Proposed waste depot in Portobello

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 13 May 2009, 19:02

£20000 is a lot of money. What kind of hourly rate is this 'co-ordinator' on?

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 13 May 2009, 19:06

A single expert witness can cost £8,000 to £10,000. We picked the wrong careers, Bob.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 13 May 2009, 19:54

Maybe a married one will be cheaper - an excuse to get out the house.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 13 May 2009, 20:17

On a more serious note . Its good that pongs are identifying who is responsible for collecting their funds.

When I tried to find out the same info from pcats I was given the run around. I don't know why as I was not questioning their bookeeping integrity or suggesting any personal impropriety. There is no question of anyone seeking personal gain as far as I'm concerned. Xnd there's a fair chance its the same person named in maureens newsletter. .

Perhaps the group were concerned about potential legal action? Along the lines highlighted by PB. .

Puerto bella · Post by **Puerto bella** » 13 May 2009, 21:20

On the expert witness costs - as a third party to the Inquiry PONGS may potentially be looking at Planning and Transportation witnesses, in which case the costs will be even more. Alternatively it will be a case of finding the right person/s to defend their corner. A chartered planning consultant, a tranportation engineer and junior counsel will rack up the costs. As a ball park - costs for the third party will be nearer £30 - £35K in my view, it depends on the length of the Inquiry, complexities of the case and supporting docs req'd. What the third parties feel they need to put into the Inquiry really depends on the strength of the case and the faith they have in the Council's team. Not an easy call to make but early discusions with the Council - a necessity.

Planning Aid could potentially be of some help.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 13 May 2009, 23:15

Plannind aid - sounds like something marya and PONGS should be informed about - perhaps you could assist if they are not already on the case.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 14 May 2009, 00:55

Had another look from the 'cakestand' this evening and still couldn't see the mast. It's obscured by the tenements at the top of Marlborough Street.

I found a spot where I could see it though. On the sea wall next to the fountain, and then west till opposite the first park bench, I could just see the top of the mast between the aforementioned tenements and the roof of 12? Straiton Place.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 14 May 2009, 07:17

Porty wrote:Plannind aid - sounds like something marya and PONGS should be informed about - perhaps you could assist if they are not already on the case.

Contact has been made with something which sounds similar but I'd be very interested to hear more from PB.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 14 May 2009, 07:23

seanie wrote:Had another look from the 'cakestand' this evening and still couldn't see the mast. It's obscured by the tenements at the top of Marlborough Street.

I found a spot where I could see it though. On the sea wall next to the fountain, and then west till opposite the first park bench, I could just see the top of the mast between the aforementioned tenements and the roof of 12? Straiton Place.

I can see it from the cakestand. From there, just look ,as you say, at the skyline between the rooftops to the right. I took a photo to show the view, but really I want to move on to discussion of other matters relating to the application. As I said to Porty, a glimpse from the Prom isn't the biggest issue.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 14 May 2009, 09:26

Do you mean to the right of Marlborough Street?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 14 May 2009, 11:37

Marya wrote:[ I want to move on to discussion of other matters relating to the application. .

Why don't we take a picnic to the cake stand and sort everything at once?

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 14 May 2009, 11:40

I might pop along with my camera this afternoon.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 14 May 2009, 14:32

Maureen Child wrote:Dear Viridor Objectors

The Reporter is holding a Pre-Inquiry Meeting to sort out the administrative matters, such as who will give evidence and how long they will take. This meeting is being held on Wednesday 27 May in Portobello Town Hall at 6.30pm. If as many of you as possible could attend that meeting, it would be helpful. If you want to put your name forward as an individual to speak at the Inquiry, that would be the first opportunity to do so. I hope to see lots of people there!

Hope you are not hoping to see Rooney, Ronaldo, Iniesta or Messi - they will be otherwise engaged that evening! Isn't it funny how these important meetings often clash with major sportng events.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 14 May 2009, 15:53

I understand the confusion now. From the cakestand you can indeed see the top of a mast, to the right of Marlborough street, but it's not the easterly one where the building would be. It's the westerly one about 130 yards from it.

