Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

The hunt is On.
Sponsored by
The hunt is On.
Can you track down Scotland's wildest beastie?

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Edinburgh Evening News site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Sign In
Register

Council throws out waste station bid



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 30 July 2008
CONTROVERSIAL plans to build a waste transfer station in Portobello have been thrown out by councillors.
This morning they voted to reject the development of a £7 million road-to-rail transfer station in the former rail freight yard off Sir Harry Lauder Road.

Waste management company Viridor had the backing of Edinburgh City Council officers for its plans. But councillors rejected their recommendations by 11 votes to three.

They argued the station - which would see hundreds of bin lorries deposit waste every day - would be detrimental to the local community, because of the smell.

Protestors made their views heard at a demonstration outside the city chambers before the four-hour meeting, arguing such a development was not suitable in a residential area.




The full article contains 129 words and appears in Edinburgh Evening News newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 30 July 2008 1:51 PM
  • Source: Edinburgh Evening News
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Edinburgh planning issues
 
1

Epicuras,

30/07/2008 13:53:39
back to bath road then
2

Epicuras,

30/07/2008 13:53:56
secretly of course
3

NorT,

Edinburgh 30/07/2008 13:58:44
How short sighted of the councillors. This was an ideal place for this facility and the objections should have been repelled.
4

Arrow,

edinburgh 30/07/2008 14:05:15
#3 i am sure that the Scottish Office Reporter will feel the same when he decides the appeal!!
5

I love to eat Sellotape,

30/07/2008 14:14:10
Sir Harry Lauder was presumably not available for comment, as he's been dead for some time.
6

Old Town Resident,

edinburgh 30/07/2008 14:27:28
I wonder who the three were that voted for it?
The PPS Group must be fuming,poor old Donald Anderson and Invicta`s (never to be beaten)Mark Cummings. Their first loss in a long time! see more on their tactics at
http://www.eh8.org.uk/mountgrange_s_spin_doctors

7

Ken Mare,

Edinburgh 30/07/2008 14:30:40
I think that this is a good and brave decision by the councillors.

The waste company could have easily proposed a site that was away from a populated area and away from major road junctions. They didn't because it would have cost them more to do this - even with profits of over £27million last year.

The councillors chose to favour the public rather than the profit/financial motives of the waste company - that's what they are elected for.

However as #4 notes the waste company will appeal, the public won't get the chance to comment at this appeal, and the chances are that it might get pushed through.

Nevertheless it says a lot about the councillors - now I wonder if they could do anything about the roads??
8

alex paterson,

edinburgh 30/07/2008 15:06:57
Pity that its be tossed out,one dump deserves another.
9

hail hail the hibs r here!!!!!!!!,

30/07/2008 15:10:46
With high unemployment in the area and landfill sites outside edinburgh comming to an end, trucks running all over the place making huge carbon footprints in and around edinburgh the rail transfer would have been the greener way to go.

shame on the no vote think green
10

tertee,

Bingham 30/07/2008 15:18:18
#9 The whole place will need only 20 staff. Powderhall already runs one train a day so that is not new. ~7 is right the omly green the company are interested in is the one used to print money.
11

tertee,

Bingham 30/07/2008 15:19:52
omly = only ~7 = #7.

DUH
12

Informed on Planning Matters,

Edinburgh 30/07/2008 15:48:38
I have been watching this development unfold and I think its now time for me to comment.

Fortunately, appeal reporters do not rely on votes to stay in a job. I therefore hope that Viridor appeal and that the appeal is successful. Given that the proposal is in accordance with local plan policy, hard to see why planning permission should not be granted. Hardly a brave decision #7 - angry public = no votes; happy public = votes.

Planning officers got it right. Shame final decision rests with vote / popularity seekers.

If people dont want development, they should go and live on the moon (especially NIMBYs and general serial objectors - be better for us all).

Ironic that the development proposal is in accordance with adopted and emerging local plan policy - approved by the same bunch who now disagree with their own local plan.

