Proposed waste depot in Portobello

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 24 Sep 2009, 09:53

Marya wrote:
At the moment, it has been agreed not to give out a running total and to keep the opposition guessing.

I can see them now in the boardroom "Do you think they have £5,000, £10,000 or £20,000? What the hell are we going to do if they have £20,000? Pass me the boots so I can quake."

I take it what the money is to be spent on is also a secret ?

Perhaps the "opposition" is not Viridor but is actually other, more lowly, members of the PONGS campaign? Donations are to be sent to 12 West Brighton Crescent is that a haven for conspiracy theorists?

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 24 Sep 2009, 13:43

Have they established a timetable for the Inquiry yet?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 24 Sep 2009, 16:29

Could be another secret? "they" could be watching.

What next, underground fundraising events? Helpers have to disguise themselves and are unaware of the location until an hour before the event. Supporters will have to be IDed to ensure they have no unpalatable connections amongst family or friiends. It really is a commercial waste.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 24 Sep 2009, 16:55

Well at least with PONGS leaflets and posters I've seen, it's at least clear they're actually from PONGS.

Unlike a certain other local organisation I could mention, who tend to put their name in rather small type.

When advertising a coffee morning for example.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 24 Sep 2009, 17:33

That is an improvement. I thought all the local action groups used a pro-forma leaflet and simply inserted the appropriate logo or group name.

I can't help but feel they are fragmenting the Portobello Calendar market. Is there room for two or three Portobello calendars. One solution may be to just have photos of Portobello Park and the Calendar works for the various groups.

Funds raised are pulled and then distributed to whatever causes are deemed appropriate by whomever collects the money. Indeed that may well be the way it works at the moment, I'm not sure.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 24 Sep 2009, 18:21

How many calendars-per-hour does a QC charge?

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 24 Sep 2009, 21:33

Pal of Porty wrote:
Marya wrote:
Porty wrote:I'll assume that's a No.
At the moment, it has been agreed not to give out a running total and to keep the opposition guessing.
And supporters too obviously!

Keep an eye on http://www.portobellopongs.com PoP, for regular updates and the imminent introduction of a fund raising thermometer, which will display PONGS' progress towards our target.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 24 Sep 2009, 21:36

seanie wrote:Have they established a timetable for the Inquiry yet?

The PLI has been put back until mid-January at the earliest, Seanie, as there has been a problem securing a venue. We are still waiting for a final date to be determined.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 25 Sep 2009, 01:04

Marya wrote:Keep an eye on http://www.portobellopongs.com PoP, for regular updates and the imminent introduction of a fund raising thermometer, which will display PONGS' progress towards our target.

Marya- when I sent my cheque to to the donation hub, was I entitled to a username and password? There doesn't appear to be a registration option.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 25 Sep 2009, 01:06

seanie wrote:How many calendars-per-hour does a QC charge?

Quantity Calendars?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 25 Sep 2009, 01:16

Marya wrote:
Keep an eye on http://www.portobellopongs.com PoP, for regular updates and the imminent introduction of a fund raising thermometer, which will display PONGS' progress towards our target.

All joking apart Marya. I notice that when it comes to the movers, shakers and moneymakers behind PONGS- not a single person is identified by name on their site. I'm half-way through watching The Sopranos and I know that refuse is big business, usually controlled by ruthless people., who will stop at nothing to quiet voices raised against their filthy regime.

Given the murky and dangerous history of the refuse game- is it wise to publish the address where donations are to be sent?

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 25 Sep 2009, 08:34

Porty wrote: Marya- when I sent my cheque to to the donation hub, was I entitled to a username and password? There doesn't appear to be a registration option.

I agree it is a bit confusing Porty, but the user name and password bit is only used by the person maintaining the site - there's no forum .

If you want to be added to the PONGS email group there is a 'contact PONGS' link at the top right side of the page.

edit - had too many Portys

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 25 Sep 2009, 08:47

Porty wrote: Given the murky and dangerous history of the refuse game- is it wise to publish the address where donations are to be sent?

You think there's a danger of horses' heads appearing on pillows? I'll need to alert the Neighbourhood Watch.

I'm more concerned about publishing the bank account details after what happened to Jeremy Clarkson.

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 25 Sep 2009, 09:05

Marya wrote:edit - had too many Portys

Know the feeling....

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 25 Sep 2009, 10:21

Marya wrote: You think there's a danger of horses' heads appearing on pillows? I'll need to alert the Neighbourhood Watch.

Nah, surely they wouldn't go that far but the prospect of serious nutters descending on WBC is surely a clear and present danger.

Looking forward to the thermometer. There is a lot of info on the PONGS site about how much each event has raised and it is nothing short of stupendous. Well done.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 25 Sep 2009, 11:40

Porty wrote: Looking forward to the thermometer. There is a lot of info on the PONGS site about how much each event has raised and it is nothing short of stupendous. Well done.

There has also been a generous response to the appeal in 'The Portobello Reporter', with many individual donations being received. Plus, there have been significant contributions from the Portobello Amenity Society and the Community Council. The current total, I believe, is halfway towards our target of £35k, which is brilliant, but stand by for many more opportunites to donate!

The next chance is at this Sunday's 'Village Show' in Rosefield Park from 2-5 pm. PONGS will have a stall selling home baking, produce, jams, chutneys, books etc. There will also be the opportunity to buy tickets for our Grand Raffle, which has some fantastic prizes and to buy tickets for our Salsa Ceilidh night in the community centre on Friday 9 October. See http://www.salsaceilidh.com/pongs.html for more details.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 25 Sep 2009, 12:21

Over £17,000 is awesome congratulations I firmly believe that when people are made aware of the level of support already garnered it will increase the momentum.

