Proposed waste depot in Portobello

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 06 May 2009, 16:54

Porty wrote:
Marya wrote:
PONGS need to raise considerable funds in order to engage expert witnessess in the fight against Viridor, so expect a series of fun fund raising activities.

I am delighted to say that the community has already started to dig into its pockets, with £1000 being donated to PONGS from PAS and £1000 from the Community Council.
Why not ask Stephen Hawkins for the PCATS cash?

This suggestion was, in fact, made at the last community council meeting. The general consensus of the community council was that it would be a good use of the money. As chair of PCATS, Stephen Hawkins confirmed that there was a meeting of PCATS planned in order to discuss the possibility.

Maybe that's not such a good idea? PCATS claim to be hanging onto the cash because they have to remain vigilant to any threat of a superstore (even although that's not why the money was raised). What sort of signal would they send to the supporters of PCATS by giving their money away?

Until the site is built on, it can be argued that the possibility of a supermarket being built on the site still exists.
Maureen Child, however, made the point that the local development plan that is now in place, offers a safeguard, as it does not include provision for a supermarket on the site.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 06 May 2009, 18:46

The money was raisec' not for a debate or what could or not be argued - it was raised specifically to combat a planning application for a superstore on the former Scottish power site. The shit that pcats has fabricated since that application was defeated is just pure fantasy. The money should be given back to the community not to a pet cause of the mysterious committee of pcats.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 06 May 2009, 18:57

Stephen Hawkins is on record stating that pcats would hold the money until there was no possibility of a superstore anywhere in Porty. Surely he wasn't just saying that to hang onto the cash?

Edited spelling errors I spotted- typing on blackberry is error prone.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 06 May 2009, 19:10

It doesn't surprise me that there was a general consensus amongst the pcc. The council is heavily influenced by pcats and their core members. And by the way its not the community councils money to give away either.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 06 May 2009, 19:43

Marya- what if ppag, who have been actively raising funds for 2 years now, approached pcats and asked for the cash? Would that be ok?

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 06 May 2009, 20:55

So many questions, but here goes trying to address some.

I can't and won't attempt to answer on PCATS' behalf, just report what was mooted at the CC meeting regarding PCATS funds, and give my take on some of the issues raised.

Porty wrote:Marya- what if ppag, who have been actively raising funds for 2 years now, approached pcats and asked for the cash? Would that be ok?

The approach to PCATS was made by the Community Council and not by any campaigning group. The CC made this suggestion, because there are strong grounds for arguing that the campaign against Viridor has widespread community support. For example ;
* A record number of letters of objection (more than was generated by the PCATS campaign) were sent in to the council, when Viridor applied for permission to build a waste transfer site.
*All local politicians support PONGS, membership of which consists a broad church; several are people, who have never campaigned on an issue before in their lives .
*PAS members also feel quite keenly that this proposal is a major threat to Portobello and its environs, so strongly in fact that they will donate a quite substantial amount to help fight the proposal.
No one, however, would claim that the schools' issue is such a clear cut case. I think it is safe to say that both PPAG and PFANS acknowledge that the community has a divided view on this issue. The community council has certainly always held this opinion.

Porty wrote:And by the way its not the community councils money to give away either.

No, but as they were donating funds from their coffers, they were keen to identify additional sources of funding. Porty.org.uk , for example, was also asked to consider making a donation to PONGS.

Porty wrote:The money should be given back to the community not to a pet cause of the mysterious committee of pcats.

Maybe it could be donated to the community council and they could suggest how it could be used?

Porty wrote:Stephen Hawkins is on record stating that pcata would hold the money until there was no possibility of a superstore anywhere in Porty. Surely he wasn't just saying that to hang onto the cash?

Stephen Hawkins reiterated that he felt there was still a possibility that the funds may be needed for the original purpose.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 06 May 2009, 21:35

I think the whole problem here is that PCATS, PPAG, PONGS and probably half a dozen other groups, including the Community Council, are all dominated by the views of pretty much the same hard core of people. If you can imagine a Venn diagram of the various groups then I think we could all name the 4 or 5 people who are at the epicentre of the intersections.

If PONGS wants the funds held by PCATS then it could be agreed over breakfast. Or if they prefer to pass the buck to the Community Council to make the decision then it's a foregone conclusion that it would be nodded through.

