Proposed waste depot in Portobello

ecm · Post by **ecm** » 03 Jun 2007, 09:56

Bob Jefferson wrote:From today's EN:

Fears over Porty waste depot

Check out comment No. 2 from Acorn. Most amusing.

Franck · Post by **Franck** » 05 Jun 2007, 17:03

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

Please note that the EN map shows the wrong location!

So is it planned for the rail yard between the figgate park & standard life, or the rail yard between the golf course & mount lodge?

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 05 Jun 2007, 17:50

The site they have in mind is the old freightliner site behind the golf course.

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 06 Jun 2007, 08:33

Marya wrote:The site they have in mind is the old freightliner site behind the golf course.

Won't that have an impact on the price of the new housing?

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 08 Jun 2007, 10:25

Reminder that today is the first of a two day consultion Viridor are holding on their proposal. Starts at 1 pm and ends at 7 pm - in the Old Parish Church Hall,in Bellfield Street.

partybelle · Post by **partybelle** » 10 Jun 2007, 10:51

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

I went to the Viridor display in the Bellfield Street church hall, and asked for information on the main thing which had been carefully omitted from any of the literature and from their nicely-presented display - namely, how does the waste GET TO the Transfer site to be transferred to the rail containers?
And of course the answer is "IN BIG LORRIES".
And the (very pleasant) man I spoke to said they would try to avoid peak transport times, but the lorries would be coming and going for about TEN HOURS EACH DAY, numbering TEN LORRIES PER HOUR into the site - which, I said, presumably means TEN LORRIES OUT AGAIN? Oh yes, he said.
So there we have it -
TWO HUNDRED TRUCK MOVEMENTS A DAY. That means
TWENTY BIG TRUCKS PER HOUR, either coming or going to the terminal.
ONE EVERY THREE MINUTES.
Quite apart from adding to the existing congestion, what will that amount of extra heavy traffic do to our crumbling potholed roads?
Should we be worried? Oh yes, I thik so.

Post by **wangi** » 10 Jun 2007, 12:36

I think it's a reasonable use for the site, and a reasonable place to locate the facility.

I have previously lived close to the existing Powderhall facility, and still work next to it. It does not smell and the associated traffic isn't that much.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 10 Jun 2007, 13:48

Marya wrote: Like Porty, I'm reserving judgement, until I see the proposals.................. There is the possibility, however, that it may mean more road traffic

partybelle wrote: Quite apart from adding to the existing congestion, what will that amount of extra heavy traffic do to our crumbling potholed roads?
Should we be worried? Oh yes, I thik so.

It certainly will mean more traffic and lots of loading and unloading of trains - with no guarantee that this will not take place at unsocial hours. As someone who will be affected directly by this increase in rail/road activity and the associated noise/vibration, I'm with you 100% on this partybelle.

Portobello is a residential area with lots to commend it. However, we already have huge pylons looming over us and a municipal refuse dump and sewage plant (which only recently spewed untreated sewage all over our beach) on our doorstep. I think we do more than enough to fulfil our civic duty. We do not need this waste transfer facility to be sited in Portobello.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 10 Jun 2007, 16:29

I don't want a waste transfer facility on my doorstep. Who does? But at the same time I recognise that some of that rubbish is mine and we all have to take responsibility for the waste we produce. Inevitably, that means that someone, somewhere is going to get it, whether that is Portobello, Millerhill or Seafield.

I think that Viridor have a lot more to do to convince people that Portobello is the best option and they need to explain why that is the case, but I'm not against the proposals at this point.

A truck every 3 minutes sounds a lot, but I'm told that this represents only a 5% increase on existing traffic volumes. And it's not as though we will have refuse trucks trundling along Portobello High Street, or at least none that don't already use it. I also think that most of the concerns raised about noise and smell are probably unfounded.

If it does go ahead, it could provide 'planning gain'. That could be a contribution to the Kings Road junction, for example.

I believe that Viridor operate a similar facility in England. It would be interesting to make contact with the community there to find out what their 'user experience' is of living next to it.

I have requested pdfs of the drawings for the Portobello facility and will post them here as soon as I get them.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 11 Jun 2007, 13:10

Bob Jefferson wrote:A truck every 3 minutes sounds a lot, but I'm told that this represents only a 5% increase on existing traffic volumes. And it's not as though we will have refuse trucks trundling along Portobello High Street, or at least none that don't already use it. I also think that most of the concerns raised about noise and smell are probably unfounded.

