Calling all PONGS Supporters!

[administrator]

Dear All

I am picking up that many in Portobello have received a flyer through your letterbox from the PONGS Campaign ( Portobello Opposes New Garbage Station). Some of you have been asking me about as there are no updated no contact details for the campaign. because the website has lapsed. But the campaign continues to be supported by Portobello Amenity Society and Portobello Community Council and all the Elected Representatives. The proposal may have been seen off one time, BUT it is still important for objectors to remain vigilant. For those of ho oppose the idea, then doing what it says below might well prove crucial if (or when?) the idea gets resurrected. Some people didn't get the email sent out (including me!) says:

"Dear PONGS Supporter

The Council is carrying out consultation at the moment on the new draft Local Development Plan for Edinburgh. They have published a Main Issues Report (MIR) for people to comment on and one of the areas they would like feedback on is the provision of waste facilities. It is important that we have our input at this stage as, if they designate the former freightliner terminal as a waste site it will be very difficult to fight any future application for a waste site there as the land use will have been decided. So we need to make our voices heard now.

The MIR is available as a pdf at http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/localdevelopmentplan and the relevant section of the report is Chapter 8, Waste management, on pp 51-52. There is a preferred option and two "reasonable alternatives" set out.

The question (Q 19) asked is: Do you agree with the preferred approach to waste management? Or do you support one of the alternatives?

The concern we have is that the preferred approach proposes to drop the requirement to demonstrate a need for the waste facility and also to drop the requirement that a particular site is the best practicable environmental option for the area, in terms of the economic, social, environmental and human health issues. These two requirements are stipulated in the current Local Plan policy Inf 2 and also in Planning Advice Note (PAN) 63. The Reporters in their decision against the waste transfer station at Sir Harry Lauder Road identified that they found it, "difficult to conclude that there is an explicit need in the public interest for a stand alone transfer station in this location and of the scale proposed."
If the new local plan does not have need as a requirement then the grounds for refusing a future waste site plan could be reduced. The Council's "preferred option" is to safeguard the site that is in the current local plan at Leith but one of the alternative options is to drop this site. We believe that waste management companies may have been lobbying the council on these issues and, based on past experience, it is highly likely that Viridor will push for the Portobello site to be identified for a waste facility.

Responses need to be made by Friday 27 January and the e-mail address to write to is: localdevelopmentplan@edinburgh.gov.uk

I have appended a list of bullet points below for you to incorporate into your own letters (remember individual letters are seen as carrying more weight).

PLEASE DO MAKE THE EFFORT TO WRITE, AS THIS STAGE OF THE CONSULTATION IS THE ONE AT WHICH WE WILL HAVE THE MOST INFLUENCE.

Thanks as always for your support.

BULLET POINTS BELOW
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With reference to Q 19 of the MIR, I agree only partly with the preferred option for new waste management facilities.

I agree that the reference to the safeguarding of the site in Leith Eastern Industrial Area (ELCP Proposal BUS 3) should be retained.

I do not agree with the proposal to drop the requirement, as per ECLP policy Inf 2 and PAN 63, to demonstrate a need for new waste facilities. This could result in the waste management industry driving the agenda with inappropriate proposals, for theIr own commercial benefit, and we could end up with the wrong facilities in the wrong place, which is not an efficient use of land and resources. It is essential that the requirement to demonstrate a need for waste facilities is retained.

I do not agree that the need to demonstrate that a proposed waste site represents the best practicable environmental option, in terms of the economic, social, environmental and human health issues, is no longer required. The requirement to demonstrate that any proposal for a waste management site is the best practicable environmental option, as per ECLP policy Inf 2 and PAN 63, needs to be retained.

Reasonable alternative 1 mentions the proposal to engage further with the waste management industry but there should also be engagement with the communities which may possibly be identified as potential areas for waste management facilities. This is necessary so as to have a fair balance between the views of the waste management industry and the local residents, who could end up living beside a waste management facility and all that it entails."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do let me know if you have nay fruther queries and I'll try to help.

Best wishes

Maureen


Councillor Maureen Child | Labour Elected Member | Portobello/Craigmillar (Ward 17) | City of Edinburgh Council | City Chambers | High Street | Edinburgh | EH1 1YJ | Tel 0131 529 3268 |

[seanie]

No harm in it but, just for the record, the issue of 'need' was not one of the grounds for refusal of the Viridor proposal.

The Reporters' decision can be found here.

