New development planned for 111-115 Constitution Street

Plans for a development of 49 residential dwellings and a commercial unit have been submitted to City of Edinburgh Council, the plans include demolishing some buildings already on the site including the Latto vehicle repairs garage.

The two planning applications are detailed below, by clicking on the links you will be taken to the City of Edinburgh Council planning portal where you can view the documents associated with the applications, you will also be able to submit your comments on the applications.

  • 18/10297/FUL. Proposed redevelopment of existing vehicle repair centre and derelict warehouse buildings to form residential development comprising 49 units and a commercial unit. Existing listed buildings and significant historic building to be retained as part of the development.
  • 18/10298/PN. Prior notification for demolition of buildings.

In addition to commenting on the planning applications you may wish to share your views with the three City of Edinburgh Councillors for Leith Ward;

Leith Links Community Council will also be considering its response, which will be available on our website in due course.

Formal review of Scheme for Community Councils launched

Following a preliminary consultation on possible changes to the Scheme of Administration for Community Councils in Edinburgh, which we wrote about here, a formal review of the scheme begins on 11 February 2019, and runs until 22 April 2019 following a decision taken by City of Edinburgh Councillors earlier today [7/2/19].

Proposals aim to improve and update the terms and provisions of the Scheme. This will include the introduction of a complaints procedure for dealing with breaches of the Community Councillor’s Code of Conduct.

Council officers are also holding a series of drop in information events accross the City, although they will not hold any in Leith.  The nearest ones to Leith are;

  • 28 February 2019, 4 – 5 pm, East Office, 101 Niddrie Mains Road
  • 6 March 2019, 5.30 – 6.30 pm, City Chambers, High Street.

The current intention is for a revised scheme to be presented to Councillors in August 2019, with a view to it taking effect in time for the October 2019 Community Council elections.

North East Locality Events Fund – Successful applicants announced

On 23 November 2018 we let you know about the North East Locality Events Fund which was making £20,000 available for the promotion of local cultural & artistic events.

32 applications were considered by a funding panel Chaired by Christina Hinds of EVOC.

The successful applications were as follows;

Organisation

Area

Funding award

Drake Music

Craigmillar

£2,329

Artlink

Lochend

£3,329.03

Think Circus

Craigmillar

£3,846.25

Lorne School Parent Council

Leith

£2,125

Art Walk Project

Portobello

£4,165

Northfield & Willowbrae

Various areas of NE Locality

£4,182

For further information please contact the City of Edinburgh Councils North East Locality Team;

Community Councils Together on Trams: Minutes of meeting held on Thursday 10 January 2019

Leith Links Community Council is a member of ‘Community Councils Together on Trams’ alongside Leith Central Community Council, Leith Harbour & Newhaven Community Council and New Town & Broughton Community Council. CCTT is the coalition of Community Councils who meet regularly to discuss, scrutinise and influence the intended continuation of the Edinburgh Tram system to Newhaven.


Abbreviations

BAFO = best and final offer LW = Leith Walk
CCTT = Community Councils Together on Trams NTBCC = New Town & Broughton Community Council
CEC = City of Edinburgh Council OBC = outline business case
CPZ = controlled parking zone POLHA = Port of Leith Housing Association
CS = Constitution St SPC = swept-path contract
ECI = early contractor involvement TAPOG = CEC’s tram all-party oversight group
EIA = environmental impact assessment TfE = Transport for Edinburgh
FBC = full business case TMRP = Traffic Management Review Panel
ISC = infrastructure and systems contract TN = Trams to Newhaven project
LCCC = Leith Central Community Council TRO = traffic regulation order
LHNCC = Leith Harbour & Newhaven Community Council TT = trams team
LLCC = Leith Links Community Council

1 Welcome, introductions

1.a Attendance

Charlotte Encombe CCTT/LCCC Andrew Mackenzie CCTT/LLCC
Hannah Ross TT/CEC Angus Hardie CCTT/ LLCC
Darren Wraight TT/CEC Rob Levick CCTT/LHNCC
Jennifer Marlborough CCTT/LHNCC Harald Tobermann CCTT/LCCC

1.a Apologies

Margaret Duffy CCTT/NTBCC Bruce Ryan CCTT minutes secretary
Rob Leech TT

2 Review of critical dates from CCTT

A Data Room will be open to councillors. Final Business Case (FBC) plus supporting documentation will be available to all the councillors in the data room. Procurements process is already complete but not published. Councillors will scrutinise procurement through the Finance & Resources Committee in early March but any decision will be subject to Full Council approval of the FBC.