Any also #7 - the public will get a chance to express views to any appeal. You should get your facts right before contributing to a debate.
13

Mik Wilso,

30/07/2008 15:56:55
Porty the biggest nimby factory in Scotland.

maybe some of the people from portobello will tell us where to put it to save the planet
14

Hmmmmmm,

Edinburgh 30/07/2008 16:01:12
(#9) I'm not sure how one truck every 50 seconds, 14 hours each day "would have been the greener way to go."
I'm only surprised that the comments #3, #4 and #12 (obviously from Viridor/PPS Group) were not the first ones.
15

tertee,

Bingham 30/07/2008 16:02:19
I suggest you get YOUR facts right #12 All parties with views were heard today. There is no provision to hear any further opinions in the appeal process although the public are allowed in to view the proceedings.Check the papers on line for today's meeting this is clearly stated.
16

,

30/07/2008 16:04:38
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
17

Pop goes the Weasel ,

Edinburgh 30/07/2008 16:05:59
Actually, depending on the method of appeal (written submissions, local inquiry etc) the public do get a chance to make further representations.

There is no third party right of appeal, however.
18

tertee,

30/07/2008 16:17:26
The passage following is from the Url below.

http://cpol.edinburgh.gov.uk/getdoc_ext.asp?DocID=114340

Decisions will generally be to approve or refuse. Conditions of approval or reasons
for refusal may be considered at a subsequent meeting. If the application is
continued for further information, the Hearing will not be reopened at a later stage,
and contributors will not be invited to speak again. In such cases, the public can
attend the meeting to observe the discussion from the gallery.


Now that looks to me like its all been said .
19

Informed on Planning Matters,

edinburgh 30/07/2008 16:19:37
Perhaps #15 tertee you should read planning legislation where it is clearly stated that objectors will be able to make further comments to appeal proceedings.

trust me - i am right.

#16 - enlighten me; where did i go wrong with the other 4.2 out of 10?
20

Informed on Planning Matters,

edinburgh 30/07/2008 16:24:22
tertee - you seem to be getting confused with council decision making and appeals. council decision making procedures at CEC is not the issue here - i thought we were talking about whether the public can make further comments to an appeal which they most certainly can.



21

tertee,

30/07/2008 16:27:03
I am quoting what the council has said in their papers to do with today's meeting. If they are in breach of the planning regulations then I'm sure you will be able to direct them to the relevant passage.
22

I love to eat Sellotape,

30/07/2008 16:41:15
"If people dont want development, they should go and live on the moon (especially NIMBYs and general serial objectors - be better for us all)."

People can live on the moon now? When did this happen?

23

Informed on Planning Matters,

30/07/2008 16:42:25
tertee - no need to be sarcastic. they are not in breach of planning regulations - but perhaps the guidance could be clearer. i think that would avoid ambiguity and help to improve public perceptions of the planning system.
24

benb,

portobello 30/07/2008 16:54:18
This is a great, and for me at least, very unexpected decision. First, none of the elected representatives from Portobello were eligable to vote on the committee today so the councillors were not unduly worried about their election prospects. Unlike some ill informed people who commented above, the councillors were able to see through the green wash and the amazingly uncritical council report and see this proposal for what it really was - a cheap solution to waste management dumped in a residential area that would have unwarrented impact on local residents who already take a fair burden of Edinburgh's problems ( sewage, busy roads, rail routes ). I know quite a few Green activists in Edinburgh but have not met anyone who thought this proposal was a great idea. I really don't think companies like Viridor can be trusted to plan for a green future for Edinburgh. People need to wise up. I'm really proud of our councillors' today.
25

tertee,

30/07/2008 16:55:36
No sarcasm was intended, Informed on Planning Matters. I was just stating what is there on the council site. But you are right about ambiguity there is no two ways about that. LOL
26

seanie,

30/07/2008 16:58:56
If Viridor appeals and it goes to a public enquiry further representations can be made. The quote from the Council just referred to their procedures for making a decision. A public enquiry would be separate from that.
27

Ken Mare,

Edinburgh 30/07/2008 17:09:05
Sorry to have sparked off a debate - but glad it seems to have ended amicably.

