Proposed waste depot in Portobello

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 29 Jan 2010, 17:43

Bump!

In case you haven't bought your ticket yet, tonight's 'Porty's Got Talent' show promises to be a fun night out, so come along and be entertained by what is lining up to be quite a diverse set of performers, grab yourself a bargain in our auction and dust off your dancing shoes for the disco.

allaboardtheskylark · Post by **allaboardtheskylark** » 07 Feb 2010, 16:12

Well folks, now that the decision is about to be made, what are the odds and when will we hear.
Will it be a website release, or will it be announced in public.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 07 Feb 2010, 17:57

allaboardtheskylark wrote:Well folks, now that the decision is about to be made, what are the odds and when will we hear.
Will it be a website release, or will it be announced in public.

Sorry, I've been very tardy in updating this thread.

Firstly, 'Porty's Got Talent' was a really entertaining night, with some serious (and some 'not so serious':lol: ) talent on display. It also boosted PONGS' coffers to the tune of £1600, so another fantastic display of support from the community.
Meanwhile,I've just returned from leafleting neighbouring streets with PONGS' latest update;

PONGS UPDATE FEBRUARY 2010
Portobello Opposes New Garbage Site
www.portobellopongs.com

D-DAY APPROACHES!

The start date for the Public Local Inquiry into the planning application for a waste. transfer station at Sir Harry Lauder Road, is MONDAY 8 FEBRUARY 2010 at 10 AM and the venue is the ROYAL BRITISH LEGION, BAILEYFIELD ROAD. The inquiry is expected to last around seven working days.

Viridor representatives will be giving their evidence for the first three days of the inquiry, followed by the Joint Action Group, with representations on behalf of PONGS, Portobello Amenity Society, Portobello Community Council, Brightons and Rosefield Residents' Association and the Christians residents, as well as representations on visual impact, sustainability and planning issues. Local councillors and our MSP will probably appear w/c 15 February.

This is your chance to see and hear Viridor representatives try and justify why they think it is appropriate to imp'ose 900+ lorry movements per day, noise, smell, dust and damage to local amenity on our community.

This is a PUBLIC inquiry and anyone can attend, so please do try and come along to hear what is said. Local residents speaking at the inquiry would very much appreciate your support. Also, public objection is a material consideration so let's make sure the Reporters see for themselves how much objection there is to these plans.

You can call. in for half an hour, half a day or a full day if you like, it really is at your own convenience but please do try and make it along to the inquiry when you can.

The last few remaining PONGS calendars - featuring many stunning shots of Portobello by local photographers, priced only £5 - are available from Portobello library or Portobello Stationers (next door to Findlay's Deli). Alternatively, please email pongs@portobellopongs.com or 'phone 669 4981 for a copy.

DATE FOR YOUR DIARY

Our final fundraiser (we hope!) is a coffee morning, baking, preserves and bric-abrac sale, plus tombola on Saturday 6 March, 10.30 am - 1 pm in St James Church hall, Rosefield Place. Hope to see you there for a coffee and a chat.
And finally ... there has already been a fantastic and generous response to the appeal for funds, for which PONGS is very grateful. We are nearly there but not quite, so if you would like to donate to the funds, please send a cheque payable to PONGS, c/c 12 West Brighton Crescent, EH151LU, or you can donate directly to the account, alc no: 06002278, sort code: 80-18-31.

As you can see, the inquiry is just about to start and I believe it will be several months before a decision is announced. Whether it will appear on the dpea website, before any other method of public communication, I'm unsure. No doubt this will be something made clear during the course of the inquiry.

As to the odds? Well, we've known since the outset, that it will be a tough battle , but I've got every confidence in the team that are representing the Joint Action Group.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 07 Feb 2010, 19:20

Is there a timetable as to who's expected to be on when?

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 07 Feb 2010, 19:50

seanie wrote:Is there a timetable as to who's expected to be on when?

