Proposed waste depot in Portobello

Emma · Post by **Emma** » 02 Sep 2003, 19:17

Do anyone know anything about a proposal to base a waste depot at the
freightiner terminal site? I looked on the web and it brought up a council
report from last November saying it was a contender (with Seafield) to be
the site of a waste transfer station. If both the supermarket proposed for the Scottish Power site and the waste depot go ahead (even if it's at Seafield) it's going to have an untenable impact on traffic at the two roundabouts.

Admin: thread edited Oct 2007 to remove off-topic posts

Dave Connelly · Post by **Dave Connelly** » 02 Sep 2003, 23:03

This is shocking
Do you know if there are any definate plans or are these just proposals?
I havn't heard anything at all about this on the radio, TV or in the press.

I do not want any more waste sites of any kind. Portobello appears to be a dumping site for all and sundry. I also agree with your point about the traffic. It is aweful as it is. Very Dangerous for children and cyclists.

COUNCILLORS - WHY HAVN'T WE BEEN CONSULTED BY THE COUNCIL

Lawrence Marshall · Post by **Lawrence Marshall** » 04 Sep 2003, 21:07

On 3rd September 2001 the Babtie Group Ltd. wrote to Portobello Community Council as part of their preparation of an environmental impact assessment with respect to a proposal to build a waste management facility on the site of the old Freightliner depot off the Sir Harry Lauder Road. I first learned of this scheme via a telephone enquiry from an "Evening News" journalist - subsequent to which I naturally tried to find out from our officials what was proposed and how this related to our statutory requirement to compile, with the other relevant local authorities, an Area Waste Plan for Lothian and the Borders. I was then made aware that the Council had issued a "Partnership Prospectus" asking companies to respond by February 2001 with ideas as to how facilities, etc.might be configured in order to deliver an Integrated Waste Management Strategy able to meet the targets set for recycling, etc. by Government. The Winter 2001 edityion of the "Portobello Reporter" covered this as a front page story.
I basically got no further forward at that time with my enquiries since it transpired that an official planning application had not yet been lodged and that, as with all others seeking pre-application discussions with Planning, the nature of these discussions were treated in confidence. We would need to await the planning application itself. This has never been lodged.
Nevertheless, as can be seen from the e-mail of 4th October last year pasted in below - occasioned by a report to the Executive of the Council on severe problems being experienced at Powderhall depot - which I sent out to my Portobello group list (comprising 120-odd addresses at that time), I have sought to influence thinking as to the options to be considered when putting together an Integrated Waste Management Strategy. In particular, it remains my view that Millerhill represents the best option for such a facility to be rail-connected.
I haven't heard anything more on this matter since - except, and most importantly, that the Council has ruled out incineration as a method of disposal for the city's municipal waste.
If folk wish to be added to my Portobello e-mail list, please let me know at lawrence.marshall@edinburgh.gov.uk and I'll gladly add you to it. It's a quick and easy way to keep in touch!

* * * * *

e-mail sent by me on 4th October 2002:

Dear All,
you may see press coverage in the next few days regarding a report going to the meeting of the Executive of the Council being held on Tuesday 8 October which seeks approval for the removal of asbestos and repair works at the Phase 1 building at Powderhall - the main receiving area for the city's municipal waste. Approval is also sought "to continue to pursue an alternative depot to maintain the rail and disposal contracts" in place.
Asbestos was uncovered in the tipping stalls in this building earlier this year and a tender was placed for its removal with a start date of October 2002. On Friday 20 September 2002, however, asbestos was found in dust at the facility and, as a result, the Phase 1 building was closed the very next day as a precautionary measure. Since this building also compacts the city's waste to allow it to be transferred by rail to the landfill site at Dunbar, movement of the city's waste has subsequently been by road.
All this comes on top of the Council being served with three Prohibition Notices and four Improvement Notices by the Health and Safety Executive following their visiting the site on 11 June 2002 - although these were more concerned with traffic management and general health and safety procedures and did not directly relate to the asbestos in the tipping stalls.
Nevertheless, all this has called into question the future operation of the site and thus a thorough review of the operation of Powderhall has been undertaken. This has concluded that the Phase 1 building is "near the end of its working life", "is not carrying out the function for which it was originally designed" and "therefore the operation is inefficient and not cost effective". Although the work to be carried out at Powerhall will mean that operations there will recommence in the near future, alternative sites have therefore been sought within the city and two identified as being capable of maintaining the rail link and accepting large quantities of waste. Unfortunately, both of these are in Portobello, namely: (i) Seafield Refuse depot and Civic Amenity Site (the first preference site), and: (ii) the former Portobello Freightliner terminal.
While the latter site has certainly been mooted in the recent past as a potential location for a waste recycling plant as part of the requirement to reduce the amount of waste going to landfill, the former site was never mentioned in this context. Moreover, the timescales envisaged before we had to face any planning application for such a facility seemed a few years away at the least. All that would now appear to have changed as a result of the problems at Powderhall.
I said in letters to local constituents and local organisations last November that, whilst as a member of the Planning Committee I could not prejudice my position legally by pronouncing on any planning application in advance of its consideration by committee, I nevertheless believed that Millerhill freight yard was "a far better location in terms of a rail-connected site for such a facility."
That remains my view and it is one which I will make sure is made known to members of the Executive of the Council before they meet on Tuesday - I will therefore copy this e-mail to each Executive Member.
Millerhill yard is where I started work on the railway just over 20 years ago. It was a huge yard when constructed in the 1960s but was already a shadow of its former self when I arrived. It has contracted even more since but much land remains that could easily accommodate the kind of facility required by the Council. Although just a few yards outwith the city itself, it would also be handily placed to serve Midlothian and East Lothian in terms of the required future Area Waste Plan covering the Lothians and the Borders. With the arrival hopefully of a rail link to the central Borders before the end of this decade, even the Borders could find it a useful facility. The fact that the site is owned not by the Council but by Network Rail should be no deterrent - the Council's new Headquarters building itself is to be built on Network Rail land in Market Street!
I only received this afternoon a copy of the report going to the Executive of the Council on Tuesday. I hope that my representation here to it will be of some benefit in helping to direct attention to the possibility of siting any replacement facility for Powderhall at Millerhill.

Lawrence

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 11 May 2006, 17:41

I've resurrected this thread in the light of today's story in the EN:

Anger as Portobello is tipped for massive waste depot site

My quote doesn't really make sense. What I said was that everyone wanted to see brownfield sites being regenerated and that I also understood that the Council had a requirement to find a site for waste sorting and recycling, but that such facilities should be kept well away from from areas where people live.

Poppy · Post by **Poppy** » 11 May 2006, 17:48

My quote doesn't really make sense.

Kinda wondered what you were on about and then realised there had probably been some creative sub-editing!!

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 11 May 2006, 21:57

It's a red herring by the Council to detract us from the PHS proposals. While we're all running round trying to stop them shoving more faeces on us, they'll nip in and quickly build a housing estate on our golf course

Post by **wangi** » 11 May 2006, 23:14

If the council aren't going to apply a bit of imagination and build the school there then it makes an ideal site for the waste depot. It's an island well sheltered from housing and has excellent transport links.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 11 May 2006, 23:47

I hesitate to say this because I know it'll go down like a brick budgie.

As the site for a waste depot it makes some sense. As the site for a high school it doesn't.

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 12 May 2006, 00:29

I think it makes brilliant sense. It is served by main roads and rail, which are very important criteria for such a development. It will also help Edinburgh meet its' EU commitments. It has got to be built somewhere and I cannot see many better sites in Edinburgh which meet its requirements. Don't we all make waste?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 12 May 2006, 10:59

Bob Jefferson wrote:I've resurrected this thread in the light of today's story in the EN:

[url=http://news.scotsman.com/edinburgh.cfm?id=706572006]Anger as Portobello .

Portobello resident Diana Cairns said the community would fight against a decision to move the depot to Portobello.

She said: "We have heard rumours that the rail freight facility in Portobello is one of the options for the new waste depot and no-one is happy about it. The site does need something done with it, but we were hoping that if it became the site for the new high school, it would be sorted out, but we don't want something like a waste depot there."

We may have an idea who Moi is but who are "we"? Could it be the 97%?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 12 May 2006, 18:59

Back on-topic briefly, Lawrence Marshall has just copied me into the following:

All obvious options - Leith, the Freightliner site and Millerhill - need to be assessed together on their various merits and demerits. It can't be right to rule out one option just because of a public meeting in one area - that's ad hoc to say the least and is not a considered judgement of the issue in the round.

Leith is Edinburgh's port and a rail line to and from it is to be kept in the Leith Docks Development Framework - indeed, the eastern part of the docks are specifically to be kept in industrial use.

The Freightliner site is reserved for rail freight use but a waste transfer station here would now narrow the options available to the city for the re-build of Portobello High School/St. John's R.C. Primary School - and in various ways at that. The Freightliner site is the obvious place to move Lothian Buses' Marine Depot to - whether to allow a new High School to be built by the seaside or to allow the transformation of this section of the waterfront for leisure use in accordance with the city's recently announced "Boardwalk" proposal. The Freightliner site could also itself be the site for a new High School.