What are they going to spend the money on?

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 25 Sep 2009, 13:11

In Planning terms Viridor have a strong basis for their appeal. So a strong case, in Planning terms, will need to be put in opposition. You need experts for that.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 25 Sep 2009, 13:21

seanie wrote:In Planning terms Viridor have a strong basis for their appeal. So a strong case, in Planning terms, will need to be put in opposition. You need experts for that.

Yes, experts and the services of a QC, who specialises in planning and will represent the joint action group at the PLI.
None of these things come cheaply

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 25 Sep 2009, 13:41

So a QC...

...50 calendars-per-hour?

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 25 Sep 2009, 13:43

seanie wrote:So a QC...

...50 calendars-per-hour?

Criminal, isn't it?

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 25 Sep 2009, 13:48

There was an expose in Private Eye a while back about inflated legal fees. There was an example of a senior QC charging for a few minutes, watching an item on the news at home, that was relevant to the case. And it was charged at a rate of thousands per hour.

Sceptic · Post by **Sceptic** » 13 Oct 2009, 21:01

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU REALISE IT, BUT YOUR MATHS IS WAY OUT. 300,000 TONNES PER ANNUM = 5 LOADS PER HOUR MAXIMUM CAPACITY, NOT 90.
TO HAVE LORRIES COMING IN AT THE RATE OF MORE THAN 1 PER MINUTE IS TOTALLY STUPID.
TRYING GIVING THE CASH BACK TO PORTOBELLO AS OBVIOUSLY YOU DIDN'T DO YOUR HOMEWORK!

Post by **wangi** » 13 Oct 2009, 23:18

Sceptic wrote:TO HAVE LORRIES COMING IN AT THE RATE OF MORE THAN 1 PER MINUTE IS TOTALLY STUPID.

You've probably got a point; but try easing off the capslock key.

Earlier in the thread there was a comment that Viridor admitted to " 10 hours per day, 10 lorries in per hour".

Then somebody else heard "There would be 20 trucks per hour at peak times, so we can double that up to 40 truck movements per hour"

And between that and the PONGS PDF of October 2007 it looks to have doubled again...

No idea who is behind those numbers.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 13 Oct 2009, 23:28

Well I tried looking at the traffic assessments and couldn't work out what the actual implications were.

But here you can see one of the submissions aspart of the planning application.

Appendix 7.3e suggests an average of 305 lorries (610 lorry movements)over the 10 hour period of operation and a maximum of 464 lorries (928 lorry movements).

Sceptic · Post by **Sceptic** » 14 Oct 2009, 07:41

Traffic manager plan so that lorries are not standing idle waiting to offload. How long will it take to offload a lorry of, say, chemical drums? 30 minutes? They will not c ome with partloads, that wastes time and fuel and driver time. Therefore we have a situation where a lorry is booked in to be unloaded at a specific time. How many lorries can be unloaded at any one given time slot? Anyway if we did have 900 lorry movements per day as alleged, we end up at 2.8 million tonnes per year! Almost 10 times the quoted capacity. Give the money back.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 14 Oct 2009, 09:47

Those figures were submitted by Viridor as part of their planning application. They were calculated from taking figures from Powderhall and translating them for the scale of operation for the proposal at the Freightliner terminal.

The 928 may be a theoretical maximum,unlikely to happen, but the figure does actually come from Viridor themselves.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 14 Oct 2009, 17:38

I never could get my head round the traffic figures because there were effectively two different sets of projections.

One was based on mesurements of Powderhall scaled up, and one was based on working back from the train capacity and the number of trucks required to load it. Trouble was the resulting figures were very different.

Sceptic · Post by **Sceptic** » 14 Oct 2009, 19:12

As I was saying, someone's maths is out bigstyle somewhere. I cannot visualise a string of parked lorries on Harry Lauder Road. it does not make economic or logistic sense. Viridor is not the only fish in the pond, there are others playing this game. Always remember that there are EU rules about waste disposal, incineration at extreme temperature is the only viable option. I am surprised that they do not follow the Swedish model of incinerators and use the waste heat to supply hot water and heating to the local housing. By the way, the EU rules govern emisions as well.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 14 Oct 2009, 19:21

The proposal is for the transfer of waste to landfill, although that could presumably change.

Sceptic · Post by **Sceptic** » 14 Oct 2009, 21:22

The propsal is to build an incinerator at Dunbar capacity 450,000 tonnes pa, the EU is to reduce dependancy on landfill, increasing recycling and incineration as disposal techniques. this will also reduce the convoy of lorries going nto the present landfill siten at Dunbar. It is therefore logical and ecological sense that is part of the proposal. It will also make Viridor a lot of money. Have a look at the Keepdunnysunny site.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 14 Oct 2009, 22:30

The incinerator application was refused a week or two ago.

They may well appeal, but as a proposal it is separate to this one.

Sceptic · Post by **Sceptic** » 15 Oct 2009, 07:33

It is separate as it is a different Local Authority, but the two plans are linked closely. There would be little point to have one without the other.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 15 Oct 2009, 08:16

Welcome to the forum Sceptic. It's good to get some new input on this topic, although I'm perplexed as to how anyone can properly evaluate this application with such wildly conflicting figures.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 15 Oct 2009, 09:37

Sceptic wrote:It is separate as it is a different Local Authority, but the two plans are linked closely. There would be little point to have one without the other.

No.

They could be linked but they're both viable independently.

In the absence of an incinerator waste continues to go to the landfill site as currently planned.

In the absence of a transfer station at Portobello waste continues to be transported by road or from an alternative site.