Proposed waste depot in Portobello

[Maria]

Where is the first photo taken from though?

To me that looks like a view from the footbridge. Give the current view from the footbridge I really don't see how the proposal would make much difference from that perspective.

It looks like a view from the footbridge to me too, but the reason I chose this was to illustrate the relative height of the mast to the surroundings, not to suggest it will spoil a view from a footbridge. The height of the masts, as I've already said, gives a useful guide to the scale of the proposed building.

And whilst your second photo captures the pylons, the proposed building is lower than them and further away. If built it wouldn't appear in the picture at all.

I think you mean the masts. Yes, the proposed building is lower than the top of the masts, but if you look at the proportion of the mast showing then the top of the building will also be obvious. The building would be in front of, not 'further away' from, the most distant mast as seen in the second photo.

I'd suggest that those who aren't keen concentrate their resources on genuine, arguable planning reasons, as oppossed to emotive, anecdotal, tendentious reasons that any half decent planning expert will rip to shreds in half a minute.

I was merely defending Mr McAlinden's letter, which you derided.

[seanie]

The height of the masts in the planning is given as 30m.

So the proposal would be around half their height. That would certianly be visible from the footbridge but it would have virtually no visual impact north of the bypass. It wouldn't appear in your second photo at all.

And I'm not sure I did deride the letter. One aspect of it yes. I think the idea that the proposal will have any significant visual impact on views from the beach is preposterous. If you want to defend that feel free.

I wouldn't bring it up in the Inquiry though.

[Maria]

The height of the masts in the planning is given as 30m.

It is also given as 27m. Short of one of us shimmying up with a tape measure we'll have to accept they are somewhere around 27-30m in height.

So the proposal would be around half their height. That would certianly be visible from the footbridge but it would have virtually no visual impact north of the bypass.

Even at half the height of the masts, it means the building towers above tree level. It will be clearly seen from Portobello Golf Course.

It wouldn't appear in your second photo at all.

OK, imagine a building half the height of the masts (and stretching in length from one mast to another) and look at this view taken from Google Streetview and Sandford Gdns. Do you still think it will not be seen?


<a href="http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v388/ ... Gdns-1.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v388/ ... Gdns-1.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

[Bob Jefferson]

You would have to take into account the fact that the Google photo is taken from a camera mounted on a pole on top of a car, so perhaps an elevation of around 3 metres. From what I have learned so far, I don't think the proposed building will be visible from many, if any, parts of Portobello at street level. Obviously, if you already have a view from your top floor window of the freightliner terminal then any new building placed there will be visible.

From our loft windows we can see the top of the mast in the distance, above the tree line. Visually, the pylons are much more intrusive, the present PHS is an eyesore and detracts from the view of Arthur's Seat and the Baileyfield Industrial Estate is an ugly collection of buildings. I guess we are stuck with the pylons but the landscape will change when the school is demolished and the Scottish Power Site developed.

From a noise perspective, the boy racers seem to have moved on and I have recently identified and eliminated the alarm at Standard Life that has annoyed me for years. Otherwise, it's pretty quiet round here and I don't expect that to change if the Viridor plan is given approval.

So for me, by far the main concern is the traffic impact on SHL Road, the King's Road junction and whatever roads are used to access the facility, particularly at peak times. Can the network cope or will it all grind to a halt?

And I'm still concerned about the bigger picture. We all contribute towards the waste that society produces, whether it be domestic, commercial or industrial and have a collective responsibility to deal with it. If Edinburgh and Midlothian are now taking a joint approach then perhaps there may be other suitable sites in Midlothian but let's not kid ourselves - there will always be opposition to this type of facility, wherever it is proposed. It has to go somewhere and that EU deadline and the financial implications for all of us are not going away.

The other factor to be considered, not that it has any relevance to the Inquiry, is what better use that site could be put to. As Lawrence Marshall suggested, in developing the waterfront at Seafield, all those car showrooms and other retail units, along with the bus depot will have to be re-located somewhere and the freightliner terminal might be at least part of the solution.