There could thus be a large opportunity cost in terms of school provision and waterfront regeneration from siting a waste transfer station on the Freightliner site.

Things thus seem to point to Millerhill but, as I say, all this needs to considered in a measured way and not in response to one set of representations from only one part of the city.

Poppy · Post by **Poppy** » 12 May 2006, 19:06

The Marine Depot - why's it being moved? Can't remember if it's been discussed here or not - although the move itself has been several times.

ali · Post by **ali** » 12 May 2006, 20:54

I too think that the Freightliner site sounds ideal for the waste site providing that we can get enough safeguards and assurances about smell, pollution etc.

(I just have a slight problem with Diana Cairns telling the media that the community is against it when she has no more idea than I have.)

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 12 May 2006, 20:59

I think that you are being far too reasonable about this ali. Surely you must understand by now that faced with a contentious issue you must believe it to be the best thing since sliced bread or the work of the Devil himself. The Community must be 97% behind it or totally opposed to it. Get with the script!

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 13 May 2006, 07:44

Marya wrote:you haven't told us what you think about the possibility of having a waste depot sited in Portobello. Do you have an opinion on that?

I'm waiting for the official community response! Just kidding.

Having read Lawrence's letters and the article in the News the main concerns of mine are :

1. The council seem to have a habit of entering into talks with people first before consulting communities, who get miffed that they weren't involved from the start.

2. This place has to go somewhere.

3. Even Diana Cairns gets her bin emptied - where is her viable alternative? She should accept the label of nimbyism.

4. Sorry Bob and Porty about 3.

It's tempting to back Millerhill just based on what Lawrence has written - tempting but a bit too convenient, because it means it's out of sight of Porty (the area, not the man) and hence we don't have to worry about it any more - and that's not good enough reason to object to something.

Lawrence has his eye on a much bigger picture - things like Area Waste Plans which we have elected him to worry about for us - so it must be a bit exasperating to meet opposition after opposition.

Lawrence and seanie speak a very different language, and deal with a different reality, from Dave and Diana. Portobello does not exist in a vacuum, and I worry about the motivations of a "community" whose only verdict is "put this place somewhere else".

I'd be interested in an environmental impact assessment, but not one which was given to us by people who wanted the plan to go ahead - even if it was their statutory requirement to produce such a report.

So call me a fence-sitter if you like - at the moment I'm neither backing the council nor signing community leader dc's petition.

Does/will the CC have a position on this?

promqueen · Post by **promqueen** » 16 May 2006, 21:28

Quite a lot that interests me here, as I live in Seafield Road East, that wee oasis between the car showrooms and King's Road....
Is there a plan to move the bus depot? I haven't heard anything about it before. Might be quite nice not to hear them revving up in the early hours - due to our substandard double glazing, we get the buses from around 4.30 am at the back window, and the freight trains around 5am at the front !! And is it being considered as a new PHS site, right enough?Haven't seen that suggestion before, either.
As for the new waste depot - it's not nimbyism, but with the Seafield Dump and the Sewage works at one end of the road, would really prefer not to have yet another waste dump within spitting - and sh ....ng!- distance. Is it not somebody else's turn?

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 24 Nov 2006, 12:37

I read about the Waste Project in the Amenity Society minutes Bob posted. Does anyone have an update on what is happening with the selection of a suitable site?

SoupDragon · Post by **SoupDragon** » 25 Nov 2006, 12:16

Just this minute got a letter through the doorsaying Viridor Waste Management are holding a public exhibition outling their proposals at the Old Parish Church Hall, Bellfield St 1st Dec 12-8pm and 2nd Dec 10-4

impossiblevoices · Post by **impossiblevoices** » 25 Nov 2006, 13:12

Me too. Not a happy bunny.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 25 Nov 2006, 13:30

SoupDragon wrote:Just this minute got a letter through the doorsaying Viridor Waste Management are holding a public exhibition outling their proposals at the Old Parish Church Hall, Bellfield St 1st Dec 12-8pm and 2nd Dec 10-4

What are you going to do with the letter when you're finished with it?

Sandra · Post by **Sandra** » 25 Nov 2006, 13:44

impossiblevoices wrote:Me too. Not a happy bunny.

ditto

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 25 Nov 2006, 13:48

I haven't received one of these letters yet. Does it contain any information on the proposals?

Sandra · Post by **Sandra** » 25 Nov 2006, 13:56

Marya wrote:I haven't received one of these letters yet. Does it contain any information on the proposals?