I'm with Porty on this. I think it is quite wrong that money donated for a specific cause should be transferred to another, entirely unrelated campaign, irrespective of how much popular support it purports to enjoy. The money should be handed over to the CC who could then invite local charitable organisations to bid for small grants of up to £200.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 06 May 2009, 21:56

I'm struggling to fathom out what the central gripe is here.

At the moment PCATS have made no contribution to PONGS. All discussion on this is therefore total hypothesis and a complete tangent to the thread.

There is a clear sense coming across, though, that neither you nor Porty will support PONGS, regardless of whether you approve of our aims or not.

Don't fret, I'll know not to try and sell you a raffle ticket...

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 06 May 2009, 22:12

It is a hypothetical situation but the possibility has been raised and it could very easily become reality for reasons already stated. It may be tangential to the thread but there is, nevertheless, an important principle at stake.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 06 May 2009, 22:18

Marya wrote:

Stephen Hawkins reiterated that he felt there was still a possibility that the funds may be needed for the original purpose.

how strange, he knows the planning application was defeated, he knows the purpose was exactly that and he also knows about the local plan cos his fellow councillor pointed it out- did he give an indication of how the resurrection could possibly happen?

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 06 May 2009, 22:33

Porty wrote:did he give an indication of how the resurrection could possibly happen?

No, not in any detail. He did mention the fact that until BL develop the site, there is a risk, albeit a remote one, it may be sold to another developer, particulary in the current climate.

I suppose also, as Seanie has pointed out in other threads, the local plan only offers a set of planning guidelines.

Anyway, back to PONGS. Would you be interested in a dance ticket?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 06 May 2009, 23:27

Marya I fully understand and appreciate you are not arguing for pcats. As Bob implies the 3 bodies involved are hardly mutually exclusive. Indeed the 4 or 5 core members of pcats are at the heart of each group - easy to manipulate any desired outcome.

You may recall that I originally advocated pcats giving our money to pcc but only after a 2 year cooling off period, (in case the superstore threat re -emerged) which would have expired a year ago last month. I envisaged, indeed suggested that the pcc then spread the cash out to a variety of groups and good causes across the community: toddler groups, community centre, primary schools etc - there is no shortage of worthy groups that could put £250 to good use. And of equal importance it is transparen and widespread.
Edit: corrected length of time

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 06 May 2009, 23:35

Yeah I will take a dance ticket, when is it? I didn't think Stephen did provide an indication. I was fairly sure it was along the lines of "when faced with facts that don't suit your argument- just make up a belief". It is a distinct lack of credibility and only 2 years since pcats last proposal on a pro-housing campaign. They wanted to transfer the funds to that campaign for which they quickly manufactured the usual "overwhelming support" - naturally without a shred of evidence.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 07 May 2009, 12:28

Marya wrote:I'm struggling to fathom out what the central gripe is here.

At the moment PCATS have made no contribution to PONGS. All discussion on this is therefore total hypothesis and a complete tangent to the thread....

The gripe is not directly related to PONGS. I've been griping about PCATS playing "god" with the public's cash since before PONGS was concieved. PONGS is just the latest pet cause that PCATS think they can use their jurisdiction to support. Regardless of the fact they raised money on a different premise. I firmly believe you are correct in your assertion that PCATS have not donated to PONGS- can you offer a reassurance on any other donations they may have made? I say it shouldn't even be an option that is open to them.

The issue is important as we have a hardcore group of activists in Portobello. Not many in numbers but heavy in influence. They are currently raising funds for at least 2 causes and have a pot of cash raised for a previous cause that they won. I don't think ( and doubt many do) it is right that they raise money for one cause and spend it on another, without the approval of every single individual or group that dontated, which is impossible to secure. The only option is to give the money back in an objective, fair, transparent and acceptable manner.

Marya wrote:There is a clear sense coming across, though, that neither you nor Porty will support PONGS, regardless of whether you approve of our aims or not.
Don't fret, I'll know not to try and sell you a raffle ticket...

Nonsense, I support PONGS objective, even although the strategic argument for the site appears strong and the alternatives weak. I am interested to know why, if as you say, the support is big and widespread, why are PONGS unable to raise funds of the magnitue PCATS did?

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 07 May 2009, 14:25

Porty wrote: I support PONGS objective, even although the strategic argument for the site appears strong and the alternatives weak. I am interested to know why, if as you say, the support is big and widespread, why are PONGS unable to raise funds of the magnitue PCATS did?