Starting from Para 47, the various policies relating to waste and BPEO are considered, including the selected quote used in the letter. But the concluding paragraph to this section states;

"54. Given the difficulties of assessing BPEO for a stand-alone waste transfer station, particularly for C&I waste, and the lack of clear evidence about the explicit need for this facility in the public interest, we are unable to conclude that the development accords with policies Inf 2 and ENV 11. However, this site is allocated for Business and Industrial use in the local plan. Furthermore, we have found that impacts on the road network and on residential amenity would be acceptable or could be controlled by conditions and a waste management licence. Consequently, we do not consider that the difficulty we have expressed in relation to these policies is of particular significance in the circumstances of this case." (emphasis added)

The reporter's did indeed conclude that the need had not been demonstrated, but nevertheless decided that this was not a significant consideration.

This is reiterated in the penultimate paragraph of the conclusion.

"the difficulty with local plan policy Inf 2 – Integrated Waste Management Facilities and
structure plan policy ENV 11 – Waste Management is not significant;" (emphasis added)

In the final paragraph the actual grounds for refusal are listed;

"63. We acknowledge that many of the development plan policies and other material considerations are supportive of the proposed development. However, we consider that the detrimental impact on the setting of the conservation area and the listed buildings in Brighton Place; the detrimental impact on visual amenity generally; the consequent conflict with relevant development plan policies; and the need to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the setting of listed buildings required by section 59 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997 to be so significant that a refusal of planning permission is justified. We have identified no other material considerations that would lead us to a different conclusion."

No mention of the lack of need, even in part. The grounds for refusal, in their entirety, rested on the visual impact on the Conservation Areas and Listed buildings, visual amenity in general, and the policies relating to those. The waste policies were simply not significant in determining the appeal.

[Puerto bella]

Re: above - Whose record?

People will read the decision and make up their own minds on what it means. But what you are in effect saying is that the two Principal Reporters in arriving at their conclusion set aside the planning policies and the primacy of the development plan as prescribed in S25 of the TCP(Scot) Act 1997 in favour of the conservation area policies and impact on LBs as though those have a higher standing?

The 100 plus audience who attended every day of that Inquiry, of which you were not one, heard the evidence and will come to their own conclusions.

[seanie]

Well it's clear cut what the Reporters thought about the importance of the waste policies when it came to determining the appeal.

Consequently, we do not consider that the difficulty we have expressed in relation to these policies is of particular significance in the circumstances of this case.

...the difficulty with local plan policy Inf 2 – Integrated Waste Management Facilities and
structure plan policy ENV 11 – Waste Management is not significant.

That's pretty straightforward.

The 100 people in the room may have formed a very different opinion. But they weren't the ones deciding on the appeal.

[Puerto bella]

If it was straightforward it wouldnt have required a 2 week long Public Inquiry.

[seanie]

The reasons for refusal were straightforward; the visual impact on the Conservation Area and Listed Buildings.

The waste policies weren't a factor in turning down the appeal.

You don't need a detailed knowledge of planning to work that out from the Reporters' decision.

Just reasonable reading comprehension skills.

[Puerto bella]

Yes - its also so easy and black and white isnt it

[seanie]

Well..yeah.

You just have to read the Reporters' decision to see that the appeal was rejected on the grounds of the visual impact. None of the other issues were significant factors in the outcome.

[Puerto bella]

I believe you are wrong and that is where I will leave it.

There is a section on Need and BPEO in the decision which is v clear to me and spells out the difficulties with these issues in relation to C&I residual waste in the Lothians.

I would ask people to read it carefully before they fall into the trap of believing the lies you peddle.

[seanie]

As I said;

Starting from Para 47, the various policies relating to waste and BPEO are considered, including the selected quote used in the letter. But the concluding paragraph to this section states;

"54. Given the difficulties of assessing BPEO for a stand-alone waste transfer station, particularly for C&I waste, and the lack of clear evidence about the explicit need for this facility in the public interest, we are unable to conclude that the development accords with policies Inf 2 and ENV 11. However, this site is allocated for Business and Industrial use in the local plan. Furthermore, we have found that impacts on the road network and on residential amenity would be acceptable or could be controlled by conditions and a waste management licence. Consequently, we do not consider that the difficulty we have expressed in relation to these policies is of particular significance in the circumstances of this case." (emphasis added)

The reporter's did indeed conclude that the need had not been demonstrated, but nevertheless decided that this was not a significant consideration.

This is reiterated in the penultimate paragraph of the conclusion.

"the difficulty with local plan policy Inf 2 – Integrated Waste Management Facilities and
structure plan policy ENV 11 – Waste Management is not significant;" (emphasis added)

In the final paragraph the actual grounds for refusal are listed;

"63. We acknowledge that many of the development plan policies and other material considerations are supportive of the proposed development. However, we consider that the detrimental impact on the setting of the conservation area and the listed buildings in Brighton Place; the detrimental impact on visual amenity generally; the consequent conflict with relevant development plan policies; and the need to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the setting of listed buildings required by section 59 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997 to be so significant that a refusal of planning permission is justified. We have identified no other material considerations that would lead us to a different conclusion."

