Proposed waste depot in Portobello

[Maria]

It is frustrating having to wait so long for a decision.

It really is.

Thank goodness sticking the new PHS on Portobello Park will be straightforward.

This spring weather certainly lifts one's mood, doesn't it?

[Pal of Porty]

This spring weather certainly lifts one's mood, doesn't it?

It was all your talk of Barcelona!

[Maria]

Decision is now up on the dpea website http://www.dpea.scotland.gov.uk


WE WON

[Epykat]

Hooray! Drinking all that tea on a Saturday morning was worth it then?

[Puerto bella]

Fantastic news, can I go to bed now?

Delighted to have represented such an articulate, well ordered and informed group of people. Give yourselves a massive pat on the back Porty folk.

[gillian]

This is excellent news. A very big thank you to all the people who worked so hard to achieve this result.

[Silver Surfer]

Congratulations to all who participated and thank you for all the hard work and hours put in. Best news yet!

[wangi]

The appeal decision note is an interesting read as to what was / was not main reasons for refusal.

You can read it here:J137898.pdf; full set of documents at http://www.dpea.scotland.gov.uk/CaseDet ... ?id=qJ8503

The report's conclusion:

Conclusion
62. Drawing these issues together, we find that:

• • there is no conflict with structure plan policy TRAN 6 – Freight Movement and local plan policies Hou 8 – Inappropriate Uses in Residential Areas, Env 18 – Pollution and Air, Water and Soil Quality, Des 6 – Sustainable Design and Construction, Tra 1 – Location of Major Development, Tra 10 – Rail Halts and Tra 11 – Rail Freight;
  • Structure plan policy TRAN 5 – Transport Implications of New Development is not relevant;
  • the difficulty with local plan policy Inf 2 – Integrated Waste Management Facilities and structure plan policy ENV 11 – Waste Management is not significant;
  • there is conflict with structure plan policies ENV 1C and ENV 1D – Historic Built Environment Designations and Interests and local plan policies Env 3 – Listed Buildings, Env 6 – Conservation Areas – Development, Des 1 – Design Quality and Context, Des 3 – Development Design and Des 10 – Tall Buildings; and
  • there is conflict with part of the Scottish Planning Policy, although other parts of that document and other national planning policy and advice documents and part of the Area Waste Plan are supportive.

63. We acknowledge that many of the development plan policies and other material considerations are supportive of the proposed development. However, we consider that the detrimental impact on the setting of the conservation area and the listed buildings in Brighton Place; the detrimental impact on visual amenity generally; the consequent conflict with relevant development plan policies; and the need to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the setting of listed buildings required by section 59 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997 to be so significant that a refusal of planning permission is justified. We have identified no other material considerations that would lead us to a different conclusion.

(bolding is my emphasis)
So, in the end it came down to the size of the shed and how visible it would be within the conservation area.

L/

[Maria]

So, in the end it came down to the size of the shed and how visible it would be within the conservation area.

L/

The council planning officers hadn't even considered this an issue during the initial application and it was the Joint Action Group that argued that this was significant. It just goes to show we were correct to pursue this, though I don't really care what grounds were considered most important. I'm just grateful at the outcome .

And a huge thank you to our very own Puerto Bella, who played a blinder as our planning consultant/ depute QC. Take a very well deserved bow PB

[Pal of Porty]

The Jag team deserve congratulations for the vigilance and determination. Well done to all.

[Bob Jefferson]

Congratulations to everyone involved. I did absolutely nothing in support of this campaign, other than question the very grounds that proved to be the decisive factor, but I'm nevertheless grateful to those of you who felt strongly about this issue and put in so much effort to ensure victory.

Perhaps we should be thinking now of the best use for the site before someone else comes up with another bright idea for it. Like putting a school there, for example.

[Makaveli]

Brilliant news - well done to those who went the extra mile for the good of Porty!!

[allaboardtheskylark]

Well done Marya and all involved. Though must admit I also stayed out of the way most of the time.