What I've got is

Viridor representatives will be giving their evidence for the first three days of the inquiry, followed by the Joint Action Group on Thursday and Friday 11 and 12 February, with representations on behalf of PONGS, Portobello Amenity Society, Portobello Community Council, Brightons and Rosefield Residents’ Association and the Christians residents, as well as representations on visual impact, sustainability and planning issues. Local councillors and our MSP will probably appear w/c 15 February. The inquiry will not sit on Monday 15 February.

I'll post up more details when I have them. I don't think the Council are proposing to take up much time.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 08 Feb 2010, 16:00

seanie wrote:Is there a timetable as to who's expected to be on when?

I managed to spend this morning at the Public Local Inquiry. Although it can be a wee bit dry when precognitions are being read out, it is very interesting (and at times highly entertaining!) when the cross examination starts. I reckon our QC is worth every penny raised and that's just after this morning's performance.

There was a good turnout of around 40 people, falling to about 20 as lunchtime approached. Various people came and went, including Gavin Strang MP and Kenny MacAskill MSP. The youngest member of the audience must have been around 18 mths old and I'll not hazard a guess as to the age of the oldest!

The timetable is loosely as follows;

The inquiry will sit daily from 10.00 am till 4.30 or 5.00 pm (excluding Monday 15 when it will not sit). There is a coffee break around 11.30 and an hour long break for lunch at 1.00pm.

Monday 8th, Tuesday 9th and Wednesday 10th - Viridor's representatives give evidence

Thursday 11th and Friday 12th -The Joint Action group will be giving their evidence . Mr John Hughes, a third party witness, will also give evidence on Fri 12th.

Monday 15th Inquiry will not sit

Tuesday 16th - Kenny MacAskill MSP is due to give evidence first thing that morning.
The City of Edinburgh Council will then put forward their witness, Cllr Mowat.
Our three local councillors will also appear as third party witnesses on Tue

Wednesday 17th - A third party witness, Professor Calverley, is scheduled to appear, but this has not been confirmed. It is hoped that a site visit may be carried out that day.

Thursday 18th - the site visit will be carried out today, if it hasn't been carried out the previous day.

The PLI will close on Thu 18th or Friday 19th depending on how long proceedings have taken.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 09 Feb 2010, 09:13

From the BBC Arguments over proposed waste site in Portobello begin

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 09 Feb 2010, 15:58

From today's EN letters page (third letter down);

Politicians are serving us well

Puerto bella · Post by **Puerto bella** » 09 Feb 2010, 18:35

Thanks to the great people of Portobello for their attendance at the Inquiry so far - its a real boost to our witnesses. Keep up the good work.

Puerto bella · Post by **Puerto bella** » 09 Feb 2010, 23:01

Viridor's traffic witness will be giving evidence tomorrow from 9.30am; followed by their Air Quality witness and Planning witness. Hope to see some of you there.

Puerto bella · Post by **Puerto bella** » 11 Feb 2010, 18:56

An outstanding volume of supporters today. Thankyou to all who attended. Tomorrow continues with the JAG witnesses starting at 9.30 again.

Puerto bella · Post by **Puerto bella** » 12 Feb 2010, 22:10

Another outstanding day from the JAG team - all of whom held up splendidly against the rigorous cross examination from Shep Wedd.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 13 Feb 2010, 00:18

Any detail of interest?

Puerto bella · Post by **Puerto bella** » 14 Feb 2010, 11:15

See Portobello Pongs web site for the daily updates on the Inquiry. Key points from each day are on there.

In essence Viridor have completed their submissions to the Inquiry. The JAG team have pointed out to the Reporters in the presentation of their case/ witnesses and the cross examination of the Viridor witnesses that there is significant doubt about the reliability and basis of the info Viridor have submitted to the Inquiry. In addition there are key fundamental flaws in the Viridor justification. This ranges from their statement on 'Need' and proposal being the Best Practicable Environmental Option, Traffic Assesments, Noise and Air Quality, Landscape and Visual Impact and Planning Policy - from National Waste Strategy to Area Waste Plan to Structure plan and Local plan.

