Proposed waste depot in Portobello

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 11 May 2009, 14:25

Marya wrote:
Had a look from the beach yet?
Nope. The hailstones put me off.

And as the hailstones have disappeared and the sun has come out I thought I'd better prepare to eat some humble pie and visit the beach. After Seanie's calculations, I was hoping that the tide would be well out and I could walk half way to Fife so that I could claim that I could see the site. But guess what? I could see a fair proportion of the Easterly mobile mast (that one that would be behind the building as viewed from Portobello) from the prom. OK, so I was standing on top of the cakestand at the bottom of Marlborough Street, but considering that the trees are in full leaf at the moment there is certainly a high likelihood that the building will be seen .

Now, a glimpse of the building from the Prom isn't the most terrible prospect - the potential increase in HGV traffic is certainly uppermost in the minds of people I have met. It does, however, convey the sheer scale of the operation to those who may not have looked at any of the plans. It is going to take a lot of lorries and a lot of waste to justify a building of this magnitude.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 11 May 2009, 14:42

I thought the line on the drawing was a chimney and that was 16M tall. I agree that a 16M tall building is a different prospect from a 16M tall chimney, but still dwarfed by a 9 storey building of similar length.

The crux of your debate with Seanie is the height of the building. I'm sure you can understand why people who promote a 9 storey building in a residential area but oppose a 3/4 storey building in a desolate area, just a few hundred yards away, could be construed as having double standards.

I happen to be talking about the school but only because it is a fact. As I'm tired of saying; I don't have any personal grievances, mine are grievances about modus operandi.

Its not a rubbish dump, it is a waste transfer station

The waste is largely generated by the city we live in and sometimes we have to take the rough with the smooth, it is all part of being a community. If we fail to combat the WTS, we get a big building we could do without. However, from a wider perspective we recently lost a whacking great power station and may soon lose the tallest building for miles around. It is not a bad deal.

And I still think the "seen from the beach" argument is twaddle, whether or not one can see it.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 11 May 2009, 14:51

Marya wrote: but considering that the trees are in full leaf at the moment there is certainly a high likelihood that the building will be seen .

What is the issue with seeing buildings?

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 11 May 2009, 15:20

Porty wrote: The crux of your debate with Seanie is the height of the building. I'm sure you can understand why people who promote a 9 storey building in a residential area but oppose a 3/4 storey building in a desolate area, just a few hundred yards away, could be construed as having double standards.

The height is not really what we are debating. The building is 14 m to the eaves and 16m to the top. Seanie and I agree on that. What we don't fully agree on is how many will be able to see it and from where. i.e. how intrusive it will be. I appreciate that the architect who described to me just how intrusive the building would be may have got it wrong and I am talking rubbish *groan*. I just don't fancy leaving it to chance.

I happen to be talking about the school but only because it is a fact. As I'm tired of saying; I don't have any personal grievances, mine are grievances about modus operandi.

OK. Now think back to when we were arguing for a 'school in a park' did you also think' and with a view of a rubbish dump'? (Not all the waste will be transferred out on the day it arrives, some will have to be stored. Ha!)

The waste is largely generated by the city we live in and sometimes we have to take the rough with the smooth, it is all part of being a community. If we fail to combat the WTS, we get a big building we could do without. However, from a wider perspective we recently lost a whacking great power station and may soon lose the tallest building for miles around. It is not a bad deal.

This waste isn't domestic waste and it isn't just Edinburgh's. It will be taken in by lorry from all over the Central belt (including from East Lothian where is gets taken back out to!). The waste will have already been sorted into what is suitable for recycling at source by local councils and dealt with there. This is commercial and industrial waste, which will be taken out to landfill. We don't need to make trade offs. Portobello doesn't deserve to be the dumping ground for the central belt.

And I still think the "seen from the beach" argument is twaddle

As Seanie says, it is probably more of an emotive argument.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 11 May 2009, 15:25

Porty wrote:
Marya wrote: but considering that the trees are in full leaf at the moment there is certainly a high likelihood that the building will be seen .

What is the issue with seeing buildings?

Well, it's a case of horses for courses. I don't, for example, fancy seeing a large industrial unit, with no architectural merit, as a backdrop to East Brighton Crescent. It isn't ,however, my primary concern. I am much more worried about the increased HGV traffic, vermin problems, noise etc. that will come with the building. The reason I'm banging on about the size of the building is that it tells us a little about the scale of the overall operation.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 11 May 2009, 15:50

Commerce and Industry are fundamental to a thriving city and the WTS will be located in an area designated for industrial and commercial use.

I take the point about other parts of the country's waste being brought to Portobello and it is far from idyllic but we are part of a whole. Faslane gets all our nuclear submarines and Arbroath gets much of the smoked fish. Would locating the facility at say Millerhill mean more or less lorry mileage?

