power and overturns decades of central government control; putting an end to the hoarding of power within central government and top-down control of communities.
The Bill contains a wide range of measures to devolve more powers to councils and neighbourhoods and gives local communities greater control over local decisions like housing and how to protect their natural environment.
Quite simply, if you and your community want to protect an aspect of cultural heritage or protect an area of natural interest, you have the power to do so.
RobertaBlackmanWoodsMP - City of Durham Date posted: 17 Jun 2011 11:23
I had a huge response from my constituents when the forests were threatened with a planned sell-off so I set up a local action group in Durham to campaign for the future of our forests. Thankfully, the Government were forced into a U-turn and the sale has been put on hold.
Now an independent panel has been formed and they are carrying out a listening exercise to collect people's views on how the UK's forests should be managed.
Make sure you send them your comments. More details are available at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/rural/forestry/panel/