DOCSLIB.ORG

Information in Response to Enquiries from Enfield

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Information in Response to Enquiries from Enfield Information in response to Enquiries from Enfield North London Heat and Power Project is part of NLWA’s overall solution to managing north London’s waste in the most sustainable way possible, and a major part of NLWA’s efforts to tackle the Climate Emergency through waste management. NLWA has a duty to dispose of waste responsibly and does so in line with the waste hierarchy by prioritising waste prevention and recycling. Therefore, the best way for residents to reduce the carbon impact of their waste is not to produce it in the first place. To that end through our own annual programme of activities, we are supporting borough activity and helping residents prevent a further 10,000+ tonnes of material from being thrown away every year. Where waste is produced and can’t be reused, we want as much of it as possible to be recycled. Boroughs already have collection systems which allows the widest possible range of items to be recycled; we run campaigns and education and outreach activities to boost recycling, and we have called on the Government to make recycling compulsory and give local authorities the powers to enforce correct recycling. NLHPP will help to drive up recycling rates; for the first time ever, residents will be able to bring their recyclable materials directly to Edmonton EcoPark. This centre will add to the network of centres already in place across north London that provide additional opportunities for residents to reuse and recycle and allow an anticipated further 135,000 tonnes of materials to be recycled. However, we serve a population of over 2 million people and growing and a solution is needed for the waste that can’t be recycled. That’s why our project includes an Energy Recovery Facility (ERF); the new facility is the only proven, sustainable and cost-effective solution to treat up to 700,000 tonnes of north London’s non-recyclable waste at Edmonton EcoPark1. Environmental impact • Claim 1: The IPCC advises we should be making every effort to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees centigrade to avoid catastrophic impacts which will require ambitious action from local authorities. The waste from 7 boroughs will be incinerated in Enfield releasing as much as 700,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere a year (the same amount as Hackney’s total annual carbon footprint or 450,000 new cars). The claim that the new facility at Edmonton will release 700,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide each year is misleading; in fact it’s a major part of tackling the Climate Emergency and the most sustainable way of treating non-recyclable waste in north London. The climate impact of the new facility is equivalent to 28,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide when treating 700,000 tonnes of non-recyclable waste. The carbon impact is so low because we are preventing methane generation in landfill, offsetting more carbon intensive energy generation using virgin fossil fuels and enabling metals to be recycled. In comparison the climate impact of sending 700,000 tonnes of waste to landfill is much greater; 243,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents would be generated every year. This accounts for emissions from methane generation, which is at least 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide, and transporting waste outside of London. The climate impact of using our new facility is therefore equivalent to a 215,000-tonne carbon saving- when compared to landfill- which is like taking 110,000 cars off the road every year. The Committee on Climate Change states the waste sector is the only UK industry to outperform its ‘carbon budget’ obligations, meaning that climate change effects are reducing much faster than targeted as landfill use is reduced. The vast majority of emissions from the waste sector are from landfill sites with less than 0.05% of the national greenhouse gas emissions figure being from waste incineration. • Claim 2: Burning waste is vastly more inefficient than burning fossil fuels. Even with expected advancements in technology in 2020 and ensuring both heat and electricity is captured and used from the burning, it is predicted that incinerators will still emit more greenhouse gases than gas power 1 For more information, please refer to the Alternatives Assessment that was submitted as part of the Development Consent Order application: northlondonheatandpower.london/media/asvicpm2/ad05-03_alternatives_assessment_lores.pdf. stations. How is this compatible with Enfield’s declaration of a climate emergency and plans to reach carbon neutrality by 2030? It is absolutely not true that our facility will be less efficient than burning fossil fuels and emit more greenhouse gases than gas power stations. The ambition to achieve Net Zero requires reducing waste to landfill and a move away from burning fossil fuels through a fourfold increase in low-carbon power-generation, such as that provided by our replacement energy recovery facility. A modern, efficient facility to recover energy from waste instead of sending it to landfill is part of this solution. The ERF will generate 78 megawatts of electricity which can supply heat and enough power for up to 127,000 homes, with excellent efficiency levels (close to 100% for heat generation). This compares to 40% thermal efficiency for coal-fired power stations and 56% for natural gas, meaning that, with coal and gas, a large amount of the energy input is wasted. The cleaner energy produced by our facility will have carbon efficiency rates at 25% better than the Mayor of London’s target (known as the Carbon Intensity Floor target, which ensures that energy generated from waste activities is no more