So what happens now, do VIRIDOR have a way forward, or down even.

What was the attitude to the traffic issues given VIRIDOR seemed to be fairly confused about this issue.

[Maria]

Well done Marya and all involved. Though must admit I also stayed out of the way most of the time.

Ta, allaboardtheskylark, but anyone who wrote to object to the application or who donated to funds in any shape or form helped do their vital bit. We couldn't have raised £35k without a lot of support from everyone.

So what happens now, do VIRIDOR have a way forward, or down even.

Who can guess what Viridor may choose to do next? As regards realistic options,Puerto bella is probably best qualified to answer your questions, but I'll have a stab at it.

The letter sent out to all objectors informing them of the decision states:

The Reporter’s decision is final, subject to the right of any aggrieved person to apply
to the Court of Session within six weeks from the date of the decision conferred by
Sections 237 and 239 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997; on
any such application, the Court may quash the decision if satisfied that it is not within
the powers of the Act or that the applicant’s interests have been substantially
prejudiced by a failure to comply with any requirement of the Act, or of the Tribunals
and Inquiries Act 1992, or of any orders, regulations or rules made under these Acts.

This information booklet from the Scottish Gov explains:

Once a decision on an appeal has been given, it is final and cannot be changed by the reporter or Scottish Ministers. The only way in which the decision can be challenged is through the courts, on a point of law or procedure - not on the planning merits of the case. The period for lodging this type of challenge with the court will be shown in the decision letter. It is usually six weeks from the date of the letter.

It would seem, therefore, so long as the PLI was conducted properly, there would be no grounds for applying to the Court of Session.

As to whether Viridor can put in another application for a smaller shed? Well, I have been told that the height of the building is linked to the process and is essential. Again, I could be wrong.

What was the attitude to the traffic issues given VIRIDOR seemed to be fairly confused about this issue.

The decision letter states:

43. At the inquiry, the appellant agreed to our suggestion that a condition could be
imposed to prevent more than 350 heavy goods and refuse collection vehicles entering the
site on any working day. As the original assessment revealed that 464 vehicles entering and
leaving the site would not have a significant impact on the operation of the local road
network, we consider that 350 vehicles would have an even less significant impact.

44. We also agree with the points made by council officers that additional traffic on the
roads around the site would not be additional traffic on the network.

So traffic wasn't considered an issue. Don't ask me how the experts figure that one

[Porty]

So traffic wasn't considered an issue. Don't ask me how the experts figure that one

I have a lot of faith in experts, not to say they are always right but generally speaking they know much better that ordinary Joes or Janes or me. One of the first attack points for our enclave of actiivists is traffic. And as per; its bugger the facts lets make up a horror story.

I remember the superstore campaign and some of the most dedicated activists standing on the High Street counting traffic. One of them has recently shown difficulty in calculating 3 x 4. Data gathered by those that have already made up their minds can be very unreliable. Before one knows it, the subjective opinions become "FACTS" and at that point the first flaws in the campaign become apparent. Activists truly believe their own press and when an experrt sees things differently they are branded untrustworthy or liars even.

The next big planning matter is the school and traffic issues will feature and quite rightly so. However, a secondary school is not a supermarket or a waste transfer depot and post construction will generate NO more traffic than the current school does. Traffic will be displaced to roads that are much better equipped to deal with the movement of a much less than 2000 vehicles on a weekly basis.

So what will have our local activists have learned from their succesful campaigns? Will the likes of Diana Cairns think " we won the superstore campaign and traffic was not deemed an issue by the planners" " we also won the VIRIDOR campigan and the 900 lorry movements per day were not considered a material concern " Will they concede that the traffic displacement from the new school will be trifling compared to the those developments, so lets not waste our time and energy trying to make it a big issue? Lets just back down gracefully. OR will they continue to spout tolies and embarrass thenselves at public and other meetings? William Hill won't be taking bets.

[allaboardtheskylark]

Thanks Marya.