The FBC will be considered by the Transport & Environment Committee on 28 Feb 2019 wherein councillors may speak and CCs can have a delegation. FBC will be made available to the Press on 22 Feb. On 14 March full council meeting, motions can still be tabled; this may cause postponements or amendments. Political briefings will take place prior this, i.e. presentations, explaining the business case, each party briefed separately and independent councillors separately by CEC.

If the FBC is approved the Council will not award contracts until after a procurement “standstill” period meaning contracts would be signed at the end of March. After contract signing there will be a 5 month Early Contractor Involvement (ECI) stage during which time CCTT will be able to liaise with contractor.

JM was assured that Brexit should not have any effect on the tram construction (other than general confusion).

HR explained to AH that the Hardie inquiry is completely independent from CEC so they have no access. Also the main subject is TIE rather than CEC. However, HR noted that CEC have followed the inquiry throughout and as far as possible have included/are including lessons learned. Whenever Hardie publishes his report CEC will endeavour to learn from that as well.

2.a Identify opportunities for further CCTT input at various stages.

HR confirmed that CEC are following the Government Green Book Guidance in finalising the FBC and in doing so seeking to demonstrate that the project stands up in terms of costs and benefits. HR asks if there anything that CCTT would like to see in the FBC. HT: we see them all as quite important and would like to see them all incorporated into the FBC (refer to update programme/issues list inserted at end of minutes as Appendix)

AM: will FBC be specific about issues along the route? In particular Constitution Street? HR: It will probably be more general. There will be information on traffic and construction management . If there are additional problems we have had to allow in the cost plan for that. It’s also reflected in the risk, although these are all commercially sensitive details. The preferred contractor would talk more to the community. AM is still concerned that the detailed designs are still very vague with lots of areas of uncertainty. DW: disagrees, there are 2 options for Constitution St to approve. Discussion follows on how TT has approached the design process, in which DW mentions that TT ‘stands rigidly behind the current design’. HT mentions the possibility/example of changing speed limits for Constitution St. which would have an adverse effect on the tram system. The point made was that the worst case scenario from a construction cost has been reflected within the FBC. DW also mentions that changes in speed limits are not considered at all, just possible changes in hard landscaping.

JM: passes on enquiry about a resident who had a letter from CEC about wires being attached to her building. Causes confusion for residents. DW advises to ask the persons in question to get in touch with him, there is a legal team on hand to help. AM wants to know how many fixings will be attached to buildings along the tram line.

HT: proposes that CCTT should ideally look at the FBC as soon as possible once the data room opens. CCTT members need to lobby our councillors for political inputs.

2.b Update from CCTT

JM’s note was provided through the design consultation and will be closed out through this process. CCTT will be able to express views through forum however consultation is now closed.

3 Update from CCTT

See above.

4 Other items

4.a Review of traffic

In email of 27 Nov 2018 Cllr Munro requested from CEC a review of traffic volume, access and egress and parking at Ocean Terminal. This request ended up with TT as CEC did not have such information. TT has not done any specific modelling in that area because the junction is not being altered for the benefit of the tram.

RL: this letter came from a discussion at LHNCC about traffic impact around western Harbor, where we are going to have building of school, properties etc. in the next 5 years. There are difficulties in Newhaven place, the coaches service the cruise harbor; a number of major projects taking place in a restricted area. LHNCC wants to flag up these potential difficulties, the effect on traffic, which is difficult already. It could turn into a mess that cannot be fixed. DW Tram team has not done any modeling on that junction and suggests that RL gets in contact with the transport planner for that area.