polluting in carbon terms than the energy source it replaces). • Claim 3: Incineration creates a perverse incentive to produce more waste and avoid recycling, composting, reduction as well as squashing innovation in waste management and circular economy implementation. At the recent meet and greet session with NLWA at a local Tesco Extra, it was confirmed that there would be no sorting of waste prior to incineration despite NLWA’s ‘intention’ to get recycling rates to 50% (currently below 30%). A huge amount of general waste can be recycled as a result of lack of public education on recycling. Is it not irresponsible not to leverage the latest mechanical and biological sorting technologies to extract recyclable and compostable materials? There is absolutely no evidence that using energy recovery stops people recycling and creates more waste. Across Europe and the UK, high recycling rates go hand-in-hand with energy from waste facilities. Facilities like ours are used by several UK councils with exceptionally high recycling rates above 60%, such as South Oxfordshire District Council and Stratford-upon-Avon. The Netherlands, Germany and Austria all recycle more than 50% of their waste and treat most of the rest through energy from waste facilities. NLWA is committed to working with the boroughs to drive up recycling rates, as it is the boroughs that ultimately collect the waste that is then presented to NLWA facilities. The NLWA has a 50% recycling rate as its target that has been included in the NLHPP project. However, given the necessity to produce high quality recyclables that have a genuine market for onward processing the extraction of quality recyclables from black bag waste is extremely difficult. When recyclable materials get mixed with black bag waste, including food waste, they become contaminated, making it very expensive to extract them and significantly reducing the quality of the recyclable material. That’s why NLWA works hard to encourage residents to put their waste in the correct bins to maximise the amount of material that can be sorted at our materials recovery facilities and then recycled. Public health • Claim 4: Kings College London recently reported that high pollution days in London produce an extra 87 cardiac arrests, 144 more strokes and 74 children and 33 adults being treated in hospitals for asthma attacks. These avoidable deaths are happening right now! According to the North London Waste Authority’s own website the Incinerator produced 8,4771,906 kgs of CO2 and 24,882.89 kgs of NOx during 2017/18 from 505,864 tonnes of waste. The new incinerator is due to burn 700,000 tonnes of waste producing just over 700,000 tonnes of CO2. With its close proximity to the North Circular, it is not irresponsible to place such a grave health risk to those living and working Enfield? It is not accurate to suggest that energy from waste facilities place grave health risks on people living close to them as there is no evidence to suggest this. NLWA is going beyond statutory requirements to ensure that the new facility is one of the cleanest and safest in the world. The safest technology known as Selective Catalytic Reduction is being invested in for the removal of nitrogen dioxide (NOx). While the current facility operates at 20% better than permitted levels of NOx emissions, the new facility will perform at 60% better than the required safe levels. Using this technology means the facility will always meet the Environment Agency’s strict standards as they change over time. In setting the emissions limits within the permit, the Environment Agency takes account of background levels of air quality. Furthermore, our analysis shows that the new facility does not breach any local concentrations of pollutants in air quality standards. As a public authority our responsibility to protect the health of our residents is at the forefront of everything we do. Public Health England, which advises the Government nationally, says modern and well-regulated Energy from Waste plants like ours make only a small contribution to overall pollution levels, which are primarily caused by other sources.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • NLWA Annual Report 2020/21
    Annual Report 2020-21 1. Background 1.1 The Annual Report for the Authority is produced each year for the Annual General Meeting (AGM) in June. The report uses waste tonnage data which is still subject to final validation by the national waste data system, WasteDataFlow, so may be subject to further minor changes. Because this data validation is not completed until September each year the Authority usually also produces its annual Waste Strategy Monitoring Report, which includes the validated numbers, in December each year. 1.2 NLWA’s largest ever project – the North London Heat and Power Project, (NLHPP) continued as a key focus throughout the year. The NLHPP is the Authority’s project to replace the existing energy-from-waste facility at the Edmonton EcoPark with a new energy-recovery-facility (ERF) and to provide associated new assets which support recycling. Other recycling and waste prevention activities to manage and reduce the volume of residual waste are set out in the Residual Waste Reduction Plan 2020-2022 and were also implemented during the year. The remaining activities to deliver the 2004-2020 North London Joint Waste Strategy were also delivered. All of the targets within the joint waste strategy have now been achieved, with the exception of reaching a recycling rate of 50%. NORTH LONDON WASTE AUTHORITY / ANNUAL REPORT 2020-2021 2 2. Highlights of 2020/21 2.1 It was a year of strong progress despite the COVID-19 pandemic. 2.2.2 In terms of the amount of local authority collected residua The pandemic disrupted operational services and the Authority’s l waste disposed of by the Authority, (both from households waste prevention work.