As for spouting you know what Porty, surely you have to know what one is to know one is spouting them te he he.

[Porty]

mea culpa.

[Porty]

I just watched Undervover Boss with the CE of Viridor, Chris Drummond.. Did anyone else see it and what did you think?

[seanie]

I've heard a rumour that Viridor might be coming back to Portobello.....

[Maria]

Just as well I've never taken my poster down then.

My heart sinks at the thought of fighting another campaign. Here's hoping it remains just a rumour and Millerhill plans proceed a.s.a.p.

[seanie]

Well it's really not an area I have much knowledge in but, the way it's been described to me, there may not be a campaign to fight.

[Porty]

How so?

[seanie]

Well...

One thing that did come up in the previous application was that, since the existing use was a railway siding, it could re-open as a railway siding tomorrow. Network Rail wouldn't need any permission for that.

With the Waste Transfer station the thing that triggered the planning appplication was the building of the shed. That application then triggered all kinds of other assessments; traffic, environmental, acoustic, odour etc.

When it came to the inquiry the only real reason for refusal was the visual impact of the shed on the Conservation Area, and short of building a neo-classical Georgian shed there's no obvious way around that. Unless....

You don't have a shed at all.

Now I'm sure there are still all kinds of regulations that would need to be met, so it's probably far from straightforward. But it was the building that triggered the planning application, not the operation. If they can find a way of operating without the shed, then they might not need planning permission in the first place.

And without a planning application to fight, how do you go about campaigning against it?

[Porty]

Campaigns don't always have to be negative they can be FOR something.

PONGS

Portobello Opts For a Neoclassical Georgian Shed

[Porty]

Now, getting serious; would Viridor not need some sort of licence to operate from the site and could that be opposed?

[seanie]

I assume there must be restrictions otherwise why bother with an application the first time round?

But if that requires operating licences, technical assessments and the like, I'd imaging there might be far less opportunity for the public to object. For all it's faults the planning system does allow a great deal of public input and has a democratic element.

I'm not sure if SEPA are quite set up that way.

[Porty]

Sidestepping Edinburgh Planning Applications?

[Maria]

Looks as though Seanie's rumour was correct. Viridor today issued a press release to the Evening News confirming that they are indeed 're-working plans' and will be coming up with 'fresh proposals'.

[wangi]

http://www.viridor.co.uk/news/viridor-c ... ntentions/

Viridor confirms Portobello road-to-rail intentions
Posted 21 Sep 2010

Scotland's largest recycling, renewable energy and resource efficiency company, committed to investing up to £800m in Scotland over the next five years, today confirmed it's intentions regarding a proposed road-to-rail waste transfer station at Portobello, Edinburgh, previously refused at appeal.

Commenting, Martin Grey, Communications Manager for Viridor, said: Scotland's recently published Zero Waste Plan firmly sets a clear course for waste reduction, enhanced recycling and recovering value from what remains and extends across the business and commercial sectors.

"Whilst Viridor was disappointed by the decision by Scottish Ministers to refuse the road-to-rail waste transfer station in relation to the visual impact of an industrial type building in an industrial location, it was encouraged that a broad range of considerations had been addressed."

Viridor considers that there remains a strong case for next generation recycling and waste infrastructure to support sustainable domestic and commercial recycling and resource management in Edinburgh.

The company is currently re-working plans to take account of points made by the Scottish Government Reporter and looks forward to bringing forward fresh proposals in due course which will be subject to public consultation at that stage.

[Maria]

From today's EN :Bid to revive Porty waste depot plans

[wangi]

From the Dunbar EfW inquiry:
http://www.eastlothiancourier.com/news/ ... elsewhere/

...
Further concerns were raised over increased road traffic on the A1 – brought about by the rejection of a proposed road-to-rail waste transfer facility at Portobello, Edinburgh – though Mr Michie explained it remained Viridor’s intention to submit a revised application for the Portobello site.
...

[seanie]

Green light for energy plant.