A comment was made about speeding vehicles along Ocean Drive. DW has agreed to arrange a meeting with Cllr Booth and provide him with a response from a tram perspective. DW will also report the problems with noise at night to the technical work group that he attends.

 

4.b List of interdependent programmes and who is responsible

Refer to document

4.b.1 Additional comments:

CE: how could a member of the public challenge any traffic management plans? In the case of the Abbeyhill rotary, it virtually appeared overnight and there was no way for members of the public to challenge that decision. DW: communications are so critical to this project. The Contractor is contractually bound to provide a stakeholder management resource which will be defined at the ECI period. They will give ample notice of any changes in traffic management during construction. Traffic management can be a standing agenda item in future community engagement forums. HT: it will be necessary to have a number of people on the street dealing with issues as they arise. DW: TT acknowledge this and confirm that a strategy will be further developed through the ECI period.

JM: Who is going to manage construction vehicles in the dock area and construction vehicles for other construction projects? DW: There is the Dock Area Working Group to deal with this. On it are Cala Homes, S1 homes, Harrisons, Leith Distillery, Ocean Terminal and Forth Ports, chaired by DW. DW is happy to circulate a list of the various groups, their remits, members and lines of communication.

In HT’s opinion the Supplementary projects list of 10 is far more important to the users of this community than the tram itself. He notes that the construction of the tram is necessarily the most important thing to the tram team, but the above list of issues should be resolved as well as it will be this community that will have to live with the consequences. Every single item on the list should be resolved; should have been resolved a long time ago, and the council needs to get its act together.

5 Quantification of environmental benefits for CC areas impacted by tram corridor: before/during/after.

Could be part of our political case still to be made to make sure that there are some. HT to keep trying to get hold of any data.

6 Next meeting 31 January and 21 February 5.30-7.30pm

RL and DW can be there all or just for some of the time. HR offers to provide answers to any specific queries you may have. DW is also happy to answer specific questions. Next meetings might be split into two parts: first part CCTT with TT for further clarifications and updates; second part for CCTT steering group only to plan best engagement with councillors, media and the wider public.

‘Fascist political group plans to infiltrate Community Councils’ says The Ferret

The Ferret describes itself as an award-winning investigative journalism platform for Scotland and beyond, recently one of their contributors published an article claiming that the far right are planning to infiltrate Community Councils. Reproduced below is the article.

Edinburgh Community Councils will be holding their triennial elections this Autumn.

At the last triennial elections in 2016 Leith Links Community Council were the only Community Council in Edinburgh to hold a public poll. This was because we were the only Community Council in Edinburgh to have more candidates standing than the number of seats available, in our case we had 17 candidates for 12 seats.  If we had 12 or less candidates, they would have been given their seats without an election.  Information relating to our 2019 elections will be published soon on this website, and on our Facebook & Twitter streams.

It should be noted that Community Councils in Edinburgh are non party political but a number of Community Councillors across the City area members of political parties, pressure groups etc.


Billy Briggs wrote:

An extreme far right group modelled on Sir Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists plans to put candidates up for community council seats in Scotland.

The New British Union (NBU) idolises British fascist Mosley whose violent supporters wore Nazi-style uniforms in the 1930s and were known as Blackshirts.

The openly fascist group is recruiting on Twitter and is led by Gary Raikes, the British National Party’s former leader in Scotland.

An official NBU document seen by The Ferret reveals that NBU plans to stand supporters as independent candidates to build support locally across the UK.

The document explains what Raikes terms as the “Quiet Revolution”. It says: “The important action is that cells should try to center (sic) around a member willing to stand in parish/local elections as independent candidates and help get them elected.

“Blackshirt cells will develop into Blackshirt units in every village, town and city in the UK. The idea is to build fascist cells of two to five people in as many places as possible.”

The document adds: “The action is true, grassroots style politics – fostering change nationwide, from the local level. The fundamental application of this philosophy is the induction of true British nationalists in all forms and level of local government.

