Planned new waste processing site at Pinkham Way (North Circular Road) N11

North London Waste Authority is proposing to build a new depot to process unrecycled waste, on a former sewage works off the North Circular. It will be a Mechanical-Biological Treatment works (MBT). A lot of local residents are opposed to the development. This is Friends of the Earth's current view on it. We are talking to Haringey Council and the NLWA about our concerns.

1. Do we need more waste facilities?
Today we produce about 1.2million tonnes a year of waste from households in the seven boroughs of North London. Of this about 25% - 300,000 tonnes - is recycled. Of the residual waste, about 600,000 tonnes are incinerated at Edmonton, and the remaining 300,000 tonnes sent to landfill. European waste targets - and costs - and the lack of availability - are forcing London to cut back on what we send to landfill. So we need to either build new plants to process the residual waste - or reduce it.

Friends of the Earth says that we should be reducing the waste we produce (through reducing packaging, making goods that last longer, and buying less stuff) and making it easier to recycle more (by standardising packaging, providing better facilities etc). In the long run this is the only way to avoid having more waste plants.

The government is currently reviewing its waste targets. Friends of the Earth is lobbying the government to cut residual waste by 50%, by reducing the waste we produce and recycling more. So, we urge all those who don't want a waste processing plant at Pinkham Way to support our campaign to influence the current review of waste policy. Sign one of the campaign postcards or take the on-line action at www.foe.co.uk/what_we_do/talking_half_rubbish_27167.html

(If we could achieve 70% recycling in the area, with the current levels of waste arisings, this would eliminate more than 300,000 tonnes of residual waste - and the need for the site at Pinkham Way would disappear. We know it's harder to achieve high recycling rates in areas with lots of flats, and in the seven NLWA there is a high percentage of flats. So maybe we couldn't hit 70% recycling by 2016, when Pinkham is due to open for business. But if we could reduce the overall waste stream by 15% and achieve say 60% recycling, we would achieve much the same reduction in residual waste.)

2. Is MBT the right way to process residual waste?
Mechanical-biological treatment (MBT) covers many different technologies. Friends of the Earth sees some MBT techniques as playing a useful part in reducing residual waste and minimising CO2 emissions from our waste stream.

a) MBT should include a sorting and recycling phase. This should maximise the extraction of recyclables, including plastics, which are made of fossil fuel and which if burnt will add to CO2 just as much as burning coal or oil.
b) It should ideally include Anaerobic Digestion of biodegradable waste (mainly food and garden waste) to produce methane as a renewable fuel which can be injected into the gas grid and displace "fossil" gas.
c) Any residue from these processes will be quite low in calorific value, so will not be so competitive as a fuel, and could be used as a soil stabiliser, to treat contaminated soils, or land-filled, where it will not release any further methane.

One concern with the current proposal is that the operator will want to maximise income from sales of solid fuel, and will therefore seek to minimise extraction of plastic from the waste.

Any planning application for a MBT plant should include an assessment of CO2 impacts. The development should only be acceptable if the lowest carbon options are pursued. This needs to be specified in any planning permission and not deferred until detailed planning application stage.

Some people have raised concerns about the hazard from methane resulting from AD. AD has been operating routinely at sewage works - including Deephams in Edmonton - for many years with no problems. The best use of the gas would be to inject it into the gas grid, so not much should be stored on site. But of course a proper risk assessment should be carried out.

3. Is this the right place?

Siting new waste plants should a) aim to minimise impacts from traffic, and b) avoid nuisance to neighbours. We should also c) avoid harm to wildlife, which is frankly under more than enough pressure in the UK as across the world; and if possible create new and better habitat.

a) Transport
A proper environmental assessment should include what the current mileage and CO2 emissions are from moving waste across N London and on to final disposal; and how this would be affected by a) moving Barnet's depot and b) siting the MBT here.

Has there been an assessment of whether two smaller sites would be better, reducing the distance waste is transported?

If the proposed development results in increased mileage and emissions then it suggests it is not the best location. (But note - emissions from waste fleets should be dropping over the next few years anyway - Haringey's new contract with Veolia specifies a 40% cut in emissions from waste vehicles collecting the refuse. So any comparison should include other expected changes in their business-as-usual comparisons).

b) Air pollution
There should be a proper assessment of air pollution impacts. The plant should be fully enclosed to prevent dust escaping. There should be a condition allowing only low-emission vehicles to bring waste to and from the site.

c) Noise and odour
There should be a thorough noise assessment as part of any planning application. For the development to be acceptable it needs to show that the noise from traffic movement on the site and the noise and odour from waste operations will not be significant at nearby homes and gardens, and will not disturb wildlife. It is not good enough to delay this to a detailed planning application - by then it will be too late to prevent a development going ahead. Then tough conditions should be applied on any development to ensure that noise levels are indeed kept within the described levels.

d) Wildlife
The 6.6 hectare site has been designated a Site of Borough Importance Grade 1. The proposed development will effectively remove what is there now, and will then create habitat on about one third of the land (2.4ha). Some additional habitat would be created on as green roofs (1ha) and "undercroft" (0.2ha). The remaining habitat land will consist of a strip around the edge of the site.

It is not clear what wildlife surveys have been carried out by the developers. There should be a proper survey of the site that includes different seasons, and includes specific surveying for bats. If the site is a roosting or breeding area for bats then the site should be protected.

The proposed development would significantly reduce space for wildlife. If the development is allowed to proceed it should be on condition that the developers pay for compensatory habitat creation elsewhere.

Conclusions
1. We should lobby for stronger waste reduction and recycling policies nationally and across N London that would make this site unnecessary. The proposed MBT plant will not commence construction until 2013 - by this time we could get residual waste on a clear downward trajectory that would make new sites unnecessary, but this will require determined policies from government.

2. Any planning permission should be conditional on the developers providing evidence that
a) It will lead to a reduction in net mileage and emissions from vehicles compared to business-as-usual, and that two smaller sites would not be better;
b) Air pollution, noise and odour will not be a problem to residents or wildlife;

and carrying out thorough wildlife surveys to identify key species, whether they will be adversely affected, and whether this can be mitigated.

3. Conditions should be set specifying the above and requiring compensatory habitat creation.

4. It should only proceed on condition that any MBT process will maximise recycling, including of plastic, minimise residual waste, and will not be used to create a fuel.