    [Show full text]
  • 2020-05-26 XR Rebuttal of NLWA Claims
    STATEMENT 26 MAY 2020 of Barnet, Camden, Enfield, Media contact: +44 7710 269195 Hackney, Haringey, Islington [email protected] & Waltham Forest, together with Extinction Rebellion London TIME TO TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT incineration The North London Waste Authority (NLWA) has responded to calls for a pause and review of its North London Heat and Power Project (NLHPP)—which includes plans to construct a new incinerator in Edmonton— with statements that include some questionable claims. These statements appear in a letter signed by NLWA chair Cllr Clyde Loakes and dated 21 April 2020, and in a Hackney Citizen article of 11 March 2020, which quotes Hackney Cllr Jon Burke.1 They reveal that the NLWA still is not taking recycling or climate breakdown seriously. In this document, Extinction Rebellion (XR) corrects the record with the intention of convincing North London councillors to pause and review the NLHPP so that the seven boroughs that constitute the NLWA may be free to pursue more sustainable waste management options and help London meet its circular economy policy objectives. The current incinerator is operational until 2027, so there is time for a rethink, as long as procurement and preparatory works are put on hold. This rebuttal is meant as a complement to a letter that XR sent to all North London councillors on 11 March 2020. That letter provides a thoroughly sourced rundown of the environmental, financial, and governance problems associated with the NLHPP, as well as details on proven alternatives to incineration. It is available at: https://stop-edmonton-incinerator.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/2020-03-11-XR-incinerator-letter.pdf.
    [Show full text]
  • Delivering Heat Networks Understanding the Challenge
    Delivering Heat Networks Understanding the challenge District heating networks are a key component These challenges and complexities are best of a future low carbon London. They will addressed by bringing together engineering, provide the means to capture and distribute planning, finance and regulatory expertise into heat from a diverse mix of primary as well as an integrated project delivery unit. secondary heat sources to serve homes and businesses. Development of district heating Arup’s multidisciplinary approach to district networks at scale across the capital over the heating project delivery underpins our work next ten years is therefore essential for London in London and across the UK. We support to meet the Mayor’s target of meeting 25% public and private sector clients from early of London’s energy needs from decentralised stage resource assessments and policy advice sources by 2025. through to scheme design, business case and procurement. We work closely with clients at Thanks to previous mayoral programmes such each stage to scope the opportunities, analyse as the London Heat Map and Decentralised the fundamentals and develop practicable Energy Masterplanning (DEMaP), the solutions for bankable projects. challenge today is no longer knowing where the opportunities lie; it is understanding how to deliver them in the face of multiple barriers, including: - long investment horizons; - limited windows of opportunity; - an opaque regulatory framework; - a stigma of poorly performing schemes in the past; and - limited experience among local authorities and developers. 2 Understanding the challenge Delivering solutions The unique working philosophy at Arup – Through our global knowledge management founded on flexibility, transparency and systems, we are able to harness ideas and ability to deliver – is ideally suited to practical experience from projects worldwide.
    [Show full text]
  • Infrastructure Delivery Plan Review (October 2018)
    Infrastructure Delivery Plan Review (October 2018) Contents Glossary 2 1. Introduction 1.1. Introduction 3 1.2. Context and Aims 3 1.3. Approach 3 1.4. Report Structure 4 2. Anticipated Growth in the Legacy Corporation Area 2.1. Introduction 5 2.2. Population and Economy 5 3. Social Infrastructure 3.1. Introduction 7 3.2. Primary and Secondary Education 7 3.3. Early Years 13 3.4. Primary Healthcare 15 3.5. Sports and leisure, open space and play space 17 3.6. Other community facilities 21 4. Transport 4.1. Transport 31 5. Utilities and Hard Infrastructure 5.1. Introduction 47 5.2. Energy 47 5.3. Waste Management 51 5.4. Sewage 53 5.5. Water 55 5.6. Flood Risk 57 6. Infrastructure Requirements and Funding 62 Appendix 1 – Draft IDP Long List of Projects 1 Glossary Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) – The Community Infrastructure Levy is a levy on development that local authorities in England and Wales may put in place to help deliver infrastructure to support the development of their area. Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) – Identifies the existing social, transport and utilities infrastructure within the Legacy Corporation area over the period 2014 to 2031. It is based on publicly available information and consultation with the four boroughs and infrastructure providers. Legacy Corporation’s Legacy Communities Scheme (LCS) – The Legacy Communities Scheme sought permission for the long-term development of five new neighbourhoods within the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park. Planning Application Reference: 11/90621/OUTODA 2 1. Introduction 1.1. Introduction The Legacy Corporation adopted both their Local Plan and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Charging Schedule in 2015.