“We at the NBU have recognised that obtaining appointment to parish and community councils is both a symbolic, and practically necessary starting point, in the pursuit of this philosophy of action.

“The NBU is a young movement, yet already has a handful of parish councillors, and one county councillor we also have a number of our people about to take up seats on Scottish community councils.”

Raikes formed the NBU in 2013 after leaving the BNP. He was also a member of the anti-Muslim group, Britain First, led by Scottish Loyalist, Jim Dowson.

At the 2007 Scottish Parliament election Raikes was a BNP candidate for the North East Scotland region. In 2015 the NBU claimed it was targeting Elgin politically prompting a backlash from locals.

The NBU uses Nazi iconography while Raikes posts sinister propaganda videos of himself speaking while dressed in a black uniform. Another video on the NBU site is of far right activist Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, aka Tommy Robinson, who is an advisor to UKIP.

Yaxley-Lennon is a former BNP supporter and football hooligan who has been convicted of multiple crimes including mortgage fraud and assault.

In one video Raikes says he is trying to “unite the right”.

Unite Against Fascism said: “Thankfully the far right in Britain is divided, whether this numpty has the ability to unite them remains to be seen. What can be seen from NBU website is that Tommy Robinson is the lightning rod that they are trying to use to unite the far right.

“Although the slogans and emblems of the NBU look old fashioned from the 1930’s we can see when they were used last year in the the “unite the right” rally in Charlottesville in America that they can become potent once again.

“‘Never again’ was the popular slogan after the second world war against fascism. We should never forget that and never give these dangerous idiots an inch.”

Scottish Greens justice spokesperson John Finnie MSP said: “It’s a sad reality that the Brexit mess created by the Tories has given confidence to those with extreme right-wing views. However, I’ve no doubt that communities across Scotland will continue to reject these dangerous and deluded groups who couldn’t organise a bun fight in a bakery.”

Raikes said: “We are not supporters of Tommy Robinson. We supported that specific issue not the man. We have been recruiting for six years. Social media is just one way of doing that. I fully expect you to deliver a bias twisted report detached from reality and know I will not be disappointed.

“British blackshirts fought and died for Britain in the last war just one of the many facts ignored by people like you. If you have read our website then you will know we are not a hate group we are simply offering people an alternative to failed democracy and a chance to discover the truth about Mosley and his ideas.”

Alfred the Owl

Leith Links will shortly be the home of Alfred the Owl, or rather a replica of him who may or may not be called Alfred. City of Edinburgh Council and University of Edinburgh are working together on a project called Parklife (funded by NESTA) which will see the owl installed in a tree to monitor & interact with park users.

Four parks across the City will have an electronic owl installed – Inverleith Park, Leith Links, The Meadows & Bruntsfield Links and Saughton Park.

The project will explore and develop new ways to use data and digital technologies to better understand how parks are used and valued by citizens, and how to engage park users in shaping the future of our parks.

Should park users wish to do so, they can connect with the owl via wifi in order to engage with each other for the purposes of sharing information such as the park users location & usage of the park etc.

Representatives of City of Edinburgh Council and University of Edinburgh will be attending a future meeting of Leith Links Community Council (date to be decided) to speak with us about the project. And of course we will publish more details as & when they become available. The meeting will be open to the public and we will promote the meeting in advance on this website as well as our Facebook & Twitter streams.

 

 

 

 

 

Proposal of Application Notice – Land east of 139 Leith Walk

Another large scale development is being proposed for Leith Walk, this time on land at 139 Leith Walk.

The plans include – Refurbishment of the existing building, or potential demolition for sui generis flatted accommodation, class 7 hotel, student accommodation and commercial uses with associated footpaths, roads, landscaping and potential reconfiguration of existing car park.

The developer plans to hold a public engagement exercise in due course but in the meantime please find the documents provided to us below for your information.

 

Update 2/2/19: The Developer has now announced two drop in consultation events in MacDonald Road Library whereby interested parties can learn about their plans in more detail, ask any questions, raise any concerns and general give their views on the proposed development.

