OpinioN8

Connecting Crouch End and Hornsey with news, views and information

the London Concrete operation comprises a highly sustainable form of development

This statement "the London Concrete operation comprises a highly sustainable form of development"  is taken from the covering letter for a planning application to triple the number of permitted movements at the Cranford Way concrete batching plant. Perhaps it depends what you compare it to? 

From Wikipedia - "Cement manufacture causes environmental impacts at all stages of the process.".

From the Earth Institute at Colombia University "A single industry accounts for around 5% of global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. It produces a material so ubiquitous it is nearly invisible: cement."

So bringing in non-renewable aggregate by train to combine with non-renewable cement to make tons of concrete is "highly sustainable". They think they can pull the wool over eyes, or maybe kick the cement dust in them, by this abuse of language. 

Any hoo, London Concrete has been ignoring the planning conditions imposed when they were granted permission to set up operations in Cranford Way, by quite a lot. Looks as though various Facebook users have started a bit of a rumpus so London Concrete are going for retrospective increases in the traffic.

It seems the variation they are asking for is already in practical effect - the number of movements already exceeds the the new limits
"By reference to the proposed variations of the relevant Conditions, as set out in para 1.3, the recent survey figures for concrete mixer trucks are above the weekly average per day sought by the revised Conditions (150 movements) but are within the maximum figure sought for any one day (180 movements). The 5 cement deliveries are within the daily average sought by the proposed amendment to Condition 29 (9 per day). The traffic survey results are representative of a typical busy day which would be permitted by the variations which are sought to the relevant Conditions. "
So all the complaints so far, many from Uplands Road and both the Siches in Denton Road, complaining about the bad effect an increase would have, are irrelevant. This is a retrospective application normalising a situation which already exists.. Unless we believe that raising the limit would further increase the number of movements.
The tables in the traffic study have I think been rendered in diagrammatic form in Appendix 8 and 9. This seems to suggest the situation has improved (i.e. generally less traffic) since 2005!

Tags: concrete factory, cranford way, london concrete, planning

Views: 155

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I've just looked at one of the objections. The opening phrase is "It will only add further pollution and congestion to what is already an over-used highway". Simply not true. The poor sap clearly has not read the briefing papers. The change being requested will make not a blind bit of difference, it's what is already happening.

And Natural England are about as much use as a quango in a cyclone "Natural England currently has no comment to make on the variation of conditions 3, 27, 28 and 29."  . . . . and don't bother us again unless it's really important.

It is clear that London Concrete have already exceeded the limits set by the Planning Inspector some 12 years ago but that doesn't make it alright - I asked Haringey to look at London Concrete's compliance with the original conditions established, so Planning far from taking any action over this blatant breach of the original planning conditions are complicit it would seem in allowing London Concrete to regularise the situation by a 200% increase in vehicle movements. Which Adrian seems to think is OKish?  London Concrete drivers are actually franchised so not under London Concrete's supervision, direction or control - so when Haringey eventually pulls it's fingers out and starts to ship concrete to new local development sites they will then exceed the new limits and will again regularise it by a further application.  Residents in Stroud Green, Oakfield Road and Hornsey Vale roads already experience these very large vehicles using our roads as a rat-run.  Agreed about Natural England though...

No, it's not OK to lie about sustainability. It's not OK to exceed the limits set in the permission granted. Clearly, Haringey are complicit, perhaps by omission (they are probably short staffed) or perhaps because new dwellings are such a high priority they have consciously turned a blind eye.  But by objecting to an increase that has already happened, and which they had not noticed, the objectors become complicit too. In effect they are accepting the status quo. It's also not OK to go off half cocked. Fingers crossed that's not what I'm doing.

@MiddlesexUni

RSS

© 2017   Created by Adrian Essex.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service