Proposed waste depot in Portobello

Post by **wangi** » 04 Oct 2007, 12:42

A copy of the October "PONGS" leaflet can be viewed at:

http://talkporty.org/hosted/pongs/october-07.pdf

Marya, I think you were asking above about contact details for this group - It's Caroline Hosking - details in the PDF. I wish the obsession with acronyms would end!

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 04 Oct 2007, 17:00

wangi wrote:A copy of the October "PONGS" leaflet can be viewed at:

http://talkporty.org/hosted/pongs/october-07.pdf

Marya, I think you were asking above about contact details for this group - It's Caroline Hosking - details in the PDF. I wish the obsession with acronyms would end!

Thanks Wangi, but things have since moved on and I'm now a member of this group.
I can't stress how important it is that people consider what effect this privately owned, profit making, transfer site will have on Portobello. Those of us living in the nearby streets obviously have most to lose in terms of noise, light pollution, odour problems from the site and traffic disturbances. However, it won't just be nearby residents who will suffer. Anyone who travels in and out of Portobello and its environs will be subjected to an increase in heavy lorry traffic. As the Viridor application states, this could amount to 928 lorry movements per day.

Please read the leaflet Wangi has posted in this thread (or the one which we shall be delivering shortly through your letterbox), ask yourself what has happened to the promised comparator pack from Viridor regarding a similar site in London and let the Head of Planning know as soon as you can of your objections to this application.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 04 Oct 2007, 17:12

From today's EN:

Waste depot sparks fears over traffic impact

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 05 Oct 2007, 14:44

Marya wrote:Please read the leaflet Wangi has posted in this thread (or the one which we shall be delivering shortly through your letterbox), ask yourself what has happened to the promised comparator pack from Viridor regarding a similar site in London and let the Head of Planning know as soon as you can of your objections to this application.

I would like to add that it is really important that you use the word 'object' or 'objection' in your letter as otherwise it is counted as a 'comment' instead. The deadline for letters of objection is 2 November at the very latest.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 30 Oct 2007, 10:25

Last night's Community Council meeting discussed a very thorough and detailed letter of objection, which we will be sending in regarding Viridor's proposal.

Please remember to send in your own email or letter by this Friday's deadline - 2 Nov. Contact addresses and suggested grounds for objection are to be found here. I believe some folk have sent in emails simply saying that they object to the proposal. I'm afraid it isn't enough to say that you object - you must give at least one reason for your objection, be it noise, traffic, etc.

If you miss the deadline PONGS members will be out this Sat once more on the High Street collecting signatures for our petition and offering standard letters of objection for folk to sign. We intend to hand deliver these submissions in time for them to be considered. We've had an excellent response so far so please keep them coming everyone!

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 02 Nov 2007, 14:59

Anyone hear today's 'Good Morning Scotland' piece about the proposal?
David Calder's report included excellent interviews with Cllr. Child, Diana Cairns (both of PONGS) and Stuart Hay from 'Friends of the Earth Scotland'. Viridor didn't accept an invitation to contribute to the programme.

You can listen to the programme again by accessing a link from here. The report starts about 1 hr 35 mins into the programme and lasts for about 5 mins.

Objections stand at an impressive 500 and rising so keep them coming! Officials state that as long as objections are 'on the desk' by Mon morning they will be accepted, so PONGS will be out in force again this Sat on the High Street gathering more signatures and giving residents the opportunity to complete letters of objection. See you then!

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 02 Nov 2007, 17:35

From the BBC News online:

Hundreds oppose waste depot plan

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 02 Nov 2007, 17:36

From the EN today:

Hundreds rubbish waste depot plan

Post by **wangi** » 02 Nov 2007, 19:17

On STV:

Video report by Liz Monaghan: Portobello residents fight waste depot plan

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 23 Nov 2007, 13:18

Quick update on the situation. According to an email from Maureen Child

The attached letter shows the level of response to the Campaign – a total of 675 letters, 620 of which are individual letters. I suspect this is an Edinburgh record!