Out of interest....'Informed on Planning Matters' you seem a little upset with the decision and indicate a bias for the waste company - what was your interest in this case?
28

tertee,

30/07/2008 17:09:41
Yes "the Hearing will not be reopened at a later stage," Inquiries have not been officially mentioned in any papers yet. (As far as I know)
29

tertee,

30/07/2008 17:12:44
Hey Ken Mare nothing wrong with a wee debate.
30

Buttress,

30/07/2008 17:14:00
Good news. Shame that councillors are so inconsistent.

Interesting comment, as ever, here:


http://www.independentrepublicofthecanongate.blogspot.com/



31

Informed on Planning Matters,

30/07/2008 17:29:22
Ken Mare - I am not upset. I have an interest in planning - that is all. I have no bias towards the waste company - i know very little about them other than what i have read in committee papers and the press but I do understand the proposal and the planning system. my concern here is that this development proposal was brought forward in accordance with planning policy; assessed accordingly but then refused permission by councillors, contrary to a recommendation by a professional qualified planning officer who has spent several weeks and months considering all the issues in detail before arriving at a recommendation only to see it overturned...
32

Jacqueline Hyde ,

On the shelf 30/07/2008 17:36:31
It's good to hear of councillors who can consider the interests of their constituents and who are capable of independent thought.

What a shame the residents of the Argyll & Bute and Highland Council areas seem only to be represented by slack-jawed, glazed-eyed numpties who regard their increasingly militant dictatorial officials with such pathetic, doe-like awe.
33

Buttress,

30/07/2008 18:06:11
I look at Caltongate, and the ghastly Haymarket tower, and consider that planning officers don't always get things right. Planning is a complex matter.It's about balancing, at times, conflicting policies.

www.eh8.org.uk



34

tertee,

30/07/2008 18:15:43
That is all it is a recommendation, from a professional. Who almost certainly will not have to live with it. This is why councillors are there to take into account the wishes of the people. Who will take a subjective not objective view of matters.
35

Logie Almond,

30/07/2008 18:19:33
Since these councillors have now rejected a depot to transfer Edinburgh's waste to East Lothian, no doubt they will now be looking for landfill sites within the city limits of Edinburgh.
36

tertee,

30/07/2008 18:27:25
#25 They have done no such thing. A train already runs from Powderhall.
37

seanie,

30/07/2008 18:35:15
Given the rcommendation for approval from the planners, you'd expect Viridor to appeal. If they do there better be some objective reasons for refusal or they stand a good chance of succeeding.
38

Buttress,

30/07/2008 18:57:32
Of course, at an appeal hearing anyone and everyone with something to say can say it.

It's also possible that councillors are aware of the ramifications of their rejection.
39

Red Ted,

Portobello 06/08/2008 20:57:51
No worries Seanie - it was wonderful sitting through the 4 1/2 hour Council meeting seeing V's case unravel. There's plenty of reasons for it to fail at appeal, as became blatently obvious at the meeting and under questioning from Clrs of all parties - Green, Tory, Labour and SNP - particularly over numbers of lorries (max 928 pr hr - their own figures), and how their claims about emissions reduction could be proven (not clear at all), as well as the Council's officers saying well Sepa will step in and make sure its ok (what about the Seafield stench? in the Evg News again today - how many years have people inc Sepa been trying to make that better with little effect)
As someone above said, its great to see the Cllrs responding to Constituent's concerns and not just following big business or their Officers who in this case were misguided, to put it mildly....
This is about as green as a lorry exhaust!

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 

More Edinburgh planning issues

More Edinburgh planning issues >>

Today's Vote

Is a Government watchdog right to criticise the planned new hotel on Princes Street?
Yes, it’s totally out of keeping with the setting
No, we need some fresh ideas in the city centre
It’s no worse than a lot of the buildings there already

Web Links:

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.