Yes, a truck every 3 minutes is a lot. A 5% increase may sound insignificant, but when it is a 5% increase ( in HGVs), on what is already substantial traffic, then we should be worried.

Why do you think fears about noise are unfounded Bob?
Do you not already get woken up at times by rail noise? I refer here not just to passing freight which is already causing disturbance (see Train vibration/High Street vibration) , but also to the noise made by engines left idling while carriages are being cleaned. I admit I can only hear this occasionally (though I suspect this is a more regular occurance for those living in Mountcastle and the environs of Figgate Park), but I am certainly not keen to accept any increase in disturbance.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 11 Jun 2007, 17:27

I have the relative fortune to live more or less equidistant from the High Street and Sir Harry Lauder Road/railway line, and it probably helps to be at the end of a cul de sac, which is itself off a cul de sac. Unless I listen very intently, I don't hear road traffic, trains or even jet skis, although sometimes the ducks quack at unsociable hours.

Seriously, I accept that there are noise issues that need to be addressed, such as the road surface noise on the setts on Brighton Place, idling train engines etc. The traffic noise on the High Street can be so loud that you can't hear the Police Station clock toll. Yet taking traffic off the High Street puts more burden on Sir H L and to make things worse, traffic volumes increase year on year.

There are lots of issues here. I don't think that, in isolation, a waste transfer station at the freightliner site would make much difference to the overall situation but I can understand that it may well be the straw that breaks the camel's back for some.

At this stage, I want to know why Portobello is the preferred site. Why is it a better location than Seafield or Millerhill? I'm also keen to hear what Lawrence Marshall has to say, as he has always considered Millerhill to be the best option. Some of his earlier posts on this thread bear re-reading.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 11 Jun 2007, 17:42

Bob Jefferson wrote: At this stage, I want to know why Portobello is the preferred site. Why is it a better location than Seafield or Millerhill? I'm also keen to hear what Lawrence Marshall has to say, as he has always considered Millerhill to be the best option. Some of his earlier posts on this thread bear re-reading.

Do you believe that Portobello is the preferred site of Council officials Bob?

I agree that Lawrence's posts re. Millerhill bear re-reading.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 11 Jun 2007, 17:53

I meant that it is Viridor's preferred site but they must believe the signs are encouraging to take it to this stage.

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 13 Jun 2007, 12:35

Bob Jefferson wrote:Yet taking traffic off the High Street puts more burden on Sir H L and to make things worse, traffic volumes increase year on year.

I thought the whole point of building Sir H L Road was to take pressure off the High Street? That's the problem with these 'by-passes' - they get so busy that people avoid them

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 13 Jun 2007, 21:25

Epykat wrote:
Bob Jefferson wrote:Yet taking traffic off the High Street puts more burden on Sir H L and to make things worse, traffic volumes increase year on year.
I thought the whole point of building Sir H L Road was to take pressure off the High Street?

Indeed. Marya made reference to a thread in which various people complain about noise and vibration in the Brightons and Porty High Street. It would be interesting to conduct a traffic survey to find out what percentage of High Street traffic is just passing through but even if we could divert them, this would simply add to the "already substantial traffic" on Sir H L that Marya and others complain of. Unless we can persuade more people to use public transport then the situation will probably continue to deteriorate.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 15 Jun 2007, 12:51

From today's EN:

Campaigners rubbish plan for waste depot

I fear we may be running out of acronyms soon and suggest an umbrella group, to be known as PANE (Portobello Against Nearly Everything).

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 18 Jun 2007, 10:03

Bob Jefferson wrote:From today's EN:

Campaigners rubbish plan for waste depot

I fear we may be running out of acronyms soon and suggest an umbrella group, to be known as PANE (Portobello Against Nearly Everything).

Portobello Against Absolutely Everything would be more appropriate!