[Maria]

For those of you who have better things to do than trawl through pages of documents here's a copy of the Viridor document which handily shows the height of the building in comparison to the masts. As you can see they reckon it will be higher than half their height. The house is 17 Stanley street which is rather diminutive in comparison.
<a href="http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v388/ ... orplan.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v388/ ... orplan.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

[Bob Jefferson]

Are you satisfied that this is a scale drawing? If so, draw a line (of sight) from the top right hand corner of 17 Stanley Street above the tree line towards the proposed facility. Where does it connect?

[Maria]

I'm sure it is great for you Bob that you reckon it won't impinge much on you, but can we just stress that however much you want to take credit for the industrial and commercial waste that will be dumped at this site, it is merely going to be shoved on a train and taken out to landfill. This is not a recycling/treatment plant.

[Maria]

Are you satisfied that this is a scale drawing? If so, draw a line (of sight) from the top right hand corner of 17 Stanley Street above the tree line towards the proposed facility. Where does it connect?

Again the illustration was for scale not what the owner of that single property will or will not see. My intention is to show that wherever you can see the masts it is likely you will see the building.

[Epykat]

complaint about the terrible noise from jet-skis afflicting people in their house 500 yards from the promenade.

It's not terribly convincing.

Feel free to come and sit in our garden half way up Moira Terrace any time in the Summer and listen for yourself...and just for good measure - we can hear the dogs in the Dog & Cat Home as well.

[Bob Jefferson]

Clearly, what we need to settle this is an actual size cardboard model of the facility. I'm in for a fiver.

[Bob Jefferson]

Feel free to come and sit in our garden half way up Moira Terrace any time in the Summer

Cheers! Is it BYOB?

[Epykat]

Feel free to come and sit in our garden half way up Moira Terrace any time in the Summer

Cheers! Is it BYOB?

Or BYOEM if you like

[Bob Jefferson]

BYOEM? It's too early in the morning for these games.

[Porty]

complaint about the terrible noise from jet-skis afflicting people in their house 500 yards from the promenade.

It's not terribly convincing.

Feel free to come and sit in our garden half way up Moira Terrace any time in the Summer and listen for yourself...and just for good measure - we can hear the dogs in the Dog & Cat Home as well.

for someone who doesn't listen your hearing is amazing! Marya, seanie is wise in these matters and is trying to help not deride- hope you are not adopting the Porty activist "personal insult " strategy. I say if one wants to avoid being identified as ridiculous - don't be ridiculous. Be careful not to stray into the area of supposed personalisation its the last resort for the intellectually bereft. IMHO

[Maria]

Marya, seanie is wise in these matters and is trying to help

I don't doubt for a minute that Seanie is astute at interpreting site plans Porty, but his interpretation that,

Visually the railway and bypass obsure it pretty well close up from most directions. Some of the house on Stanley Street and the top flats on Southfield place might get a bit of a view but even then the site must be over a hundred yards away at the closest. The idea it would loom over nearby houses is over-egging things a touch

is at odds, not just with what laypeople, such as myself and Mr McAlinden, believe, but with that of some of his colleagues. It offers false hope.

I also understand Seanie is warning PONGS not to argue on grounds, which aren't strictly planning related. Fair enough, but c'mon, please, we're not that daft!

Mr McAlinden's letter raises awareness that the fight is still on our hands and stresses, for those who may have otherwise been blissfully unaware, the sheer scale of what is being planned. Perhaps I was a tad strong in my accusation that Seanie was deriding Mr McAlinden's letter and for that I apologise. My sympathy lays ,however, wholeheartedly with Mr McAlinden.He is not a submariner as far as I know, but he is, quite rightly, a very worried resident.

[Porty]

Submariner?

[Maria]

Periscope

[Epykat]

BYOEM? It's too early in the morning for these games.

Ear Muffs

[seanie]

Marya, seanie is wise in these matters and is trying to help

I don't doubt for a minute that Seanie is astute at interpreting site plans Porty, but his interpretation that,

Visually the railway and bypass obsure it pretty well close up from most directions. Some of the house on Stanley Street and the top flats on Southfield place might get a bit of a view but even then the site must be over a hundred yards away at the closest. The idea it would loom over nearby houses is over-egging things a touch

is at odds, not just with what laypeople, such as myself and Mr McAlinden, believe, but with that of some of his colleagues. It offers false hope.