And it does seem mental that waste is brought here to be taken back to East Lothian. I believe (naively?) there must be method in the apparent madness. However, traffic is a major concern.

Have you visited the FT site, it is incredibly barren and isolated. Is the coal facility still there and does that cause much noise pollution? I can't recall it making a difference when living at WBC although we were all concerned at the time.

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 11 May 2009, 16:43

I liked the old red power station at Kings Road (where I lived for 10 years). It has a sort of art-deco look to it.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 11 May 2009, 17:22

Porty wrote:Commerce and Industry are fundamental to a thriving city and the WTS will be located in an area designated for industrial and commercial use.

Unfortunately, the impact won't be confined just to the industrial estate. It won't be an employment boost either.
The number of jobs will be somewhere round 12 if I remember correctly. I'll need to check that, but I'm a bit busy at the moment.

Would locating the facility at say Millerhill mean more or less lorry mileage?

I don't know the answer to that Porty, but it would mean lorries accessing the facility from the Edinburgh by-pass, rather than the Harry Lauder Road so that is better for us. It's also the site preferred by the two councils by the sounds of the EN article, though I haven't manage to get any more info on it as yet.

Have you visited the FT site, it is incredibly barren and isolated. Is the coal facility still there and does that cause much noise pollution? I can't recall it making a difference when living at WBC although we were all concerned at the time.

The coal facility didn't go ahead. The application was pulled by the developers.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 11 May 2009, 17:25

Pal of Porty wrote:I liked the old red power station at Kings Road (where I lived for 10 years). It has a sort of art-deco look to it.

Some old power stations have even been made into art galleries PoP, but I can't see many of our modern industrial units reaching such dizzy heights. Would you like to live in a PC World, for example?

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 11 May 2009, 18:40

Marya wrote:So a few more than just
"Some of the house on Stanley Street and the top flats on Southfield place" who'll be getting a view then?

And when I said that I was speaking specifically in reference to houses that were nearby. Here's the quote in context;

Visually the railway and bypass obsure it pretty well close up from most directions. Some of the house on Stanley Street and the top flats on Southfield place might get a bit of a view but even then the site must be over a hundred yards away at the closest. The idea it would loom over nearby houses is over-egging things a touch.

And as I said afterwards;

Close up it would be pretty well obscured by the bypass/railway for most people. There won't be too many houses closer than mine, although visual obstructions mean I'd only see it if I climbed out onto my roof. On the other hand the further away you go you might get clearer sight lines.

I wasn't suggesting that some of the house on Stanley Street and the top flats on Southfield place were the only places from which the proposal might be seen.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 11 May 2009, 18:46

Marya wrote: But guess what? I could see a fair proportion of the Easterly mobile mast (that one that would be behind the building as viewed from Portobello) from the prom. OK, so I was standing on top of the cakestand at the bottom of Marlborough Street, but considering that the trees are in full leaf at the moment there is certainly a high likelihood that the building will be seen .

I tried it on Sunday, from the exact same spot, and I couldn't see any mast.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 11 May 2009, 19:23

seanie wrote:
Marya wrote: But guess what? I could see a fair proportion of the Easterly mobile mast (that one that would be behind the building as viewed from Portobello) from the prom. OK, so I was standing on top of the cakestand at the bottom of Marlborough Street, but considering that the trees are in full leaf at the moment there is certainly a high likelihood that the building will be seen .
I tried it on Sunday, from the exact same spot, and I couldn't see any mast.

Well, either it was pelting down with hailstones when you viewed the scene or you are calling me a liar. I'd like to assume the former.

I'll take my camera next time, but to banish all doubt I urge others to simply try it for themselves.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 11 May 2009, 20:39

Marya- I meant that there appears to be a belief the industrial and commercial waste is not the responsibility of the council. And is generated with no benfit the residents. As for the coal facility- I was on the site about a year ago and wondered why I couldn't see it.

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 11 May 2009, 21:27

seanie wrote:I tried it on Sunday, from the exact same spot, and I couldn't see any mast.

You also said we couldn't hear jetskis from here

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 11 May 2009, 21:30

Porty wrote:Marya- I meant that there appears to be a belief the industrial and commercial waste is not the responsibility of the council. And is generated with no benfit the residents. As for the coal facility- I was on the site about a year ago and wondered why I couldn't see it.

It is a fair point that we are all responsible for waste regardless of it being commercial, industrial or domestic. And there is a national policy being drawn up regarding how we as a nation should tackle waste. In the meantime, however, Viridor have decided to apply for this facility, which offers no element of recycling, but will just ferry waste to landfill. I don't see how this can be seen as any sort of step forward.