    [Show full text]
  • London Borough of Haringey
    London Borough of Haringey Community Infrastructure Study March 2010 CONTENTS SECTIONS PAGE Introduction – Why we need a community infrastructure study 3 Housing and Population Growth in Haringey 9 Health 12 Education 27 Social Care 44 Libraries and Museum 51 Open Space 56 Leisure Facilities 69 Emergency Services 75 Transport 83 Waste Management 98 Water Supply and Waste Water 102 Energy 105 Telecommunications 110 Community Facilities 111 Appendix 1 Cost Assumptions 114 Appendix 2 Key Infrastructure Projects 117 2 INTRODUCTION: WHY WE NEED A COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY The London Borough of Haringey 1.1 The London Borough of Haringey (hereafter referred to as Haringey) covers an area of 11.5 square miles. It is situated in north central London. Haringey is considered to be an outer London borough. However, its proximity and public transport access to Central London and its socio-economic make-up mean that it shares many characteristics with inner London boroughs. Haringey is strategically located in the London-Stansted- Cambridge-Peterborough Growth Area, and is therefore a focus for new housing growth by central government and the Greater London Authority. With strong links to the City, West End, the Upper Lee Valley and Stansted Airport the borough is very well placed as a business location and as a base for out-commuting. 1.2 Haringey is currently preparing its Local Development Framework Core Strategy – A New Plan for Haringey. This will guide growth in the Borough for the London Plan period to 2016 and beyond to 2026. Haringey has a target of 6,800 new homes for the period between 2006 and 2016/17.
    [Show full text]
  • Edmonton Ecopark
    LondonEnergy Ltd LondonEnergy, Temporary Bulky Waste Recycling Facility (TBWRF), Edmonton EcoPark Environmental Permit Application Site Condition Report Wood Group UK Limited – November 2020 2 © Wood Group UK Limited Report for Copyright and non-disclosure notice Tom Bateson The contents and layout of this report are subject to copyright Sustainability and Environment Manager owned by Wood (© Wood Group UK Limited 2020) save to the London Energy Limited extent that copyright has been legally assigned by us to EcoPark another party or is used by Wood under licence. To the extent Advent Way that we own the copyright in this report, it may not be copied Edmonton or used without our prior written agreement for any purpose London other than the purpose indicated in this report. The N18 3AG methodology (if any) contained in this report is provided to you in confidence and must not be disclosed or copied to third parties without the prior written agreement of Wood. Disclosure of that information may constitute an actionable Main contributors breach of confidence or may otherwise prejudice our Lynne Gemmell commercial interests. Any third party who obtains access to this report by any means will, in any event, be subject to the Third Party Disclaimer set out below. Issued by Third party disclaimer ................................................................................. Any disclosure of this report to a third party is subject to this Lynne Gemmell disclaimer. The report was prepared by Wood at the instruction of, and for use by, our client named on the front of the report. It does not in any way constitute advice to any third party who is able to access it by any means.
    [Show full text]
  • Ltd 8 Floor 210 Pentonville Road London N1 9JY Our
    Joanne Demetrius Our Ref: APP/M1900/V/13/2192045 Veolia ES (UK) Ltd 8th Floor 210 Pentonville Road 16 July 2015 London N1 9JY Dear Madam TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 (SECTION 77) APPLICATION BY VEOLIA ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES LTD CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RECYCLING AND ENERGY RECOVERY FACILITY – LAND AT NEW BARNFIELD, HATFIELD APPLICATION REF: 6/2570-11 1. I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that consideration has been given to the report of the Inspector, David Richards BSocSci Dip TP MRTPI, who held an inquiry on dates between 10 September and 25 October 2013 in relation to your application under Section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for the demolition of existing library buildings and construction and operation of a Recycling and Energy Recovery Facility (RERF) for the treatment of Municipal, Commercial and Industrial Wastes together with ancillary infrastructure, including bulking/transfer facilities, administration/visitor centre, landscaping, habitat creation, drainage and highway improvement works (application ref 6/2570-11 dated 16 November 2011). 2. On 28 January 2013, the Secretary of State directed, in pursuance of Section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, that your application be referred to him instead of being dealt with by the waste planning authority, Hertfordshire County Council (HCC), because the proposal involved matters giving rise to substantial cross boundary or national controversy. 3. The Secretary of State issued his decision in respect of the above application in his letter dated 7 July 2014. That decision letter was the subject of an application to the High Court and was subsequently quashed by order of the Court dated 22 January 2015.