I know that Gavin Strang MP and George Foulkes MSP have also written letters of objection. Councillor Ewan Aitken and all my Portobello/Craigmillar Council colleagues have also expressed their opposition. Local Councillors will get a chance to speak to Planning Committee when the application comes up.

Councillor Hawkins and I have asked for the application to be taken as a ‘hearing’ which means both sides will be heard for the same length of time and there will the opportunity for the Planning Committee members to ask questions. Normally, this doesn’t happen with planning applications.

There is no date set as the application will take a long time to process, not least because given the number of the objections, whose content has to be analysed..

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 24 Mar 2008, 18:20

From today's EN:

Trouble in air over noise and pollution fear at waste depot

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 08 May 2008, 12:31

Good letter in today's EN:

Rubbish site would waste quality of life in Portobello

There is growing concern in the community that despite 650 individually written objections, a further petition and universal objection from local Portobello councillors and politicians including Gavin Strang MP and Kenny MacAskill that the proposed waste transfer plant at Harry Lauder Road may be recommended by our council offices.
This site will be used to transfer commercial and domestic waste from the Lothians and beyond into Edinburgh which will then be delivered by train to East Lothian.

It is worth noting that waste management firm Viridor is allowed to appeal and request a public inquiry if their proposal is unsuccessful.

Local residents have no right of appeal.

On a personal basis I am a very concerned 56-year-old local resident who has never before written a letter to the Evening News let alone joined a campaign group to oppose a development.

The basis of our objections is:

• That a commercial company would appear to be dictating the council's waste strategy through this application.

• The waste transfer site would be the largest in a residential area in Scotland.

• It would generate an additional 900-plus HGV trips in and out of an already heavily congested Portobello every day.

• The area would be blighted by high levels of noise, smell, light pollution and vermin.

Make no mistake, this is a massive issue for Edinburgh and in particular the Portobello and surrounding area.

I am a member of PONGS (Portobello Opposes New Garbage Site), a campaign group opposed to this development.

Rab Leslie, Argyle Crescent, Edinburgh

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 08 May 2008, 17:28

Unfortunately, as Rab says in his letter, we (PONGS) believe that the Council planning officer will be recommending approval of this application (07/04148/FUL). In another disappointing piece of news, SEPA has now withdrawn its objections to the application - for example,Viridor's suggestion that more 'training' be given to those loading the trains in order to cut down on noise was deemed acceptable to SEPA

It is so very important, that the many local residents, who have already objected to this waste transfer site, continue to make their views known. The Planning Committee must not approve this site, which will be hugely detrimental to Portobello. Please note that Cllr Child who sits on the planning committee will not be able to vote on this issue, as she has already stated her opposition to the proposal and indeed continues to do so.

The planning committee date for this application has not yet been set, but it could be late May/early June.

Please keep checking www.portobellopongs.com for information.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 08 May 2008, 19:19

Its Rab.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 08 May 2008, 20:29

Porty wrote:Its Rab.

I know : unfortunately, my fingers don't.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 10 May 2008, 18:27

From today's EN Letters Page:

Monstrous waste transfer plant bid is a real stinker

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 13 May 2008, 11:01

From today's EN Letters Page:

Waste site would tarnish town's improvements

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 17 May 2008, 12:38

From today's EN Letters Page (2nd letter down):

Lack of planning skills makes mess

Mark Cameron · Post by **Mark Cameron** » 18 May 2008, 09:57

Hi

Is anyone able to give me details of who to address a letter of objection to?

Thanks

Mark

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 18 May 2008, 11:16

Welcome to the forum, Mark.

The final date for letters of objection has now passed, but you can still email, write or visit the surgery of councillors on the planning committee to voice your concerns. The councillors will not be allowed to give an opinion, but will take note of your objections. Cllr Child has already stated she is against the proposal, so will not be able to vote on this application. She will also address the committee prior to the vote being taken.

It is now thought that the date for this application to come before the committee will be the end of June/beg. July, but it is still to be confirmed and may be later.