There are a surprising number of businesses currently operating on the site ; secure coach parking, skip hire , haulage contractor, mobile phone companies, Edinburgh City Council etc. It isn't disused, though it may look 'barren'.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 11 May 2009, 21:35

Epykat wrote:
seanie wrote:I tried it on Sunday, from the exact same spot, and I couldn't see any mast.
You also said we couldn't hear jetskis from here

And that's the nub of it. This isn't about visibility per se, it's about sensitivity. I can't hear the jetskis yet other people who live further away from the beach can. Some people may have a line of sight of the waste transfer site, yet they won't notice it - it won't register.

It's not about fact, it's about feeling. It's a girl thing.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 11 May 2009, 21:41

Marya wrote:In the meantime, however, Viridor have decided to apply for this facility, which offers no element of recycling, but will just ferry waste to landfill. I don't see how this can be seen as any sort of step forward.

Not in isolation, but it's part of the mix. Some of our waste can be recycled, some of it can be incinerated and some of it will inevitably end up as landfill.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 11 May 2009, 21:42

Bob Jefferson wrote:
Epykat wrote:
seanie wrote:I tried it on Sunday, from the exact same spot, and I couldn't see any mast.
You also said we couldn't hear jetskis from here
And that's the nub of it. This isn't about visibility per se, it's about sensitivity. I can't hear the jetskis yet other people who live further away from the beach can. Some people may have a line of sight of the waste transfer site, yet they won't notice it - it won't register.

It's not about fact, it's about feeling. It's a girl thing.

Says the man who phoned me up because he wanted to know if I could hear the same alarm bell that was driving him nuts (I could, but only faintly)! Does this mean you're a girl Bob?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 11 May 2009, 21:53

No, that was factually loud.

OK, I'm a girl.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 11 May 2009, 22:00

But the thing is, I was sensitised to it. I was listening out for it every time it was windy outside. I was waiting for it. I was pumped up, ready to kill it. And you, you couldn't even hear the fucking thing! That was it, that was the last straw!

But I dealt with it, it's gone. And I'm calm now. Ommmmmmmmmm.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 11 May 2009, 22:01

Marya wrote:Well, either it was pelting down with hailstones when you viewed the scene or you are calling me a liar. I'd like to assume the former.

There's no call for you to assume either.

I had a look on Sunday afternoon and didn't see the mast. That could be a mistake on my part. Maybe I mistook it for a pylon. But I genuinely didn't spot it.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 11 May 2009, 22:08

seanie wrote:
Marya wrote:Well, either it was pelting down with hailstones when you viewed the scene or you are calling me a liar. I'd like to assume the former.
There's no call for you to assume either.

I had a look on Sunday afternoon and didn't see the mast. That could be a mistake on my part. Maybe I mistook it for a pylon. But I genuinely didn't spot it.

And now I'm worried I'm so mast fixated that I'm hallucinating ...

Seriously, I did spot a mast (and the plyon!), even though in my heart of hearts I wasn't expecting to, but today was a gloriously clear day and Sunday wasn't.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 11 May 2009, 23:02

Advanced masticular degeneration?

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 11 May 2009, 23:12

That's actually quite funny!

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 12 May 2009, 09:47

Every 1000 posts or so I manage to be funny.

seashell · Post by **seashell** » 12 May 2009, 10:14

Bob Jefferson wrote: It's not about fact, it's about feeling. It's a girl thing.

Oh well, if they paint it pink, it'll be ok then.

I suppose that means that boys are insensitive then, as they are without feelings??

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 12 May 2009, 10:18

I've not had a feeling for ages.

Back on topic; When I look at google earth I can see there are indeed a number of businesses on the site. I can also see what I think are train sheds (I presume for cleaning) there's 2 at what I think is Mouuntcastle and one alongside Stanley Street. In terms of scale how will the WTS compare?

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 12 May 2009, 13:07

Porty wrote:When I look at google earth I can see there are indeed a number of businesses on the site. I can also see what I think are train sheds (I presume for cleaning) there's 2 at what I think is Mouuntcastle and one alongside Stanley Street. In terms of scale how will the WTS compare?

Judge for yourself Porty. Here's part of the layout plan. The wee long thin rectangle marked 'railway sidings' by the red line at the bottom is the train shed - I think . There are other small unmarked rectangles on the plan. I'll need to install Google Earth to check . Anyway, the big rectangle is the WTS..........

<a href="http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v388/ ... layout.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v388/ ... layout.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 12 May 2009, 13:12

It does look much much bigger (at least twice as long) but I'm not sure the "railway sidings" shed thingy is the one I envisage. Isn't there one on the Golf Course side of the ECM?