We continue on Tuesday from 9.30am when the Inquiry will hear from Councillors Mowatt, Child, Hawkins and Bridgeman and Kenny MacAskill MSP. Well worth dropping in to hear what they have to say.

See you there.

Suzanne

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 14 Feb 2010, 19:28

From the daily updates;

Donald Canavan, a local architect, then spoke about the sustainability of the plan, pointing out that the sustainability assessment of the plans had been carried out only on the office building, which represents a mere 3.5% of the total floor area of the plan! The proposed photovoltaic panel on the roof would only produce enough power to boil a kettle and, by Viridor's calculations, the building would only use around 8 kw of energy. So it could, in fact, be powered by a cat, which produces 9 kw of heat and considerably more when chasing the increased vermin that the site would harbour. In other words, a load of greenwash.

As I understand it the proposal includes a 1kWp photovoltaic panel. A 1 kWp array should generate about 800kWh a year.

To boil a litre of water, an average kettle might use around 0.12 kWh.

So the PV array should generate enough power to boil a kettle over six and a half thousand times.

As for the cat, well your average 2 bar electric fire is probably rated around 2kW. It might be possible for a cat to achieve a much higher power rating.

But you'd have to set it on fire first.

admin: related messages split to The energetic cat thread.

Puerto bella · Post by **Puerto bella** » 17 Feb 2010, 23:15

Closing Submissions by the three main parties at the Inquiry tomorrow, starting at 9.30am.

Puerto bella · Post by **Puerto bella** » 18 Feb 2010, 22:17

Careful Marya - he'll think you're taking the 'puss'.

The Inquiry has ended and its all down to the two lady Reporters now.

Many thanks to the huge number of people who attended. It really boosted the team knowing how united people were in support of the JAG case. We thank you all.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 18 Feb 2010, 22:48

It's one of my hang-ups. I think factual accuracy is something that's important.

That may be a minority view of course.

SoupDragon · Post by **SoupDragon** » 20 Feb 2010, 01:07

On a serious note, thank you for posting the details of evidence given.

I would have liked to have attended but in the last couple of weeks I ( and family) have moved one daughter from Leith to the Pleasance, sorted and cleared my dads flat, sold and finally cleared my mums place.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 22 Feb 2010, 13:12

Pongs Email wrote:Today was the final day of the public inquiry into the application for the waste transfer station at Sir Harry Lauder Road. All three parties made closing submissions to a packed room, summing up their case for or against the development.

First, Suzanne McIntosh, for the Joint Action Group, read out Douglas Armstrong QC's closing statement (all 40 pages of it!) which summed up all the evidence put forward by the Joint Action Group against the proposal. JAG's case was summarised up as follows: "there is no justified need for the proposal, it will have a detrimental effect on the character and setting of the conservation area and the setting of listed buildings, it will increase HGVs coming into Portobello and will have a negative impact on the amenity of the area. I respectfully invite you to find that the appeal proposal is contrary to the Development Plan and that there are no material considerations which warrant a departure from the Development Plan".

Next Alastair Burnet, advocate for the Council, summed up their case. His statements were at times equivocal rather than a robust defence of the Council's position of having refused the plan. They actually agreed with Viridor on one or two points and one was left wondering whose side they were really on. Mind you, we have been wondering about that since the very beginning of this process.

Lastly, Mr McLeod, Viridor's solicitor, put their closing submissions, brazening it out on the points on which their evidence had been shown to be clearly lacking. He read some extracts from a speech by Lord Clyde about crucial factors to be taken into account when determining a planning appeal, just in case the Reporters had forgotten how to do their job. He even managed to add in a few extra paragraphs hastily cobbled together whilst he listened to our closing submissions. This is allowed apparently.

