OUTLINE STATEMENT OF CASE
for
THE CITY OF EDINBURGH COUNCIL
in appeal by
VIRIDOR WASTE MANAGEMENT LIMITED
in respect of
LAND ADJACENT TO SIR HARRY LAUDER ROAD, EDINBURGH
DPEA Ref: P/PPA/230/1061
CEC REF: 07/04148/FUL
2
1. PLANNING APPLICATION
1.1 The application at Appeal (07/04148/FUL) was described as being for a Rail
Transfer Station for residual waste on approximately 3.4 ha of the former Freight
Liner Terminal Portobello, development will comprise infrastructure, main building
(Transfer Station) smaller building for storage, parking and weighbridge.
1.2 The Application was reported to the Council’s Development Management Sub-
Committee on 30 July 2008, with a recommendation for approval. At the meeting
the Committee heard representations from the Applicants and from
representatives of the local community.
The Committee resolved to indicate the intention to refuse planning permission for
the reasons that:
a) The additional traffic movements generated by this development would
exceed the capacity of the local road network and would lead to
unacceptable levels of traffic congestion contrary to PAN63, and a full
traffic assessment had not been carried out to assess the impact of the
development on the wider area.
b) The proposal would result in an unacceptable loss of residential amenity
through noise generated from traffic, light pollution, potential odour escape
and air pollution, contrary to Policy H7 of the North East Edinburgh Local
Plan and Policy Env7 of the finalised Edinburgh City Local Plan.
c) It had not been demonstrated that the proposed design, height and
massing of the Waste Transfer Station would be in keeping with the scale
and character of the surrounding area and would not have a detrimental
visual impact on the area and the adjoining conservation area, contrary to
G:P&T.AS.07.04148.FUL.OUTLINE STATEMENT OF CASE.HS
3
Policies E25 and E26 of the North East Edinburgh Local Plan and Policies
Des1, Des3 and Des4 of the finalised Edinburgh City Local Plan and to ask
the officials to report further on the proposed reasons for refusal.
1.3 The Committee considered the application again on 13 August 2008 and resolved
that planning permission should be refused for the reasons that:-
1. The proposal is contrary to the provisions of policy H7 of the North East
Edinburgh Local Plan and Planning Advice Note 63 (Waste Management
Planning) in that the proposal constitutes a non-residential development
that is likely to introduce increased levels of traffic movements, which will
exceed the capacity of the local road network, leading to unacceptable
levels of congestion to the detriment of residential amenity.
2. The proposal is contrary to policy H7 of the North East Edinburgh Local
Plan and policies Hou 8 and Inf 1 of the Finalised Edinburgh City Local
Plan as the development will result in an unacceptable loss of residential
amenity as a result of traffic noise, light pollution, potential odour escape
and air pollution.
3. The proposal is contrary to policies E25 and E26 of the North East
Edinburgh Local Plan and policies Des 1-4 of the Finalised Edinburgh City
Local Plan by virtue of the design, height and massing of the proposed
building in that it would be incompatible with the adjoining residential area;
detrimental to residential amenity; and detrimental to the appearance of the
conservation area.
2. EVIDENCE
G:P&T.AS.07.04148.FUL.OUTLINE STATEMENT OF CASE.HS
4
2.1 Reason for refusal 1
The Council will lead evidence to the effect that: the level of vehicle
movements generated by the development will exceed that predicted by
the Appellants to the extent that the capacity of the local road network
would be exceeded, with the resultant congestion having a detrimental
effect on residential amenity in the surrounding area; that the specific
intended use would have a greater impact on amenity by way of traffic
generation than other potential uses of the site and that for these reasons
the proposal is contrary to Policy H7 of the North East Edinburgh local Plan
and to PAN 63, which at paragraph 27 recognises the potential for facilities
of this nature to give rise to householder complaints on, amongst others,
traffic issues.
2.2 Reason for refusal 2
The Council will lead evidence to the effect that the operation of the facility
would be likely to have unacceptable environmental impacts – as well as
the general issue surrounding additional traffic referred to above, the noise
generated by numbers of heavy vehicles would cause disturbance to
nearby residents as would the air pollution caused by such vehicles. The
extent of light pollution and odour omissions is also likely to be more
substantial than indicated to the Appellants and particularly in relation to
odour omissions is dependent on the operation of the facility being strictly
controlled. Policies H7 of the North East Edinburgh Local Plan and Hou 8
and In 1 of the finalised Edinburgh City Local Plan would therefore be
contravened.
G:P&T.AS.07.04148.FUL.OUTLINE STATEMENT OF CASE.HS
5
2.3 Reason for refusal 3
The Council will lead evidence to the effect that the design, height and
massing of the proposed building would be wholly inappropriate in what is
a predominantly residential area and out of keeping with the character of
the surrounding area, particularly the Portobello Conservation Area. Policy
E25 of the North East Edinburgh Local Plan and the design policies of the
Finalised Edinburgh City Local Plan expect new developments to make a
positive contribution to the surrounding environment, which this proposal
fails to do.
3. DOCUMENTS
The Council propose to lodge the documents referred to in the reasons for refusal
but will require to reserve the right to lodge further documentation as preparation
of its case develops.
4. WITNESSES
Evidence will be given by a member or members of the Development
Management Sub-Committee. Additional technical evidence may be presented
but the Council is not currently in a position to advise of the extent of that
evidence or of the time which is likely to be required to present its case, although
it is anticipated that no more than two days would be required as a maximum.
G:P&T.AS.07.04148.FUL.OUTLINE STATEMENT OF CASE.HS