The relevant people are :

Councillor Lowrie (Convener) (Scottish Liberal Democrat)
Councillor Dundas (Scottish Liberal Democrat)
Councillor Morris (Scottish Liberal Democrat)
Councillor Peacock (Scottish Liberal Democrat)
Councillor Thomas (Scottish Liberal Democrat)
Councillor Keir (SNP)
Councillor McIvor (Vice Convener) (SNP)
Councillor Munn (SNP)
Councillor Hinds (Labour)
Councillor Child (Labour)
Councillor Milligan (Labour)
Councillor Mowat (Conservative)
Councillor Rose (Conservative)
Councillor Paisley (Conservative)
Councillor Burgess (Green)

Unfortunately I don't have time right now to provide links from their names, but I shall try to do so later. In the meantime, you can find contact details for each of them on the Council website

BeachBum · Post by **BeachBum** » 18 May 2008, 11:52

Marya wrote: The relevant people are :

Councillor Jim Lowrie (Convener) (Scottish Liberal Democrat)
Councillor Charles Dundas (Scottish Liberal Democrat)
Councillor Elaine Morris (Scottish Liberal Democrat)
Councillor Gary Peacock (Scottish Liberal Democrat)
Councillor Marjorie Thomas (Scottish Liberal Democrat)
Councillor Colin Keir (SNP)
Councillor Stuart Roy McIvor (Vice Convener) (SNP)
Councillor Rob Munn (SNP)
Councillor Lesley Hinds (Labour)
Councillor Maureen Child (Labour)
Councillor Eric Milligan (Labour)
Councillor Joanna Mowat (Conservative)
Councillor Cameron Rose (Conservative)
Councillor Alastair Paisley (Conservative)
Councillor Charles Burgess (Green)

As with Council staff, email addresses follow a standard format. This is: firstname.lastname@edinburgh.gov.uk if you wish to email.

Ive added in their first names into a quote from the posting made by Marya. Ive done this in green to differentiate from her original posting.

Im not sure about Councillor McIvors as he has has first two names shown on his profile, So it could be stuart-roy.mcivor@edinburgh.gov.uk or just stuart.roy@edinburgh.gov.uk. Im working today at 3pm so I can check on the email directory on 'the Orb' (silly name for the Councils internal website, the intranet) when I get in and make a further posting.

If writing to them using snail mail they used to all have desk facilities at the City Chambers so id write to them there, but if you wrote to them at Council HQ it would get forwarded onto them through the twice daily internal mail system without any probs.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 18 May 2008, 11:59

michael_traill wrote:
Im not sure about Councillor McIvors as he has has first two names shown on his profile, So it could be stuart-roy.mcivor@edinburgh.gov.uk or just stuart.roy@edinburgh.gov.uk.

It's neither. It is stuart.mcivor@edinburgh.gov.uk

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 27 May 2008, 16:02

From today's Evening News (2nd letter down)

Waste transfer plan is unbelievably bad

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 02 Jun 2008, 09:27

Marya wrote: It is now thought that the date for this application to come before the committee will be the end of June/beg. July, but it is still to be confirmed and may be later.

It is now likely that the application for the waste transfer site will come before the planning committee at the end of July. Please keep making your views known either directly to Councillors who sit on the planning committee or via the local press.

This application has already had an negative effect on Portobello. The evidence is only anecdotal, but I know of house sales/purchases, which haven't gone through, because solicitors are warning their clients about this planning application.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 04 Jun 2008, 22:19

From Maureen Child:

Dear All

I have written confirmation form the Council's head of planning and strategy that the date has been set for a hearing on the Viridor application for the waste transfer site on 30 July at am. The papers will be in the public domain two weeks before and at that point and we will then know what the planning officers' recommendation is and have a further opportunity to comment and object.

The decision has also been taken for the Planning Committee to visit the site, with local Councillors also invited on the afternoon of Wednesday 25 June, before the meeting.

The PONGS campaign group are about to put out a leaflet round doors in Portobello and will do some street stalls too. So if you want to help with that, do let us know. I'm doing Portobello High Street.