Whose colleagues are you referring to?

[Maria]

Probably bad choice of word. I meant 'fellow architects/planning experts'.

[seanie]

Well looking at that section the house on Stanley street must be a couple of hundred yards from the proposed building. It would have to be considerably larger for it to loom over anything at that distance. Whilst I've no doubt it will be visible from some directions, that'll generally be at quite a distance. I think most properties that are closer to it have their view pretty well shielded by the embankment/bypass/railway.

And just so we don't forget the original claim, I think the idea that the proposal will have any significant visual impact on views from the beach is indeed daft.

[Maria]

Whilst I've no doubt it will be visible from some directions, that'll generally be at quite a distance. I think most properties that are closer to it have their view pretty well shielded by the embankment/bypass/railway.

I reckon noise, smell and light pollution will be the major concerns for those closest*, Seanie, but take a look at the view from Brighton Park, when walking up Brighton Place.

After Bob mentioned the fact that that the Google camera would have been about 3 metres off the ground, I tested what the view was like from pedestrian level. It didn't reassure me. I still got a really good view of the masts, which seem, from that perspective, to be in the back gardens of East Brighton Crescent.

* I should add here that those, who are the very closest, are houses in East Brighton Crescent and Windsor Place. Much closer than say houses in Stanley Street.

[seanie]

The houses in East Brighton Crescent are probably too close for the building to be visually intrusive. The embankment blocks their view. There's more chance of being able to see it from further away.

[Maria]

The houses in East Brighton Crescent are probably too close for the building to be visually intrusive. The embankment blocks their view. There's more chance of being able to see it from further away.

Are you saying that only seeing it from further away means it won't be visually intrusive?

At the moment the view say from Brighton Place and Park is a pretty pleasant one. East Brighton Crescent forms part of an attractive Grade A conservation area and although the lighting/communication masts aren't that pretty as a backdrop, they don't look nearly as bad as a hulking great metal shed rising above the roof tops will .

[seanie]

As a general rule of thumb, the further things are away the less visualy intrusive they are. Even a big tin shed isn't necessarily easy to spot from a few hundred yards. Particularly with numerous visual obstacles given the environment.

[seanie]

And as far as I can see the mast that's closest to you is a lot nearer than the proposed building would be. From the plan it looks around 130m. So that mast isn't a good reference point for imagining how the building would appear. I don't know if they've done it yet, but PONGS should draw some sections and see just how it would appear.

[Maria]

And as far as I can see the mast that's closest to you is a lot nearer than the proposed building would be. From the plan it looks around 130m. So that mast isn't a good reference point for imagining how the building would appear. I don't know if they've done it yet, but PONGS should draw some sections and see just how it would appear.

When I said to take a look from Brighton Place/Park, I didn't mean from my front gate, I meant from further down the street, say at the junction with Sandford Gardens (or near to the Streetview shot I posted). You can see both masts from there, including the one that will be behind the building if it is built. OK, I appeciate it isn't an exact science , but it gives a more helpful guide to most people than looking at a technical plan.

As an aside, it might be worth mentioning that many of the trees that Viridor mention as providing screening aren't actually on their site. As you will know Seanie, the trees on the embankment could be felled, as some were only a year or so ago.

I'll make sure your advice regarding sections is passed on to the relevant parties.

[seanie]

Hang on though. You said;

My intention is to show that wherever you can see the masts it is likely you will see the building.

The westerly mast is well over 100 yards from the proposed building. Being able to see the westerly mast tells you precious little about whether you'd be able to see the building. It really isn't much of a guide.

The second mast is better, and I think that from Sandford Gardens/Brighton Place it might well be possible to see it. But you'd really want some kind of visual representation to see how intrusive it was.

[Maria]

Hang on though. You said;

My intention is to show that wherever you can see the masts it is likely you will see the building.

Yes, I said it was likely not a certainty. Read in context, it is clear that I am arguing that the building would be 16m tall and over half the height of the masts, therefore, it is obvious much depends on what proportion of the masts you can see.

Bob, for example, tells us he won't be worried, as he can only see the very top of one of the masts. And hopefully my view from my front window won't suffer either ( though I'm not sure about my upstair neighbours' view). That doesn't mean, however, that I don't think that the building won't be a blot on the Portobello skyline, when viewed from elsewhere.