    [Show full text]
  • Alternatives Assessment Report
    NORTH LONDON WASTE AUTHORITY NORTH LONDON HEAT AND POWER PROJECT ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT REPORT The Planning Act 2008 The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 Regulation 5 (2) (q) AD05.03 NLWA Revision 0 October 2015 North London Waste Authority North London Heat and Power Project Alternative Assessment Report Contents Page Executive summary 1 1 Introduction 3 1.1 Introduction 3 1.2 Purpose of this Report 3 1.3 Structure of this Report 3 1.4 The Applicant 4 1.5 The Application Site 4 1.6 Surrounding area 5 1.7 The Project 6 1.8 Stages of development 6 2 Legislative and Policy Requirements 8 2.1 Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (NPS EN-1) 8 2.2 National Policy Statement of Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3) 9 3 Strategic development of the Project 10 3.1 Relevant history of the Application and Edmonton EcoPark 10 3.2 Procurement strategy – further detail 12 4 Summary and conclusions of assessments 13 4.1 Introduction 13 4.2 Approach to technology assessment 13 4.3 Technology options 14 4.4 Technology conclusion 15 4.5 Approach to site assessment 16 4.6 Site criteria for the Project 16 4.7 Site conclusions 17 4.8 The Temporary Laydown Area 18 4.9 Edmonton Sea Cadets 19 4.10 The Project 21 AD05.03 | Issue | October 2015 | NLWA North London Waste Authority North London Heat and Power Project Alternative Assessment Report Appendices Appendix A : Chronology of assessments A.1 Appendix B : Review of thermal treatment options B.1 Appendix C : Design of plant: number of plant
    [Show full text]
  • Waste Management Evidence Base, 2016
    LBTH Waste Management Evidence Base, 2016 Executive summary Introduction The London Borough of Tower Hamlets (LBTH), as unitary waste authority and waste planning authority, commissioned BPP Consulting LLP, working with Land Use Consultants and Reconsult, to assist in the preparation of the evidence base supporting the development of waste policies. These policies are to be included in the revised Local Plan for the Borough which is to cover a 15 year period. The study extends to 2036 to reflect the time period of the London Plan (2015). Context The need for revised policies has been driven by a number of developments as follows: the introduction of revised national planning policy for waste National Waste Planning Policy (NPPW); the adoption of Further Alterations to the London Plan which amongst other matters reduced the Borough apportionments and brought forward the dates by which landfilling of recyclable and biodegradable waste is to cease and London is to achieve net self sufficiency as a whole (London Plan policy 5.16 and 5.17); and the changing character of the Borough. Policies once adopted will form part of the development plan for the Borough, against which proposals for additional waste management capacity, and proposals affecting existing waste management sites, will be considered and determined. Scene Setting Tower Hamlets is a London Borough with a total area of 7.63 sq mi (19.77 km2). An area of the Borough falls under the aegis of the London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC). While LBTH remains the responsible authority when planning for provision of the management of waste arising from this area, LLDC is the plan making and determining body for waste related planning applications.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Edmonton Ecopark Planning Brief SPD Enfield Council
    www.enfield.gov.uk/ecopark Draft Edmonton EcoPark Planning Brief SPD Enfield Council Contents Chapters 1 Introduction 3 1.1 What is the purpose of this Planning Brief? 