The easterly mast would be to the left of Marlborough Street as you look along it; between Marlborough Street and the first pylon. And you can't see it from the cakestand because of the tenements on the east side of the street.

You can just glimpse the top of the correct mast if you walk along the seawall westwards a bit as I previously described.

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 15 May 2009, 14:17

From the cake stand I noticed that I could see Cockenzie Power Station quite clearly.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 22 May 2009, 13:29

The lead letter in today's EN: Waste transfer depot would be a rubbish idea

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 22 May 2009, 15:07

I wishthe anti´s would stick to the relevant arguments. "edge of a conservation area" is neither relevant or true. The facility will be located in an area zoned as industrial and commercial. The proposed building will loom over the area immediately surrounding it, no more no less.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 22 May 2009, 19:41

I think that is only to be expected. When you are trying to raise £20k from the local population, you have to make a strong case for it. In reality, I doubt that noise, vermin or visual intrusion will be as bad as PONGS are suggesting.

In my view, this is a much more complex situation than we faced in opposing a superstore. I knew instinctively exactly where I stood on that issue. It's not that I want a waste transfer station in my neighbourhood, it's just that I'm not sure I have sufficient reason to impose it on someone else instead.

Where are these "other potential sites that if chosen would have no detrimental effect on any community."?

It would be a great pity if a commercial concern, with profit its primary motive

Is there any other type of commercial concern? Does anyone know of a charitable organisation that will dispose of our waste?

Post by **wangi** » 22 May 2009, 23:08

Bob Jefferson wrote:Where are these "other potential sites that if chosen would have no detrimental effect on any community."?

Millerhill obviously; and that's reasonable.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 23 May 2009, 07:24

I doubt that people living in Millerhill or Old Craighall would see it that way. But OK, there's not many of them so they aren't going to put up much of a fight and it's unlikely they would be able to raise £20k.

But doesn't that require a new access road from the A1?

Francis used the plural term 'sites' so what are the other alternatives?

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 23 May 2009, 10:13

PONGS wil be holding a stall today from 2-4 pm on the High Street, where you can find out more about the Viridor application and the pre inquiry meeting to be held this Wed at 6.30 pm in the Town Hall.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 27 May 2009, 15:23

Maureen Child wrote:Dear Viridor Objectors

The Reporter is holding a Pre-Inquiry Meeting to sort out the administrative matters, such as who will give evidence and how long they will take. This meeting is being held on Wednesday 27 May in Portobello Town Hall at 6.30pm. If as many of you as possible could attend that meeting, it would be helpful. If you want to put your name forward as an individual to speak at the Inquiry, that would be the first opportunity to do so. I hope to see lots of people there!

A reminder of tonight's meeting, which was also mentioned in Monday's EN Smells like team spirit.
Would be great to see as many people as possible there.

(The football is on Sky at 19.45 ,so there's plenty of time to get back home to watch the match!)

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 27 May 2009, 19:44

Great to see so many at the meeting tonight.

The Public Local Inquiry will start at 10.00 a.m. on Tue 1 Dec 2009 and close 10 Dec. approx. The venue is still to be confirmed.

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 27 May 2009, 20:14

Were there a lot there M? Wanted to come but been off work with flu.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 27 May 2009, 21:12

Epykat wrote:Were there a lot there M? Wanted to come but been off work with flu.

First of all commiserations on your flu Epy. Hope you recover soon. You haven't had a great time of it recently.

I'm hopeless at estimating numbers, so won't attempt to put a figure on it, but they quickly ran out of printed agendas and, from my viewpoint at the front all the rows of seats looked pretty full. What was also pleasing to see was that there was a good mix from across the generations. Considering many will have found the time a bit awkward, I think it was a very decent turnout.

All our local Councillors were there, as was Kenny MacAskill , our MSP. Again, really good to see.