I will not be able to take part in the decision as a I have taken a public stance against it in advance of the meeting. Members of the Campaign are visiting and lobbying fellow members of the Committee, but you must not expect them to state a view in advance of 30th July or they won't be able to vote on it at all.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 05 Jun 2008, 18:04

From PONGS:

Dear PONGS supporter,

Re Planning Application for a Waste Transfer Site in Portobello

We have just heard that the date has been set for a hearing on the Viridor application for the waste transfer site on 30 July morning. The Planning Committee will also visit the site 5 days before this. The papers will be published two weeks before and we will then know what the planning officers' recommendation is and be able to object at the Hearing. However, as our previous email said, we have heard that the council's planning dept was seriously considering recommending approval of the plan. This does not mean however that it will be approved by the Planning Committee. Between now and the planning committee meeting we need to try and convince the councillors on the planning committee to turn the plan down.

PONGS Committee are producing a leaflet, and window posters, as well as having stalls in Portobello High Street. If you can help, or take a window poster, please let us know. We will write to you about this very soon.

Some of us have been lobbying Councillors on the Planning Committee by visiting their surgeries. We have been told that many don't hold surgeries in July, so June is the only opportunity to visit to lobby them, if you would like to do this. This would be a really good way of impressing how strongly residents oppose this Plan. Viridor are lobbying the Councillors, so please don't feel bad about doing so - it is their job to hear our views!
Please don't ask or expect them to give you an idea of how they may vote in advance- if they do, then they will be disqualified from voting, which would be very bad if they might be sympathetic to our point of view. (Planning rules)
Cllr Maureen Child had taken a position against the Waste Transfer Site before recently joining the Planning Committee so she is unfortunately unable to vote on this, but is taking part in the Campaign against it, as is
Cllr Stephen Hawkins (not on the Planning Committee).

A list of the Planning Committee Councillors in Xcel is attached but if you cannot read this, you can visit the Council's website for details of surgeries at http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/internet/Co ... councillor
Councillors on the Planning Committee are:
Councillor Lowrie (Convener) (Scottish Liberal Democrat)
Councillor Dundas (Scottish Liberal Democrat)
Councillor Morris (Scottish Liberal Democrat)
Councillor Peacock (Scottish Liberal Democrat)
Councillor Thomas (Scottish Liberal Democrat)
Councillor Keir (SNP)
Councillor McIvor (Vice Convener) (SNP)
Councillor Munn (SNP)
Councillor Hinds (Labour)
Councillor Child (Labour)
Councillor Milligan (Labour)
Councillor Mowat (Conservative)
Councillor Rose (Conservative)
Councillor Paisley (Conservative)
Councillor Burgess (Green)

Thanks Caroline for PONGS - - Portobello Opposes New Garbage Site - - http://www.portobellopongs.com/

To remind you of some of the arguments against this massive Waste Transfer Site Plan, here are some points you can raise if you visit one of the Councillors in their surgery:

General points in addition to those below:
-Powderhall (Council Waste Transfer Site) now operational beyond 2015 for domestic and other waste - Edinburgh has absolutely no need for this additional site.
-NW Portobello Masterplan/Development Brief now approved - will result in up to 1,000 additional houses and substantially increased traffic.
-Primary objective of Kings Road roundabout is to improve bus flow and pedestrian safety but it is not aimed at or expected to improve traffic congestion, and may make it worse as giving priority to buses.
1 Traffic and air pollution:
· Portobello already has massive traffic problems
· many roads into Portobello are at maximum or over capacity.
· This proposal would add a further 928 lorries per day (464 in and out of the site) around Portobello. The application talks about reducing the amount of lorries going to Dunbar, but Portobello would have a huge number of extra lorries coming into our residential area, bringing extra air pollution and a loss of amenity to the area.
· The situation could easily arise where lorries are bringing in waste from outside the city, only for it to be transported back out again, for example, waste from East Lothian.
· The applicant’s traffic study is flawed as they have failed to survey the Seafield roundabout and the Milton junction at either end of Sir Harry Lauder Road along which all traffic will have to travel. These junctions have been operating at over capacity for several years and the traffic added will bring total gridlock.