I'm very pleased to hear it and will flog you a ticket or two as soon as we get a venue confirmed. We've got the band lined up - not a ceilidh one, but one that does covers of classic 60's and 70's tracks.

We are just beginning our fundraising and I'm hopeful that PONGS will raise just as much as PCATS, though we have a shorter time frame in which to do so. We are also fundraising in a much more adverse financial climate, plus, as you point out, several other groups are actively trying to raise funds, so a bit of fundraising fatigue is bound to hit the community. Additionally, there was significant support from local shopkeepers, when faced with a superstore on their doorstep. A waste transfer site has, perhaps, greater impact on local residents, compared to retailers.

The dance is just one of the activities planned, we're also intending to hold coffee mornings, book sales, raffles, talent contests etc.

Incidentally, while I don't doubt for a minute that Viridor will put a strong case forward , their case is by no means watertight and it is a fight well worth contesting. Just ask our local MSP and Minister for Justice

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 07 May 2009, 15:54

That's a lot of credible reosons and certainly puts me firmly in my place regarding the state of pongs fundraising!

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 07 May 2009, 16:14

Porty wrote:That's a lot of credible reosons and certainly puts me firmly in my place regarding the state of pongs fundraising!

Oh dear! Did I go on a bit?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 07 May 2009, 19:04

No more than usual! And I'm in no better. Can you give us an idea of timeline or guesstimate key dates, presumably it is dependent on what happens at the end of this month.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 07 May 2009, 20:55

Porty wrote: Can you give us an idea of timeline or guesstimate key dates, presumably it is dependent on what happens at the end of this month.

The pre-inquiry will be end of May - either the 26th or 27th or 28th. The date for the Public Local Inquiry will be set then.

Puerto bella · Post by **Puerto bella** » 07 May 2009, 21:38

Marya wrote:
Porty wrote: Can you give us an idea of timeline or guesstimate key dates, presumably it is dependent on what happens at the end of this month.
The pre-inquiry will be end of May - either the 26th or 27th or 28th. The date for the Public Local Inquiry will be set then.

As per the Inquiry rules - any third party objectors will need to have their ducks in line for the pre-inquiry meeting.

I have not become involved in the PONG, PCATS etc etc groups/ campaigns but have plenty of Inquiry experience. Its not an easy ride as anyone involved in the last one will know and it can get into 'telephone numbers' in terms of costs, especially if the third party objectors opt for Senior Counsel.

The question over funds gathered in good faith for one campaign being transferred to another leaves a bad taste in the mouth. It really is a question over the status of the group gathering the original donations, contractual obligations in terms of what the purpose of the donation was, the transparency of that group in terms of how they managed the funds, their accounting and what authority they have to dispose of the funds now.

Anyone involved in the PCATS group would be misguided if they thought they could do as they wished with this money as this could turn very nasty. It is not beyond the realms of possiblity that the 'community' could raise an action against PCATS in the court in terms of any inappropriate disposal of the funds. Messy business.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 08 May 2009, 17:52

From today's EN, third letter down :
It's time to renew incinerator fight

(The title that the EN has given the letter is rather misleading as the letter is against Viridor's plans for a waste transfer site.)

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 08 May 2009, 18:30

"This monstrosity will be visible from all the surrounding areas including Duddingston, Joppa, Brunstane, Magdalene and from the beach itself."

Visible from the beach?

What with?

A periscope?

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 08 May 2009, 20:03

It is a BIG - 16 meters high- building that is being proposed and it will be on an already elevated site (the plans suggest it is about 20 meters above sea level). It will loom high above nearby trees and houses.

The plans (which can be viewed by going to http://www.dpea.scotland.gov.uk and searching for case no. PPA-230-1061) clearly show how massive this building is in comparison to nearby masts and pylons, which are also on the plans and give a handy reference point for those trying to visualise how high 16 meters will be.
Once you've done that, imagine it floodlit during those dark autumn and winter days.

I haven't gone down to the beach and looked back up to see how high the pylons appear from there, but I suspect Mr McAlindin has.

edit: added case reference number

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 08 May 2009, 21:08

I suspect he hasn't.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 08 May 2009, 21:47

The beach view aside Seanie, do you reckon the building will be intrusive?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 08 May 2009, 22:20

I'm not very good at visualising these things. How tall would the facility be compared with the likely finished height of the new PHS or the likely height of the tallest blocks on the Scottish Power site for example?