Puerto bella · Post by **Puerto bella** » 27 May 2009, 21:43

I would guess around 110 - 120 people total on the basis of the number of seats. Good turn out.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 27 May 2009, 22:14

Pretty good turnout indeed. Any chance of a quick summation of events?

Puerto bella · Post by **Puerto bella** » 27 May 2009, 22:35

A note of the meeting will follow from the Reporter. That could be posted on here for wider info.

Essentially the meeting is a procedural necessity where there are lots of parties involved and its a 'major' proposal. It helps the Reporter organise the Inquiry time effectively and avoid repetitious evidence.

Key points to note are the start, as Marya said, on 1st Dec and that any additional persons wishing to make representations can do so. Comments can be made in writing if people don't wish to appear at the Inquiry.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 27 May 2009, 22:35

Porty wrote:Pretty good turnout indeed. Any chance of a quick summation of events?

PB will be better at this Porty, but I'll try to give a lay person's take on it.

The reporter set out all the grounds that were pertinent to the appeal; local plans, national waste plans etc. She also outlined important time frames and named the relevant parties.
Obviously, Viridor and the Council are two of the relevant parties, but the Joint Action Group is also a relevant party.

The Joint Action Group comprises Portobello Community Council, Portobello Amenity Society, PONGS, Brightons and Rosefield Residents Association and the Parent Councils of St John’s RC Primary School and Portobello High School. The reporter encouraged other individuals to also place themselves under this umbrella group in order to avoid repetition of evidence.

She also decided on the date for the inquiry and answered questions from the floor.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 27 May 2009, 22:36

Oops! PB posted as I was typing!

Puerto bella · Post by **Puerto bella** » 27 May 2009, 22:38

Well done Marya, its too late for a full run down from me, I'm wilting ...have to get up at 5.30 and should have been in bed an hour ago.

Porty - if want any further info, happy to provide.

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

Thanks you two feel well informed. Its great to see the various bodies bonding together.

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 28 May 2009, 09:57

Marya wrote: The Joint Action Group comprises Portobello Community Council, Portobello Amenity Society, PONGS, Brightons and Rosefield Residents Association and the Parent Councils of St John’s RC Primary School and Portobello High School. The reporter encouraged other individuals to also place themselves under this umbrella group in order to avoid repetition of evidence.

I can understand St John's getting involved in this issue given that their Parent Council has for some time, been not much more than a political football under the influence of seasoned activists. I am however amazed that PHS has seen fit to do so.

I remain against the increased level of traffic generated by the Viridor proposal but feel strongly that the greatest danger to school children in the area is caused by the driving and parking behaviour of the parents themselves, selfishly looking after their own needs and ignoring the general safety of all children. It is a nighmare round there at school start and finish times. This is where Parent Councils should concentrate efforts.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 28 May 2009, 12:26

Not wishing to stray too far off-topic but to be fair on previous (and possibly current) SJPC they have tried to resolve parents parking behaviour. I can even recall Police staking out the school and taking numbers of rogue parkers. The problem has been rife for at least 20 years.

Traffic issues are def biggest concern about the WTS. As far as St John's is concerned it would help if St John's got its own house in order but I don't think one can blame the parent council. However, in terms of what's best for pupils and the school, their time and energy would be better spent resolving the school run issues.

I must admit I'm a bit baffled that some other action groups have been omitted from the Joint Action Group- was it invite only?

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 28 May 2009, 17:07

Porty wrote: I must admit I'm a bit baffled that some other action groups have been omitted from the Joint Action Group- was it invite only?

Last night's pre-inquiry meeting offered everyone the opportunity to register their intention to give evidence either as part of the Joint Action Group or as third party witnesses.
The Joint Action Group comprises of the local groups, who have expressed opposition to the Viridor application. Anyone who wishes to be included in this umbrella group is free to approach the group - in fact the reporter urged anyone wishing to give evidence at the inquiry to consider joining the group in order to avoid duplication of evidence from third party witnesses.
If you are baffled at the lack of other groups it is because they haven't stepped forward so far.