No mention of the lack of need, even in part. The grounds for refusal, in their entirety, rested on the visual impact on the Conservation Areas and Listed buildings, visual amenity in general, and the policies relating to those. The waste policies were simply not significant in determining the appeal.

If you read the Reporters' decision, and conclude that the issue of 'need' was significant in refusing the appeal, then frankly you're beyond help.

[Puerto bella]

I never said that - you're misquoting me in order to somehow make my contribution of less worth that yours. I'm beginning to think you get off on that which is very wierd and sad.

Cutting and pasting as much of it as you like still doesnt change the fact that you actually arent fully conversant with all the arguments so dont appear as though you are.
People can read what I've said.
Stick to the day job.

[seanie]

Let's look at the conclusion in full;

Conclusion
62. Drawing these issues together, we find that:

• there is no conflict with structure plan policy TRAN 6 – Freight Movement and local plan policies Hou 8 – Inappropriate Uses in Residential Areas, Env 18 – Pollution and Air, Water and Soil Quality, Des 6 – Sustainable Design and Construction, Tra 1 – Location of Major Development, Tra 10 – Rail Halts and Tra 11 – Rail Freight;

• Structure plan policy TRAN 5 – Transport Implications of New Development is not
relevant;

• the difficulty with local plan policy Inf 2 – Integrated Waste Management Facilities and
structure plan policy ENV 11 – Waste Management is not significant;

• there is conflict with structure plan policies ENV 1C and ENV 1D – Historic Built
Environment Designations and Interests and local plan policies Env 3 – Listed
Buildings, Env 6 – Conservation Areas – Development, Des 1 – Design Quality and
Context, Des 3 – Development Design and Des 10 – Tall Buildings; and

• there is conflict with part of the Scottish Planning Policy, although other parts of that
document and other national planning policy and advice documents and part of the
Area Waste Plan are supportive.

63. We acknowledge that many of the development plan policies and other material
considerations are supportive of the proposed development. However, we consider that the
detrimental impact on the setting of the conservation area and the listed buildings in Brighton
Place; the detrimental impact on visual amenity generally; the consequent conflict with
relevant development plan policies; and the need to have special regard to the desirability of
preserving the setting of listed buildings required by section 59 of the Planning (Listed
Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997 to be so significant that a refusal of
planning permission is justified. We have identified no other material considerations that
would lead us to a different conclusion.

If the Reporters' had written it in large crayon would you have found it easier to understand?

[Puerto bella]

You're not talking to your community council colleagues now so dont be so rude. I know it comes naturally but do try. There is no way on earth anyone could have a sensible discussion with you, so I wont.

Lets see if you can try not to have a last word that tries to personally discredit me or resort to name calling- like you usually do, sad little man.

[seanie]

I never said that - you're misquoting me in order to somehow make my contribution of less worth that yours. I'm beginning to think you get off on that which is very wierd and sad.

I'm being weird?

I start off by saying

No harm in it but, just for the record, the issue of 'need' was not one of the grounds for refusal of the Viridor proposal.

To which you take exception...

Re: above - Whose record?

Before going on to make out I'm making some kind of outrageous suggestion that the application was refused on the grounds of visual impact, even though it's clear from the Reporters' actual decision that those were indeed the determining grounds, and when I reiterate that you say;

I believe you are wrong and that is where I will leave it.

There is a section on Need and BPEO in the decision which is v clear to me and spells out the difficulties with these issues in relation to C&I residual waste in the Lothians.

Yet now you're denying ever suggesting that the issue of 'need' was significant in refusing the appeal!

[seanie]

Lets see if you can try not to have a last word that tries to personally discredit me or resort to name calling- like you usually do, sad little man.

I take it you don't do irony.

[Porty]

Im poorly informed on this matter. If PB cut and paste the actual decisions and the material factors that led to that decision in order to prove that need was critical, it would be very convincing. Much more so than the perception of what 100 others may have thought.

Not sure why this appears to be so heated.

The reasons for refusal appear to be straightforward and easy to comprehend. Seems the same cannot be demonstrated for need or ..........

[seanie]

I'm not suggesting the wording of waste policies aren't important, or couldn't be significant factors in determining a planning application. Just that it's blindingly obvious, beyond any doubt whatsoever, that the waste policies weren't significant in refusing the Viridor appeal.

Just read the conclusion.

The Reporters give the reasons for the refusal and they all relate to the visual impact; on amenity, the Conservation Area, and Listed Buildings. No other reasons are given, so it's bizarre to conclude that other reasons were significant.

[Maria]

I'm just mightily relieved that the outcome was in our favour.

And there's no harm in retaining the requirement to demonstrate need. I think we all agree on that, don't we?

[seanie]

I'm just mightily relieved that the outcome was in our favour.

And there's no harm in retaining the requirement to demonstrate need. I think we all agree on that, don't we?

