Calling all PONGS Supporters!

[administrator]

[seanie]

[Puerto bella]

Re: above - Whose record?

People will read the decision and make up their own minds on what it means. But what you are in effect saying is that the two Principal Reporters in arriving at their conclusion set aside the planning policies and the primacy of the development plan as prescribed in S25 of the TCP(Scot) Act 1997 in favour of the conservation area policies and impact on LBs as though those have a higher standing?

The 100 plus audience who attended every day of that Inquiry, of which you were not one, heard the evidence and will come to their own conclusions.

[seanie]

[Puerto bella]

If it was straightforward it wouldnt have required a 2 week long Public Inquiry.

[seanie]

The reasons for refusal were straightforward; the visual impact on the Conservation Area and Listed Buildings.

The waste policies weren't a factor in turning down the appeal.

You don't need a detailed knowledge of planning to work that out from the Reporters' decision.

Just reasonable reading comprehension skills.

[Puerto bella]

Yes - its also so easy and black and white isnt it

[seanie]

Well..yeah.

You just have to read the Reporters' decision to see that the appeal was rejected on the grounds of the visual impact. None of the other issues were significant factors in the outcome.

[Puerto bella]

I believe you are wrong and that is where I will leave it.

There is a section on Need and BPEO in the decision which is v clear to me and spells out the difficulties with these issues in relation to C&I residual waste in the Lothians.

I would ask people to read it carefully before they fall into the trap of believing the lies you peddle.

[seanie]

[Puerto bella]

I never said that - you're misquoting me in order to somehow make my contribution of less worth that yours. I'm beginning to think you get off on that which is very wierd and sad.

Cutting and pasting as much of it as you like still doesnt change the fact that you actually arent fully conversant with all the arguments so dont appear as though you are.
People can read what I've said.
Stick to the day job.

[seanie]

[Puerto bella]

You're not talking to your community council colleagues now so dont be so rude. I know it comes naturally but do try. There is no way on earth anyone could have a sensible discussion with you, so I wont.

Lets see if you can try not to have a last word that tries to personally discredit me or resort to name calling- like you usually do, sad little man.

[seanie]

[seanie]

[Porty]

Im poorly informed on this matter. If PB cut and paste the actual decisions and the material factors that led to that decision in order to prove that need was critical, it would be very convincing. Much more so than the perception of what 100 others may have thought.

Not sure why this appears to be so heated.

The reasons for refusal appear to be straightforward and easy to comprehend. Seems the same cannot be demonstrated for need or ..........

[seanie]

I'm not suggesting the wording of waste policies aren't important, or couldn't be significant factors in determining a planning application. Just that it's blindingly obvious, beyond any doubt whatsoever, that the waste policies weren't significant in refusing the Viridor appeal.

Just read the conclusion.

The Reporters give the reasons for the refusal and they all relate to the visual impact; on amenity, the Conservation Area, and Listed Buildings. No other reasons are given, so it's bizarre to conclude that other reasons were significant.

[Maria]

I'm just mightily relieved that the outcome was in our favour.

And there's no harm in retaining the requirement to demonstrate need. I think we all agree on that, don't we?

[seanie]

[Maria]

[seanie]

Except if the policy is pretty much the same, it doesn't afford much protection should Viridor come back with a proposal that overcomes the visual impact (though how they'd do that who knows?)

Instead of campaigning to retain the wording of a policy that FAILED to be sufficient grounds for rejecting the Viridor application, it might be better to advocate a STRONGER wording.

[Maria]

I'm actually pretty proud of the fact that the visual impact on the conservation area was considered grounds for refusal, as it was only PONGS who suggested that this was an important factor. (It also justifies my rather rude behaviour of knocking on my neighbours' doors early on a Saturday morning and asking if it would be OK if a 'strange' man took photographs from their bedroom window.)

I'm very interested, however, in what you would suggest as stronger wording Sean. I've still to give my individual response to the consultation.

[seanie]

[Maria]

Oh well, I'll just plump for the status quo then. Don't really have the time to put together a brand new policy before tomorrow's deadline for submission of comments

[Porty]

Probably just as well M, the Viridor conclusion would likely be unaffected judging by the PI conclusion . Good job on the visual impact by PONGS. Who came up with that angle? Did the council miss it?

[Maria]

[Porty]

Juantastic job!

So what the hell did they talk about for the remainder of the two weeks?

[Maria]

[Porty]

[wangi]

[Puerto bella]

We'll all sleep safely knowing we can get Sean to build and defend the case for the community next time round.
He'll be doing singlehandedly though as I dont know a single person in the witness team that would work with him. Now why is that ?

[Porty]

Could be a few reasons. His concise, articulate presentation of facts combined with the ability to analyse and accurately comprehend policy, is a real intimidator for bullshitters.

[Porty]

And as for Sean building a case for the defence on behalf of the community. What leads you to believe he is against the Viridor scheme?

I know not whether Sean is pro, con or ambivalent.

[Betty Windsor]

[seanie]

Surely that would depend on the reasons for being against?