3 1.2 The challenge ahead 5 1.3 The future role of the EcoPark 6 1.4 Environmental Regulations and Assessment 8 1.5 Policy and Regulatory Context 9 1.6 Structure of the document 13 2 Vision 15 2.1 Objectives 15 3 Identifying Site Opportunities and Constraints 17 3.1 Land ownership 17 3.2 Existing uses 17 3.3 Location 21 3.4 Adjacent land uses 25 3.5 Wider regeneration context 27 3.6 Existing site conditions 28 3.7 Summary of site analysis 38 4 Principles for future development of the EcoPark 41 4.1 Drivers of change 41 4.2 Development response 44 5 Implementation 61 5.1 Phasing and construction 61 5.2 Matters to be addressed by a planning application 61 5.3 Planning Obligations 62 Appendices Appendix A References 65 Appendix B Potential Waste Treatment Facilities 67 Enfield Council Draft Edmonton EcoPark Planning Brief SPD Contents ] ^ _ ` a b c d e f a e f b g e h _ ^ i h j _ f f k f l m ^ k n ` o h ] b f ` k n j c p e q f g k j [ ¡ ¥ O N ¤ O ¢ ¦ P § ¤ ¥ £ L ¢ B § ¢ P ¥ B ¦ L ¥ N ¢ ¢ ¤ ¡ ¥ N £ ¢ L r ¢ § ¤ ¥ £ ¦ ¥ ¦ ¤ ¡ s K C C ¢ ¤ ¡ § L ¢ Y ¦ ¥ A ¡ ¢ § t ¥ ¥ £ ¦ ¥ £ ¢ ¦ ¥ ¤ ¥ ¤ ¡ ¥ A ¤ ¦ ¥ ¥ M ¥ L £ N ¥ ¤ A ¤ ¡ ¥ § ¤ ¥ u K C C [ ¡ ¥ Y ¦ ¥ A § ¥ ¤ § ¤ ¤ ¡ ¥ £ £ ¦ ¤ ¤ ¥ § ¢ § ¤ ¦ ¢ ¤ § A ¦ ¤ ¡ ¥ ¥ M ¥ L £ N ¥ ¤ A ¥ r r ¢ § ¤ ¥ N ¢ ¢ ¥ N ¥ ¤ ¢ ' C ¤ ¡ ¥ ¦ A ¢ L ¤ ¥ § ¤ ¡ ¥ § ¤ ¥ v ¢ § ¥ ¤ § ¤ ¤ ¡ ¥ £ ¦ £ L ¥ § r ¡ ¡ ¤ ¡ ¥ § ¥ § ¡ L A
    [Show full text]
  • Cory Riverside Energy: a Carbon Case’, the Carbon Footprint
    Riverside Energy Park Consultation Report Appendices APPENDIX: PLANNING INSPECTORATE REFERENCE NUMBER: EN010093 DOCUMENT REFERENCE: J SUMMARY OF RELEVANT RESPONSES November 2018 Revision 0 APFP Regulation 5(2)(q) Planning Act 2008 | Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 Consultation Report Appendices Riverside Energy Park Contents J.1 Non-Statutory Consultation Comments and Applicant’s Response J.2 Section 42 Statutory Consultation Comments and Applicant’s Response (June- July 2018) J.3 Minor Refinements Consultation Comments and Applicant’s Response (July- September 2018) J.4 Section 47 and Section 48 Statutory Consultation Comments and Applicant's Response (June-July 2018) J.5 Technical notes issued to Greater London Authority Consultation Report Appendices Riverside Energy Park Appendix J.1 Non-Statutory Consultation Comments and Applicant’s Response Riverside Energy Park: Consultation Report Appendix J.1 – Non-Statutory Consultation Responses and Applicant’s Comments Non-statutory Consultation with the Local Community The tables below sets out relevant responses received from the local community during the Non-Statutory Consultation in May 2018 (see Section 3 of the Consultation Report). Table 1 provides relevant responses received in response to the Comments Form (see Appendix D.4 of the Consultation Report) made available on the Riverside Energy Park website and at the non-statutory public exhibitions held in May 2018. In order to retain the context of the responses received, they are grouped in Table 1 under the Comments Form question they were provided in response to. Table 2 below provides a relevant response received in response to the Non-Statutory Consultation in May 2018 which was emailed to the Applicant instead of using the Comments Form.
    [Show full text]
  • North London Waste Plan July 2015
    North London Waste Plan July 2015 Contents FOREWORD .............................................................................................................. 4 1. Introduction and Background ............................................................................. 5 2. Setting the Scene ............................................................................................ 15 3. Aims and Objectives ........................................................................................ 23 4. Spatial Strategy ............................................................................................... 26 5. Current waste management in North London .................................................. 33 6. Future Waste Management Requirements ...................................................... 45 7. Provision for North London’s Waste to 2032 .................................................... 52 8. Sites and Areas ............................................................................................... 57 9. Policies ............................................................................................................ 65 10. Monitoring and Implementation ........................................................................ 82 Appendix 1: Schedule 1: Existing safeguarded waste sites in North London ........... 91 Appendix 2: Individual site/area profiles ......................Error! Bookmark not defined. Appendix 3: Replacement policies and changes to proposal mapsError! Bookmark not defined. Appendix 4:
    [Show full text]