2 Noise nuisance:
· Viridor’s own Environmental Risk Assessment says there is a high risk of noise from this site to neighbouring housing, due to a large number of heavy vehicles in/out of the site.
· Noise would also come from loading/unloading trains, moving containers and the general activities on the site: doors banging, roller shutters, compactors, fans, bleeping noises from reversing vehicles, etc.
· We are not reassured by Viridor’s promise to SEPA that they will minimise noise by training the operatives to be quieter.
· Noise will not be contained inside the building because, due to the number of lorries entering and leaving the site, the roller shutter doors will be almost permanently open.

3 Impact on Portobello’s conservation area and on residential amenity.
· The steel building would be 14-16 metres high and massive: 80 metres long and 45 metres wide.
· Viridor states the ‘dense woodland’ (in reality very sparse) and trees around the site will mask the building but what about in the winter when there are no leaves on the trees?
· This building would be adjacent to an outstanding conservation area of B listed properties and would be the largest waste transfer site in a residential area in Scotland.
· Already one potential buyer has withdrawn from a house purchase indicting the blight that this development will have on the area.

4 Smells/odour pollution/vermin
· Smells from the site and waste lorries on the roads are a high risk to the area.
· Viridor claim there will be no biodegradable waste but want to take over domestic waste currently handled at the Council’s site at Powderhall, which is 60% biodegradable, which will contribute to odours.
· Smells will not be contained within the building as the roller shutter doors will be almost permanently open.
· Waste attracts rats, flies, birds eg seagulls, and other vermin. Full containers will be left outside the building for up to 24 hours or longer, and waste left inside from Saturday to Monday.

5 Light pollution
· This high building covering 3040 Sq metres will be floodlit, adding considerable light pollution and trespass to surrounding properties.
· During winter particularly, the site will have a high level of lighting most of the time to ensure safe working.
· There is no screening on the eastern side of the site; the deciduous trees on the south side are quite sparse and would provide practically no screening when they are bare in the winter months.
· Light pollution is anti-social, intrusive and its imposition on local residents by this development would render it a bad neighbour, according to the Town and Country Planning Act, article 12b.
6 Consultation
· Viridor have portrayed themselves as champions of public consultation, yet they omitted to notify some of the streets closest to the development of their public exhibition in summer 2007, e.g. Park Avenue, Stanley Street, Rosefield Street.
· They promised to put the postcards which residents completed at the June public exhibition on deposit with the Planning department. This has not been done.
· They also refused to say how many of the people who completed the postcards were against the development when asked at a community council meeting.
· Their Public Consultation Statement includes 19 comments, four of which are in favour of the development. This is not representative of the feelings of the community.
· On page 24 of their Consultation Statement, Viridor claim that all areas of concern have been addressed but they have not been resolved to residents’ satisfaction, nor has there been any feedback to the community.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 05 Jun 2008, 19:40

PONGS wrote:Dear PONGS supporter,

Re Planning Application for a Waste Transfer Site in Portobello

We have just heard that the date has been set for a hearing on the Viridor application for the waste transfer site on 30 July morning. The Planning Committee will also visit the site 5 days before this.

Just a small correction. The site visit will be on 25 June, though the hearing is on the 30 July as originally stated.

Grunk · Post by **Grunk** » 06 Jun 2008, 11:13

Bob Jefferson wrote:From Maureen Child:

Dear All

I have written confirmation form the Council's head of planning and strategy that the date has been set for a hearing on the Viridor application for the waste transfer site on 30 July at am. The papers will be in the public domain two weeks before and at that point and we will then know what the planning officers' recommendation is and have a further opportunity to comment and object.

The decision has also been taken for the Planning Committee to visit the site, with local Councillors also invited on the afternoon of Wednesday 25 June, before the meeting.

The PONGS campaign group are about to put out a leaflet round doors in Portobello and will do some street stalls too. So if you want to help with that, do let us know. I'm doing Portobello High Street.