't

They're proposing to remove 'need' because of some change in national policy that now refers to 'capacity gap'.

I don't know what the difference between a 'need' and a 'capacity gap' actually is, but may be a new buzzword for pretty much the same idea.

[Maria]

They're proposing to remove 'need' because of some change in national policy that now refers to 'capacity gap'.

I don't know what the difference between a 'need' and a 'capacity gap' actually is, but may be a new buzzword for pretty much the same idea.

Hm. Does rather sound like it. Could be a win-win situation then? (Though I'll still fight to retain the more common sense wording!)

[seanie]

Except if the policy is pretty much the same, it doesn't afford much protection should Viridor come back with a proposal that overcomes the visual impact (though how they'd do that who knows?)

Instead of campaigning to retain the wording of a policy that FAILED to be sufficient grounds for rejecting the Viridor application, it might be better to advocate a STRONGER wording.

[Maria]

I'm actually pretty proud of the fact that the visual impact on the conservation area was considered grounds for refusal, as it was only PONGS who suggested that this was an important factor. (It also justifies my rather rude behaviour of knocking on my neighbours' doors early on a Saturday morning and asking if it would be OK if a 'strange' man took photographs from their bedroom window.)

I'm very interested, however, in what you would suggest as stronger wording Sean. I've still to give my individual response to the consultation.

[seanie]

I'm very interested, however, in what you would suggest as stronger wording Sean. I've still to give my individual response to the consultation.

If you're going to tilt at windmills you may as well go wild and make up the policy you want. In reality a lot of the wording in Local Plans is closely based on wider policy, so there's not much scope to deviate. That's also why, when you look at what's being consulted on, in many respects it's pretty narrow. Most of the plan already complies with policies and there objectives; they're only consulting on issues where there's a discrepancy or gap.

[Maria]

Oh well, I'll just plump for the status quo then. Don't really have the time to put together a brand new policy before tomorrow's deadline for submission of comments

[Porty]

Probably just as well M, the Viridor conclusion would likely be unaffected judging by the PI conclusion . Good job on the visual impact by PONGS. Who came up with that angle? Did the council miss it?

[Maria]

Good job on the visual impact by PONGS. Who came up with that angle? Did the council miss it?

Yes, the council officers did indeed miss/ignore it.

The credit for this angle lies with a local resident and architect called Juan De la Pena, who said very early on that he believed the visual impact would be very detrimental. He gave evidence, on behalf of the Joint Action Group, to the inquiry on this aspect.

[Porty]

Juantastic job!

So what the hell did they talk about for the remainder of the two weeks?

[Maria]

Juantastic job!

So what the hell did they talk about for the remainder of the two weeks?

Oh, lots. You don't put all your eggs in one basket. And I seem to remember at least one of Viridor's 'expert' witnesses had to have a few attempts at presenting his case.

[Porty]

Oh, lots. You don't put all your eggs in one basket.

Yeah thats why it costs so much- the "experts" chuck everything at it and hope some sticks. Then Juan has a moment of inspiration. A chip off the old rock!

To digress; from what I understand PPAG tried the" put your eggs in one basket" approach and the council responded with the kitchen sink and then some.

[wangi]

http://local.stv.tv/edinburgh/news/busi ... ste-depot/

Portobello campaigners act after renewed threat of waste depot
Campaigners fear vehicles resulting from a waste depot would create pollution and noise for nearby residents
Menu

Group calls on local residents to halt council changes which could mean third time lucky for waste company Viridor.

A group of campaigners are rallying Portobello residents to act now to avoid the threatened return of controversial plans for a waste transfer depot.

Members of Portobello Opposes New Garbage Site (Pongs) previously fought against £7 million proposals by waste management company Viridor, which were eventually thrown out by the Scottish Government in 2010.

But now the group fears Viridor, who have said they will reapply to build the 17-metre high depot, could win planning permission because of potential changes to the City of Edinburgh Council’s Local Development Plan, currently undergoing consultation.

...

[Puerto bella]

We'll all sleep safely knowing we can get Sean to build and defend the case for the community next time round.
He'll be doing singlehandedly though as I dont know a single person in the witness team that would work with him. Now why is that ?

[Porty]

Could be a few reasons. His concise, articulate presentation of facts combined with the ability to analyse and accurately comprehend policy, is a real intimidator for bullshitters.

[Porty]

And as for Sean building a case for the defence on behalf of the community. What leads you to believe he is against the Viridor scheme?

I know not whether Sean is pro, con or ambivalent.

[Betty Windsor]

And as for Sean building a case for the defence on behalf of the community. What leads you to believe he is against the Viridor scheme?

I know not whether Sean is pro, con or ambivalent.

Would it make him a "NIMBY" if he's against?

[seanie]

Surely that would depend on the reasons for being against?