blue highway PWA logo gif
twitter black square

follow us

fb black square

join us


email us

H A R I N G E Y L O C A L P L A N - M A I N M O D I F I C A T I O N S - J A N 2 0 1 7

Download our submission



We welcome the removal of Pinkham Way from the Council’s Site Allocations (SA) DPD. However, the Council’s retention of the employment designation in its Strategic Policies is irrational, and driven solely by what the Council describes as ‘the aspirations of the landowner’. At the August hearings the Inspector stated that she could not and would not take intentions of applicants and developers into account in her decisions.

• At the hearing, the Inspector had asked the Council to show how the continuing allocation of Pinkham Way for employment without there being any development proposals conformed with Section 22 of the National Planning Framework (NPPF), which specifically prevents this.

• The Council offered no evidence. It also offered no justification when the Inspector asked how the allocation implemented Council employment policies. In fact it capitulated immediately. (The actual suitability of the site for employment was not discussed. The evidence for this still stands and is actually strengthened by the Council’s arguments in this consultation)

• Pinkham Way has now been removed from the SA. The Council gives as the reason ‘Due to no identifiable development during plan period’. The site’s removal from the SA made that part of the plan sound, so fulfilling the inspector’s duty.

• The Council, however, now attempts to retain the designation in a different part of the plan, Strategic Policies, where the Council’s own statements indicate that it continues to have no useful function.

• In our opinion, wherever the Council tries to protect the employment designation, NPPF 22 will apply. The Council is therefore perverse in continuing to retain it.

• The Inspector also asked whether the site could be developed without damage to nature conservation and conservation objectives. The Council asserted that it could, relying for justification on an email from Haringey’s Conservation Officer.

• It did not offer this email as evidence either to the Inspector or, previously, to PWA. We FOI’d it. It does not support the Council’s assertion.

• All available evidence, from Arups (NLWA advisors), from the North London Waste Plan, and from Natural England as well as from PWA, indicates that development on any scale would cause significant damage, which the interdependence of the different habitats on Pinkham Way would make more serious.

• The initial assessment from Land Use Consultants, Haringey’s advisors, stated that the site ‘is unique in the borough for its size and the habitat mosaic it supports’. The published report diluted this statement.

• In our March 2016 submission, we had analysed the Council’s reasons for denying the site’s Open Space status (describing them as fatuous). The open space status was never discussed during the August hearing and we have asked the Inspector for clarification.