If you wish to read the closing submissions in full, they will shortly be posted on the DPEA's website (www.dpea.scotland.gov.uk, reference number PPA-230-1061).

Finally, the Reporters drew the proceedings to a close, remarking on how well-behaved and good-natured (on the whole!) everyone had been. They said they would try and reach a decision as soon as possible but this would be unlikely to be announced until early summer at the earliest. So now after all the excitement and hurly-burly of the inquiry we must wait patiently, catch up on cleaning, washing and other mundane necessities.

We would like say a huge thank you to everyone who has supported the campaign in whatever way. Without your support we would not have got to this stage.
I think everyone who saw our QC and our planning consultant in action agreed that they were worth every penny. We have done our very best to stop this plan from blighting our lovely urban village by the sea - let's hope that justice prevails.

Diana and Caroline

The bit in bold grates on me, it is the Authors usual council bashing. I'm not fooled in the least by their "wondering which side the council were on". They continually show contempt and distrust for the council, even when the council are on their side. (see the Superstore campaign). Why do it, what can be achieved?

It is a real turn off for those of us who may be against a particular development proposal but don't want to be associated with unjust denigration of the council. It is understandable that many Portobello people think that these campaigns are motivated by something other than the real issue. Which, is a shame for the campaigners who are passionate about the cause but have no axe to grind with the council.

As far as I understand it; council planning officials recommended approval for the proposal and then the politicians voted no,. That is democracy in action. I firmly believe that the officals would not have made a recommendation if the propsal did not broadly fit the prevailing development plans.

Seems to me the councils position was not "unequivocal". There was genuine dilema. Sounds like the council's QC conveyed a truthful and factual statement on the council's position. I wonder why some people fail to see that?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 22 Feb 2010, 14:40

Agreed. Very boring and entirely counter-productive. From my own experience, it's much easier to get things done if you have a constructive dialogue with Council officials. I'm still on first-name terms with many of the people I worked with in the past on various projects. And if you have a rapport with someone, they are much more likely to do you a favour - that's human nature.

And, as Porty says, there was exactly the same contemptuous attitude shown towards the Council during the Superstore campaign from exactly the same people. Their default position is that the Council is the enemy, rather than, potentially, a powerful ally.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 22 Feb 2010, 16:42

There's a term for having a 'rapport' with planning officials and gaining 'favours'. What is it again? Oh, I know ...corruption

I don't believe in knee jerk criticism of the council either ( though the word 'tram' has been known to set me off ), but having seen all parties in action at the PLI, I, for one, am mightily relieved that Portobello residents were represented by the JAG team. Now, whatever the outcome, we know that we gave it our very best shot.

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 22 Feb 2010, 17:26

Marya wrote: ...but having seen all parties in action at the PLI, I, for one, am mightily relieved that Portobello residents were represented by the JAG team. Now, whatever the outcome, we know that we gave it our very best shot.

I agree Marya. I'm very grateful to the people who have given up vast amounts of their time to put this together - it was the same with the superstore fight. I don't trust the Council as far as I can throw them either. The more I sat through the hearing, the more admiration I have for the organisers and I sincerely hope the outcome is in our favour.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 22 Feb 2010, 17:40

Marya wrote: I, for one, am mightily relieved that Portobello residents were represented by the JAG team. Now, whatever the outcome, we know that we gave it our very best shot.

Hear Hear!!- I don't believe Diana and Caroline's "wonderings" about the council's loyalties are necessarily representative of the entire JAG team, more likely just a small fraction of those involved. (Epy; hope you don't mind being referred to as a small fraction)

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 22 Feb 2010, 23:11

Porty wrote:.......(Epy; hope you don't mind being referred to as a small fraction)

Not a vulgar fraction I hope.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 22 Feb 2010, 23:34

She put the common in denominator.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 24 Feb 2010, 15:10

Marya- did Viridor's legal people pick up on the substantial PONGS donation from Portobello Community Council? I thought they may have tried to make mileage from the fact that the City Council (indirectly thru PCC) had donated funds to a campaign group. They could argue that the council tried to predjudice matters.