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 18 Jun 2007, 18:46

partybelle wrote:I went to the Viridor display in the Bellfield Street church hall, and asked for information on the main thing which had been carefully omitted from any of the literature and from their nicely-presented display - namely, how does the waste GET TO the Transfer site to be transferred to the rail containers?
And of course the answer is "IN BIG LORRIES".
And the (very pleasant) man I spoke to said they would try to avoid peak transport times, but the lorries would be coming and going for about TEN HOURS EACH DAY, numbering TEN LORRIES PER HOUR into the site - which, I said, presumably means TEN LORRIES OUT AGAIN? Oh yes, he said.
So there we have it -
TWO HUNDRED TRUCK MOVEMENTS A DAY. That means
TWENTY BIG TRUCKS PER HOUR, either coming or going to the terminal.
ONE EVERY THREE MINUTES.
Quite apart from adding to the existing congestion, what will that amount of extra heavy traffic do to our crumbling potholed roads?
Should we be worried? Oh yes, I thik so.

I've received an email from a local resident who tells me that we may be underestimating the traffic, partybelle. When he asked the nice man from Viridor the same question about traffic, he was told that there would not be an even number of trucks per hour, but there would be an a.m. and p.m. peak. There would be 20 trucks per hour at peak times, so we can double that up to 40 truck movements per hour. Peak time in the afternoon would be around 3.00 till 4.30 p.m.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 19 Jun 2007, 13:10

Local residents who have concerns about Viridor's plans have organised a public meeting, to be held on Tuesday 26 June at 7.30 pm in St James Church Hall, Rosefield Place.

I urge anyone who has reservations over Viridor's plans to attend this meeting and air their views.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 19 Jun 2007, 16:24

I wonder of other meetings are being held around the City, in support of the plan to site the facility here in Portobello. This could be the type of issue when a city referendum would be useful.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 19 Jun 2007, 20:48

I don't think you get action groups in support of waste transfer stations.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 25 Jun 2007, 07:43

From Viridor:

Update on Proposed Rail Transfer Station for Residual Waste, Portobello

Report of Viridor Portobello Stakeholder Meeting

Environmental Management Record

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 25 Jun 2007, 14:22

I believe the comparable sites referred to by Viridor are operated by West London Waste Authority in Brentford and South Ruislip. Those of you with Google earth (or similar) can take a look at the facilities by searching on the post codes. These are TW8 9HF (Brentford) and HA4 OYP (South Ruislip).

The South Ruislip facility has 4 compactors while Brentford has 10. South Ruislip has, I believe, a residential area around 150 metres away. I'm not sure what direct comparisons we can draw but further information is on its way and will be made available as soon as I have it. I do know that these facilities have been operational for around 20 years.

http://www.westlondonwaste.gov.uk

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 26 Jun 2007, 15:46

A quick reminder of the public meeting being held tonight at 7.30 pm in St James Church Hall.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 27 Jun 2007, 10:22

There was an excellent turnout at last night's public meeting. The audience consisted in the main of concerned locals, but also included Kenny MacAskill our new MSP and Maureen Child, local councillor. Councillor Stephen Hawkins was part of a 4 person panel who lead discussion.

Many people spoke about their concerns regarding noise, operating hours, vibration problems caused by heavy rail freight, light pollution, smell, health risks from vermin, increased road traffic and the possible loss of a station for Portobello if the transfer station gets the go ahead.

We also heard from someone who currently works at Powderhall, who described the level of smell and vermin problems etc. that a waste transfer facility creates.

It was agreed by all that more publicity/information was needed. Craigentinny residents, for example, were unaware of Viridor's plans.

This application is for a private facility which will be handling commercial and industrial waste from East, West and Midlothian as well as Edinburgh. Traffic will increase in all directions into Portobello. It is not a civic facility for our domestic waste.

It is important that if you have any concern about Viridor's proposals that you make your objections heard.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 28 Jun 2007, 17:10

In case anyone didn't see a copy of the Viridor newsletter, or if you just want to have another look, here it is in pdf format:

Viridor Newsletter

I have requested a separate, high res copy of the location drawing.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 28 Jun 2007, 18:13

Bob Jefferson wrote:I have requested a separate, high res copy of the location drawing.

Ah, you mean the drawing which has North marked wrongly and details the 'dense woodland' surrounding the site? Good idea.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 28 Jun 2007, 18:48

Marya wrote:Ah, you mean the drawing which has North marked wrongly and details the 'dense woodland' surrounding the site? Good idea.

Can't comment on the density of the woodland and I'm no boy scout but isn't North more or less right on the drawing? Ask Homer to get his compass out.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 28 Aug 2007, 09:55

Viridor made a presentation to the CC last night. The team included Clive Barber, who is area manager for Scotland and Mark Cummings, director of PPS in Scotland. They said they were keen to hear of local worries regarding their application, which they hope to put forward in September. They promised a newsletter and comparitor pack for local residents, to be issued at the same time as their application is lodged. They also intend to make the application available to residents by lodging a copy in the library, online etc.