I think that from Sandford Gardens/Brighton Place it might well be possible to see it.

'It' being the Viridor building?

[seanie]

And what I'm saying is that it is not likely that you'll be able to see the building if you can see the westerly mast. Possibly yes, but since that mast is a considerable distance from the proposal it is not a good guide. On the contrary, using it as a guide could well give people the wrong impression. You also said;

Now, in your mind's eye, picture the top of a hulking industrial unit running behind East Brighton Crescent from one mast to beyond the other.

If people have pictured that in their mind's eye, particularly in reference to the photo you were discussing, then they've probably got the wrong impression of just how intrusive the proposal might be.

[Maria]

And what I'm saying is that it is not likely that you'll be able to see the building if you can see the westerly mast.

And where did I say any different? I've argued that if you could see masts in the plural then it is likely you would see the building

Possibly yes.....

Was that a reply to my question as to whether you agreed the building may be seen from Sandford Gardens?

[seanie]

You've also suggested the building might stretch "from one mast to beyond the other."

That bears little relation to the size or location of the proposal.

And yes, I said I thought it was possible it would be seen from around the Sandford Gardens/Brighton Place junction. But I'm by no means certain of that.

Had a look from the beach yet?

[Maria]

You've also suggested the building might stretch "from one mast to beyond the other."

That bears little relation to the size or location of the proposal.

Viewed from an oblique angle, say from the bedroom windows of some properties on Brighton Place or possibly some of those in the Christians, yes that's what I believe it will look like. Obviously, the view from an overhead helicopter will be different.

And yes, I said I thought it was possible it would be seen from around the Sandford Gardens/Brighton Place junction. But I'm by no means certain of that.

So a few more than just
"' Some of the house on Stanley Street and the top flats on Southfield place" who'll be getting a view then?

Had a look from the beach yet?

Nope. The hailstones put me off.

[Porty]

I also understand Seanie is warning PONGS not to argue on grounds, which aren't strictly planning related. Fair enough, but c'mon, please, we're not that daft!

No?

Does PONGS include people who argued at the recent local plan inquiry that a 3 storey school will breach the city skyline policy?

And do you have members who think its visually and aesthetically more acceptable to refurbish a 100M long 40M high 60's monstrosity than it is to put up with a 16M tall chimney? If one doesn't think that some of the"we're" can be daft when it comes to planning then one is in fact being daft. It would be easy to draw analogy with "build in your park not ours", wouldn't it?

I'm against the faclity being located at the FT mainly down to traffic issues. Although I do recall it was a Freightliner Terminal in the days before the by pass. However, as per usual the unreasonables are starting to piss me off. Mr Mcalindin claims the chimney will be seen from the beach- we live in a City. Up until recently we had a much taller chimney right on the beach, it was attached to coal fired power station, which was opened by King George V in 1923 and which loomed over the houses in the Kings Road area. Furthermore you can still clearly see Cockenzie power station from the beach and it doesn't spoil the beach experience, indeed it makes a modicum of difference at most.

I mean how come the Kilns are worshipped as super duper chimneys and yet there's discrimiation against other chimneys which happen to be made from more modern materials? When you live in a city you cannot always have it your own way. And who is to say that the Waste Transfer Station will not become a tourist destination in years to come?

( as an aside when I lived in Mountcastle I could clearly hear the "waves commencing" announcement ad the screams an screeches of children playing at the open air pool) It was just part of the fabric of life in Portobello.)

[Maria]

Porty, I think that possibly, just possibly mind, you are allowing personal grievances to colour your view here, but I'll leave that for others to decide.


I'm not sure where your homily to chimneys leaves us viv a vis the waste transfer building. There is no chimney on the proposed building. It is not a treatment plant. It is a transfer station for landfill waste. There is no chimney; it is a 16m tall building.

I know you are fond of Portobello's past, but I seem to remember recently a Glasgow Herald journalist slating Portobello beach for having a sewage plant at one end and a coal fired power station at the other, so perhaps our industrial heritage does put some visitors off. Personally,I'd rather we didn't add a great big rubbish dump to our list of 'visitor attractions'.