Proposed waste depot in Portobello

by **Porty** » 13 May 2009, 19:54

Maybe a married one will be cheaper - an excuse to get out the house.

by **Porty** » 13 May 2009, 20:17

On a more serious note . Its good that pongs are identifying who is responsible for collecting their funds.

When I tried to find out the same info from pcats I was given the run around. I don't know why as I was not questioning their bookeeping integrity or suggesting any personal impropriety. There is no question of anyone seeking personal gain as far as I'm concerned. Xnd there's a fair chance its the same person named in maureens newsletter. .

Perhaps the group were concerned about potential legal action? Along the lines highlighted by PB. .

by **Puerto bella** » 13 May 2009, 21:20

On the expert witness costs - as a third party to the Inquiry PONGS may potentially be looking at Planning and Transportation witnesses, in which case the costs will be even more. Alternatively it will be a case of finding the right person/s to defend their corner. A chartered planning consultant, a tranportation engineer and junior counsel will rack up the costs. As a ball park - costs for the third party will be nearer £30 - £35K in my view, it depends on the length of the Inquiry, complexities of the case and supporting docs req'd. What the third parties feel they need to put into the Inquiry really depends on the strength of the case and the faith they have in the Council's team. Not an easy call to make but early discusions with the Council - a necessity.

Planning Aid could potentially be of some help.

by **Porty** » 13 May 2009, 23:15

by **seanie** » 14 May 2009, 00:55

by **Maria** » 14 May 2009, 07:17

by **Maria** » 14 May 2009, 07:23

by **seanie** » 14 May 2009, 09:26

Do you mean to the right of Marlborough Street?

by **Porty** » 14 May 2009, 11:37

by **seanie** » 14 May 2009, 11:40

by **Porty** » 14 May 2009, 14:32

by **seanie** » 14 May 2009, 15:53

by **Pal of Porty** » 15 May 2009, 14:17

by **Maria** » 22 May 2009, 13:29

The lead letter in today's EN:

by **Porty** » 22 May 2009, 15:07

I wishthe anti´s would stick to the relevant arguments. "edge of a conservation area" is neither relevant or true. The facility will be located in an area zoned as industrial and commercial. The proposed building will loom over the area immediately surrounding it, no more no less.

by **Bob Jefferson** » 22 May 2009, 19:41

by **wangi** » 22 May 2009, 23:08

by **Bob Jefferson** » 23 May 2009, 07:24

by **Maria** » 23 May 2009, 10:13

by **Maria** » 27 May 2009, 15:23

by **Maria** » 27 May 2009, 19:44

by **Epykat** » 27 May 2009, 20:14

by **Maria** » 27 May 2009, 21:12

by **Puerto bella** » 27 May 2009, 21:43

by **Porty** » 27 May 2009, 22:14

by **Puerto bella** » 27 May 2009, 22:35

by **Maria** » 27 May 2009, 22:35

by **Maria** » 27 May 2009, 22:36

by **Puerto bella** » 27 May 2009, 22:38

by **Porty** » 27 May 2009, 23:06

by **Pal of Porty** » 28 May 2009, 09:57

by **Porty** » 28 May 2009, 12:26

by **Maria** » 28 May 2009, 17:07

Proposed waste depot in Portobello

Who is online