Had another look on Google Earth and there is definetly a really a long shed, which gets wider in the middle section, between the golf clubhouse and the footbidge. Dont't think it is anywhere near 16M high tho.

Marya - I didn't address your point about a school in the park with a view of a rubbish dump. I think it would be more of an issue had the new school been going on the golf course, not convinced it will have much visual impact.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 12 May 2009, 13:23

Porty wrote:It does look much much bigger (at least twice as long) but I'm not sure the "railway sidings" shed thingy is the one I envisage. Isn't there one on the Golf Course side of the ECM?

You must have posted while I edited!

Here's the bottom of the plan with the unmarked rectangles. I think on reflection the shed is the long one with a slight bulge in it on the bottom right corner. Still a lot smaller than the WTS.
<a href="http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v388/ ... ayout2.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v388/ ... ayout2.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 12 May 2009, 13:27

Still unsure. Have a look on Google Earth and see if you can figure. BTW I'm not trying to belittle size of the WTS just get a feel for the scale. Call me on 0131 6206506 and we can look together _ Thanks M now I better understand the size and scale.

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 12 May 2009, 20:04

Bob Jefferson wrote:
Epykat wrote:
seanie wrote:I tried it on Sunday, from the exact same spot, and I couldn't see any mast.
You also said we couldn't hear jetskis from here
And that's the nub of it. This isn't about visibility per se, it's about sensitivity. I can't hear the jetskis yet other people who live further away from the beach can. Some people may have a line of sight of the waste transfer site, yet they won't notice it - it won't register.

It's not about fact, it's about feeling. It's a girl thing.

It's more about wind. That's a boy thing....

Puerto bella · Post by **Puerto bella** » 12 May 2009, 20:48

Bob Jefferson wrote:
It's not about fact, it's about feeling. It's a girl thing.

I would love to see the look on the Reporter's face if a witness comes out with that one.

Especially if it is one of the lady Reporters.

Interesting chat on this, good rehearsals for cross examination, some definate 'budding witnesses'

Post by **wangi** » 13 May 2009, 10:00

Maureen Child wrote:Dear Viridor Objectors

I apologise if you are being kept up to date by other means, and do let me know if you want to be taken off my list. I did promise to keep you up to date with developments.

As you will know, Viridor has appealed to Scottish Ministers against the Council's Planning Committee's decision NOT to grant its application for a waste transfer facility on the Portobello Freighltiner Terminal site. The Appeal will be heard by a civil servant with experience of the planning system, an Inquiry Reporter. The Scottish Government Department which deals with these matters has appointed Karen Haywood as Reporter for this Appeal.

Local community groups are organising to put their case strongly and well at the Public Inquiry in to Viridor's Appeal, likely to take place around November.

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!

Portobello Opposed to New Garbage Station (PONGS) have set up a bank account and are busy collecting funds to help with the case. The target is up to £20,000 to pay for expert witnesses and someone to co-ordinate the community's case, a system which was so successful in the Campaign against the Superstore
Already donations are coming in. Portobello Amenity Society and Portobello Community Council have each pledged £1000 towards that sum. Cheques should be made out payable to PONGS and sent to [admin: name deleted], 12 West Brighton Crescent, EH15 1LU.

PONGS also need volunteers to 'staff' the stalls on Saturdays for an hour or so at a time, and you can pay a donation by cash there. Volunteers for leafleting and collecting signatures, making people fully aware of what is happening, would also be helpful. Contact Caroline Hosking (0131 669 5262) if you want to volunteer for that task. There will be a stall this coming Saturday, 16 May from 10am - 12 noon (at least) on Portobello High Street and again the following Saturday, 23 May, from 10 -12 noon and also 2 - 4pm that day. We reckon we need to have a stall at least once a month up until the Appeal and are discussing other ways to raise awareness and support for our cause.

There are PONGS fundraising events planned: a coffee morning in St James Church Hall 10.30 to 1pm Saturday 13 June, and a 50s-70s music night in Portobello Community Centre on Friday 19 June. I'll let you know about both of these nearer the time. There are also plans for other events.

I hope this is helpful and that you can do something to help us win this fight.

Best wishes

Maureen

Councillor Maureen Child

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 13 May 2009, 15:42

"There are PONGS fundraising events planned: a coffee morning in St James Church Hall 10.30 to 1pm Saturday 13 June, and a 50s-70s music night in Portobello Community Centre on Friday 19 June. I'll let you know about both of these nearer the time. There are also plans for other events. "

Blimey - I see what you mean about campaign or donation fatigue. When you include the PPAG Ceildh (you have to look at the small print to establish it is PPAG) at the community centre on June 6th that's a fundraising event every weekend for 3 weeks!