They faced some hostile questioning from concerned CC members and local residents.

Post by **wangi** » 19 Sep 2007, 14:43

Maureen child wrote:Dear All

Sorry to be bombarding you with e mails in the last few days, but this one is very important for some local people.

I have just heard that the highly controversial planning application for a waste transfer station at Portobello freightliner terminal will be submitted to the Council’s planning department tomorrow by Viridor. Thereafter it will be advertised as having been lodged with the Council’s planning department and the Council’s professional planning officers will get on with assessing it against planning policies already in place. Public comments, objections, public meetings, and so on, will follow. The Council tries to bring reports on applications to Planning Committee of 15 Councillors – with officer recommendations to refuse or grant – within 8 weeks.

I am opposed to this application and hope it will be refused. As I am no longer a member of the Council’s Planning Committee, I am free to say that I oppose it. I think that MIllerhill is the best place for it, not Portobello. But the downside is that I will not be one of the Councillors who have a vote in deciding the application or be able to move refusal as I did with the Portobello Superstore.

If the planning officers recommend the granting of the application, we will have to persuade the Planning Committee to go against that recommendation. If they do that, they will want to have sound planning policy grounds for their refusal, not just because the weight of local public opinion says no – although tat will also be important.

Do let me know if you are interested in keeping up with this issue and I will put you on a mailing list for further action in the coming days and weeks.

Councillor Maureen Child
The Labour Party Elected Member for Portobello/Craigmillar Ward

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 24 Sep 2007, 11:28

Anybody know anything about PONGS?* I attended the public meeting arranged for concerned residents and signed up for email updates etc. , but haven't heard a squeak since.

However, I did notice a Sept Update notice from this campaign group while in Deli 194 last week so assume that they are active?

* and before you reply remember that this is the serious forum

Post by **wangi** » 24 Sep 2007, 14:51

Maureen Child wrote:Dear All

Thanks for signing up to get more information about this issue. So far, I have over 55 people on my list.

The full application from Viridor for a Portobello waste transfer station is available in Portobello Library. It was supplied by Viridor’s agents at the same time they lodged it with the Council’s planning department. The full document - including transport and environmental impact assessment and the results of the public consultation -

is a very fat folder which you should find under the ‘petitions shelf’ in the foyer just through the main doors, but before you go into the Library proper.

Portobello Library is open every day, including weekends. Phone 529 5558 to check.

The documents have to be read on Portobello Library premises. Please don’t remove any part of it, so that anybody who wants to refer to it is able to do so easily. There are photocopying facilities - and coffee (!) – available in the library.

This gives us a head start, since the application is not yet fully validated by planning department officers and is not yet registered. I have just checked the lists before sending this and it isn’t there yet on the weekly list or on the website http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/planning which you can keep an eye on if you like.

I will be asking you to write individual letters of objection, if possible, when I have more details.

That said, I will ask if the usual period of 21 days from the date of registration can be extended to allow the community the fullest possible opportunity to comment on all the information submitted by Viridor and their agents.

The campaign group committee meets tomorrow evening to discuss the way forward. Members of the committee came forward at the local public meeting we held on June 26. Key people have already started studying the detail of the plans with a view to finding the best way to oppose this. And we will advise you how you can best take part. But you may be better equipped to do this than any of us - as far as I know!

The campaign will come up with a summary of the main points you might like to make in a letter of objection and I will give you full details of how you can go about it as soon as I possibly can.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 24 Sep 2007, 15:00

wangi wrote:
Maureen Child wrote:The campaign group committee meets tomorrow evening to discuss the way forward.

When was the email distributed Wangi? Has the meeting been held?

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 24 Sep 2007, 15:11

Marya wrote:When was the email distributed Wangi? Has the meeting been held?

Ignore my last post Wangi. I have now received a copy of the email which was sent this afternoon.

Post by **wangi** » 04 Oct 2007, 12:31

The planning application can now be viewed online, aswell as in the library etc:

http://citydev-portal.edinburgh.gov.uk/ ... Y25EWW1000

And the PDFs are at:

http://citydev-portal.edinburgh.gov.uk/ ... /04148/FUL

Application reference is 07/04148/FUL