I will not be able to take part in the decision as a I have taken a public stance against it in advance of the meeting. Members of the Campaign are visiting and lobbying fellow members of the Committee, but you must not expect them to state a view in advance of 30th July or they won't be able to vote on it at all.

Perhaps I'm not understanding this democracy lark...
So only people in favour of the proposal are allowed to vote? Doesn't seem right to me,

I wonder how many local residents need to object before the relevant councilors take notice, is there a magic number? Also seems a bit weird that local residents have no right of appeal. I'm sure you get right of appeal if your neighbour wants to build an extension, surely a waste transfer site is going to have a bigger impact on the area.

Perhaps they should run an experiment and have 50 HGVs running up and down Harry Lauder road round the round about and back, to see how it affects traffic in the area.

There must be a site that's directly off the bypass, away from residential properties (and the sea/seagulls) that would be more suitable

Post by **wangi** » 06 Jun 2008, 11:35

Councillors that are openly supportive of the idea cannot vote either.

Millerhill was another proposed site.

Grunk · Post by **Grunk** » 06 Jun 2008, 12:08

Ahh, so whether a councilor can vote or not depends on their honesty.

edit:- Also they say that no biodegradable waste will be transferred through the station, shouldn't all non-biodegradable waste be being recycled?

How are they going to ensure the lack of biodegradability?

Peter Bradley · Post by **Peter Bradley** » 06 Jun 2008, 13:12

think its safe to say that Viridor and their lobby firm PPS, (check out the seriously dodgy private eye story on the web),which is headed up in Edinburgh by Donald Anderson the old council labour chief, will be telling the councillors and planning dept exactly what they want to hear to get the nod.

If it gets the go ahead whats the bet that they go back on their promises BIG TIME!
I mean - SEPA accepting that they will load the trains "quietly" is a joke.

It does seem incredulous that they are considering building a massive dump so close to the new school site.A huge section of the catchment area will have to cross a road with artics flying past - kids,bikes and artics - surely a tragic disaster waiting to happen.

Grunk · Post by **Grunk** » 06 Jun 2008, 13:20

Link to the article mentioned above:

http://www.eh8.org.uk/sites/eh8.org.uk/ ... 2816_1.jpg

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 06 Jun 2008, 13:50

There's no third party right of appeal in the Planning system.

Grunk · Post by **Grunk** » 06 Jun 2008, 15:13

Peter Bradley wrote:
It does seem incredulous that they are considering building a massive dump so close to the new school site.A huge section of the catchment area will have to cross a road with artics flying past - kids,bikes and artics - surely a tragic disaster waiting to happen.

Don't worry, It'll be fine, they are putting traffic lights in.

Grunk · Post by **Grunk** » 06 Jun 2008, 16:09

I've updated the list of folk to write to with their Wards too, it may help if you highlight the impact of the site to their specific areas (it might not).

Clr Jim Lowrie (Convener)(Scot lib dem)Fountainbridge/Craiglockhart
Clr Charles Dundas (Scottish Lib dem) City Centre
Clr Elaine Morris (Scottish Lib dem) Forth
Clr Gary Peacock (Scottish Lib dem) Craigentinny/Dudingston
Clr Marjorie Thomas (Scottish Lib dem) Leith
Clr Colin Keir (SNP) Drumbrae/Gyle
Clr Stuart McIvor (Vice Cvner) (SNP) Inverleith
Clr Rob Munn (SNP) Leith
Clr Lesley Hinds (Labour) Inverleith
Clr Maureen Child (Labour) Portobello/Craigmillar
Clr Eric Milligan (Labour) Sighthill/Gorgie
Clr Joanna Mowat (Conservative) City Centre
Clr Cameron Rose (Conservative) Southside/ Newington
Clr Alastair Paisley (Conservative) Pentland Hills
Clr Charles Burgess (Green) Southside/Newington

I know the official date for objections has passed, but surely they'll have to take note of new letters of objections ?

I seem to be posting a lot here, and I'm quite late to the party, but I have just found out about this (I know should read more local news). I hope no-one minds.

Is there an information anywhere on how they voted on the masterplan issues?