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 08 May 2009, 22:43

Bob Jefferson wrote:I'm not very good at visualising these things. How tall would the facility be compared with the likely finished height of the new PHS or the likely height of the tallest blocks on the Scottish Power site for example?

I'm certainly not very good at visualising the height of a school which hasn't been designed yet!

Your implication is, of course, that there are going to be other tall new buildings appearing. The difference being, however, is that I'm sure BL's architects will have thought just a little bit about design, when drawing up their plans and I would hope that the new PHS would also attempt to present a facade which appeals aesthetically. The waste transfer facility, on the other hand, will be a purely functional, large, metal industrial shed.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 08 May 2009, 22:46

Visually intrusive? Hardly at all.

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.

I think there are legitimate concerns about locating such a site there, particularly regarding the traffic impact, but the suggestion that the view from the beach would be adversely affected reminds of the complaint about the terrible noise from jet-skis afflicting people in their house 500 yards from the promenade.

It's not terribly convincing.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 08 May 2009, 22:49

Marya wrote:The waste transfer facility, on the other hand, will be a purely functional, large, metal industrial shed.

On an industrial site near to a bunch of other purely functional, large, metal industrial sheds, sandwiched between a dual-carriageway and the east coast mainline.

There are reasons to object, but the visual intrusion is a spectacularly poor one to focus on.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 08 May 2009, 22:54

seanie wrote:
Marya wrote:The waste transfer facility, on the other hand, will be a purely functional, large, metal industrial shed.
On an industrial site near to a bunch of other purely functional, large, metal industrial sheds, sandwiched between a dual-carriageway and the east coast mainline.

There are reasons to object, but the visual intrusion is a spectacularly poor one to focus on.

The scale of the other buildings currently on the site is incomparable.
Have you read the plans Seanie?

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 08 May 2009, 23:09

Yep. And most of the associated documents.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 08 May 2009, 23:15

I still don't have a sense of the size of this thing or how visually intrusive it might be and I'm even more confused now.

If it isn't visible from the beach, would it be visible from any part of the High Street? Would it be visible from Brighton Place? It should be fairly simple to work out the lines of sight with a street map and some basic geometry.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 08 May 2009, 23:35

It's not so easy because of topography. Close up it would be pretty well obscured by the bypass/railway for most people. There won't be too many houses closer than mine, although visual obstructions mean I'd only see it if I climbed out onto my roof. On the other hand the further away you go you might get clearer sight lines. The most reliable way to work it out is drawing sections (photomontage is a bit too susceptible to creativity).

But going back to the beach view for a moment; the eaves height of the proposed building is about 14m high from the adjacent ground level, itself around 20m above sea level. The building would be at least 500m from the beach at the closest point.

So basic trigonometry suggests that, in the absence of any obstruction, if you stood on the beach (at the average tide line) and elevated your gaze 4 degrees above the horizontal, you'd be able to see the proposed site half a kilometre away.

And my insticitve reaction is that, if you stood on the beach (at the average tide line) and elevated your gaze 4 degrees above the horizontal, you'd be looking at the houses on Straiton Place.

At best.

You might possibly be looking at the sea wall.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 08 May 2009, 23:36

seanie wrote:Visually intrusive? Hardly at all.

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.

Your idea of 'hardly intrusive' isn't the same as mine Seanie.

OK, you'll have to accept that I'm limited with what I can use to illustrate the scale as it is night-time and I'm not going to go out and photograph various views. Here ,however, are a couple of shots which might help.

The first photo is taken from an old planning application I've found on the Council planning portal. It was lodged by the telecommunications company, who operate masts on the site.It shows the bulk of the area Viridor will be building on. The mast in the distance is the one which also appears in the foreground of the second photo. The old planning application gives a mast height of 27m. The Viridor building will be 16m high, so roughly just short of 2/3 of the mast height. From this you can see how far above tree height the building will be and some idea of how much will be obvious from Portobello Golf Course direction.
<a href="http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v388/ ... EdmDoc.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v388/ ... EdmDoc.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

This second photo is just an old shot I took when I was playing with my first digital camera. You can see the masts . Obviously I'm pretty close so the clearest views would be from further down Brighton Place or in the park say, but you get some sense of what can be seen. 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.

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

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 09 May 2009, 00:01

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.

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.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not particularly keen on the proposal myself. But since this is going to a inquiry 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.