"Viridor Waste Management Ltd would like your views on proposals for a new Rail Transfer Station for residual waste (the facility) at the former rail site off Sir Harry Lauder Road, Portobello.

The purpose of the facility is to provide a modern transfer station for industrial, household and commercial waste collected in Edinburgh and surrounding area by making use of th existing rail infrastructure available at the Portobello site. VWM is currently preparing a planning application for the regeneration and development of the semi derelict railway land to facilitate a state of the art modern waste transfer station.

Initial plans have been devised and VWM are seeking the views and opinions of the local community and other affected groups on these before a formal planning application is submitted".

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 25 Nov 2006, 14:18

Its a toughie. More trains=more vibration and noise and those of us who have properties adjacent to the train line may have our saleability impaired. My start point is; I'm not against the idea and I would like more information. The city need this type of facility and the site seems most suitable.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 25 Nov 2006, 17:30

Sandra wrote:
Marya wrote:I haven't received one of these letters yet. Does it contain any information on the proposals?
"Viridor Waste Management Ltd would like your views on proposals for a new Rail Transfer Station for residual waste (the facility) at the former rail site off Sir Harry Lauder Road, Portobello.

The purpose of the facility is to provide a modern transfer station for industrial, household and commercial waste collected in Edinburgh and surrounding area by making use of th existing rail infrastructure available at the Portobello site. VWM is currently preparing a planning application for the regeneration and development of the semi derelict railway land to facilitate a state of the art modern waste transfer station.

Initial plans have been devised and VWM are seeking the views and opinions of the local community and other affected groups on these before a formal planning application is submitted".

Thanks Sandra. I've now got a copy of the letter too.

Like Porty, I'm reserving judgement, until I see the proposals and hear what the implications are regarding traffic. I believe that a lot of our waste is currently transported by rail to Dunbar so it may not necessarily mean an increase in rail freight. There is the possibility, however, that it may mean more road traffic

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 25 Nov 2006, 21:56

I'd like to know more but it seems a pretty sensible location to me.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 30 Nov 2006, 10:39

From Maureen Child:

I have received this from Viridor Waste Management postponign the presentation of their plans for a waste transfer facility at Portobello. This means the exhibition which I told you about has been cancelled. Leanne Rinning of Viridor has e mailed me saying:

" Further to our previous letter to you dated 24 November 2006, we now regret to inform you that Viridor Waste Management are to postpone the memberâ€™s preview exhibition....at the Old Parish Church Hall in Portobello.

The postponement of the exhibition follows strategic advice from our planning consultants. The current proposals are deemed to be premature and the postponement of the memberâ€™s preview exhibition and the public exhibition will now provide the opportunity for Viridor to conduct the necessary range of feasibility studies in order to be in a position to provide full and satisfactory details to interested parties.

We now hope to re-schedule the memberâ€™s preview exhibition and subsequently the public exhibition for as soon as possible in the New Year, at which time we will write to all residents and stakeholders in Portobello and provide them with full details.

We apologise for any inconvenience that we may have caused you. "

Dakota · Post by **Dakota** » 30 Nov 2006, 20:35

Confused! Is that the public exhibition that was to be held at the Old Parish Church Hall, Bellfield St 1st Dec 12-8pm and 2nd Dec 10-4?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 30 Nov 2006, 20:48

Yes. I have altered the listing on our What's On section to reflect this.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 01 Dec 2006, 17:41

From today's EN:

Fears over waste depot plan

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 16 Dec 2006, 12:58

From the EN Letters Page:

Don't dump waste depot on Portobello

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 16 Mar 2007, 17:38

From today's EN:

£12m a year tips the balance in favour of new waste plant

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 29 May 2007, 08:25

As feared, Viridor's proposal to apply for planning consent to build a waste transfer station at the freightliner site off the Harry Lauder Road, is back. Viridor state that

The purpose of the facility is to provide an integrated solution for household, industrial and commercial wastes by making use of the existing rail infrastructure available at Portobello.

A public exhibition will take place on Friday 8 June 1pm-7pm and Saturday 9 June 11am - 4pm at the Old Parish Church on Bellfield Street.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 01 Jun 2007, 16:56

From today's EN Portobello on track for giant rubbish depot

Please note that the EN map shows the wrong location!

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 02 Jun 2007, 16:06

From today's EN:

Fears over Porty waste depot

Talk Porty ~ Portobello

Proposed waste depot in Portobello

Proposed waste depot in Portobello

WASTE AT PORTOBELLO