I assume PCC checked it all out before making the donation and that there is no comeback but it may have suited Viridor to make an issue of it.

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 24 Feb 2010, 17:30

Porty wrote:She put the common in denominator.

That's it...........we're finished.........

(had you ever been lucky enough to start that is

)

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 24 Feb 2010, 23:39

It wasn't good whilst it lasted!!

I know you. don't trust the council but do you think its ok to use a single issue campaign.as a platform to foster one's personal vendetta against a third party. (in this case the council) That's ok is it?

Puerto bella · Post by **Puerto bella** » 25 Feb 2010, 23:11

To all those who have been involved with or supported the Joint Action Group at the Public Inquiry please come and join us for hopefully our last Coffee morning on Saturday 6 March, 10.30 am to 1 pm at St James Church Hall, Rosefield Place, Portobello.

There will be home baking, preserves (including new season's marma...lade), bric-a-brac and a book sale, plus tombola. (Usually a good toy stall as well for those with children.) Look forward to seeing you there.

allaboardtheskylark · Post by **allaboardtheskylark** » 26 Feb 2010, 15:22

Firstly, let me state I am against the VIRIDOR proposal. I think it is a pack it, stack it, burn it and call it carbon capture scheme. Uninventive, costly and profitable only for VIRIDOR. It does nothing to attack the problems our waste production is causing the environment.
It leaves no room for expansion IF new methods of sorting waste for further processing are developed VIRIDOR will not be able to react to new demands on a constrained site, but...

The CEC seem to be in a difficult position, applying planning regs, and having to develop a waste strategy for the whole city. Imagine the fuss by BRA's if their buckets did not get lifted for a couple of weeks, or if they were forced legally, to say, half their waste production. So it is not easy or surprising the CEC may be sending a mixed message to campaigners.

Also, it is easy to say send it to Millerhill if you don't live there.

The question I have, for anybody who feels up to replying, is how much damage VIRIDOR have done to their appeal. Many of the "facts" they produced appear to have been manipulated to suit an end result. They seemed to stumble at times through their own facts and figures. I was surprised at how poorly they came across and I must say I am not biased as I am not a mad keen PONGER.

To start with I thought they were very strong favourites to win the appeal, now I am not so sure. I have gone for 1/4 (thats odds on) to even money.

Anyone bold enough to make a prediction?

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 26 Feb 2010, 22:15

Porty wrote:Marya- did Viridor's legal people pick up on the substantial PONGS donation from Portobello Community Council?

Not as far as I'm aware. The issues raised were all planning related.

It was one of the Reporters, who had suggested that all groups opposed to the application form the Joint Action Group. By dint of their donation to PONGS ( which took on the role of fundraising for JAG), the CC were, in fact, paying to help fund their own representation.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 26 Feb 2010, 22:19

allaboardtheskylark wrote: Anyone bold enough to make a prediction?

Nope, but like you I'm certainly more optimistic after the inquiry than I was prior to it.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 01 Mar 2010, 16:33

Marya wrote:
Porty wrote:Marya- did Viridor's legal people pick up on the substantial PONGS donation from Portobello Community Council?
Not as far as I'm aware. The issues raised were all planning related.

It was one of the Reporters, who had suggested that all groups opposed to the application form the Joint Action Group. By dint of their donation to PONGS ( which took on the role of fundraising for JAG), the CC were, in fact, paying to help fund their own representation.

Yeah and quite right too.

Diana Cairns has penned a fact based article, which is the lead story in this Quarters Portobelo Reporter.

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 02 Mar 2010, 11:02

It is frustrating having to wait so long for a decision. Thank goodness sticking the new PHS on Portobello Park will be straightforward.

Talk Porty ~ Portobello

Proposed waste depot in Portobello

Coffee Morning