  • Monday 22 April 2019 from 14:00 to 19:00 in MacDonald Road Library
  • Tuesday 23 April 2019 from 12:00 to 17:00 in MacDonald Road Library

Community Councils Together on Trams: Minutes of meeting held on Thursday 29 November 2018

Leith Links Community Council is a member of ‘Community Councils Together on Trams’ alongside Leith Central Community Council, Leith Harbour & Newhaven Community Council and New Town & Broughton Community Council. CCTT is the coalition of Community Councils who meet regularly to discuss, scrutinise and influence the intended continuation of the Edinburgh Tram system to Newhaven.

 

The minutes of their most recent meeting, held on Thursday 29 November 2018 at 17:30 in Leith Community Centre were recently published and have been reproduced below for your information.

 


Abbreviations

BAFO = best and final offer LLCC = Leith Links Community Council
CCTT = Community Councils Together on Trams LW = Leith Walk
CEC = City of Edinburgh Council NTBCC = New Town & Broughton Community Council
CPZ = controlled parking zone OBC = outline business case
CS = Constitution St POLHA = Port of Leith Housing Association
ECI = early contractor involvement SPC = swept-path contract
EIA = environmental impact assessment TAPOG = CEC’s tram all-party oversight group
FBC = full business case TfE = Transport for Edinburgh
ISC = infrastructure and systems contract TN = Trams to Newhaven project
LCCC = Leith Central Community Council TRO = traffic regulation order
LHNCC = Leith Harbour & Newhaven Community Council TT = trams team

1 Welcome, introductions

1.a Attendance

Charlotte Encombe CCTT/LCCC Andrew Mackenzie CCTT/LL CC
Rob Leech TT/TN project director (Anturas Consulting) Carol Nimmo CCTT/NTBCC
Rob Levick CCTT/LHNCC Bruce Ryan CCTT minutes secretary
Jennifer Marlborough CCTT/LHNCC Harald Tobermann CCTT/LCCC

1.a Apologies

Margaret Duffy CCTT/NTBCC Sally Millar CCTT/LL CC
Angus Hardie CCTT/LL CC Darren Wraight TT/CEC

2 Update from CCTT

A Mackenzie reported that some CS residents met with their CEC councillors, D Wraight and 3 members of LLCC. This meeting was about the design options from the Foot of the Walk to Queen Charlotte St. It was also to ensure that the CEC councillors were aware of the CS residents’ views. AM also stated that meeting was useful, but the CS residents’ issues remain in need of further consideration.

H Tobermann reported that the CCTT steering group will soon compile a list of outstanding issues along the route, and share that with TT asap.

  • This list may be ranked by importance to CCTT.
  • It was noted that J Marlborough has complied such a list for LHNCC’s area, of the format.
Design Drawing Issues
  • The list will be accompanied by a request for information on how TT intends to solve the issues.
  • Action: H Tobermann to circulate a template to the four CCs. CCs to supply their issues so that HT can submit its list by 12 December.

It was noted that LCCC has ratified CCTT’s submission to the second trams consultation, and that NTBCC has also sent in its own submission.

3 Update from Tram Team

R Leech reported that his colleagues Hannah and Steve gave a presentation to the Edinburgh Association of Community Councils. This presentation was high level, rather than detailed, concentrating on the question ‘why are we doing this?’ The response was mixed: some supporting the proposed project, others suggesting the money would be better spent on roads.

  • It was noted that EACC does not speak for LCCC and NTBCC.

3.a BAFO

R Leech reported that TT has received the BAFO tenders, and finalised their evaluation. This will go before the TN board on 3 December, with a recommendation to agree the pricing for the FBC, so that it is ready to go through board approval in January. This will be a formal committee process before the FBC is sent to CEC, but there will be no publicity around this.

The FBC will state how much of the £165 m budget would be spent on the ISC and the SPC. (The SPC costs are already known.) The budget also covers risk, inflation etc.)

3.b Consultation2: initial feedback

R Leech reported

  • The Support for Business (SFB) consultation has closed. Analysis will go before TAPOG on 12 December, with initial recommendations. These are generally positive but some elements of SFB proposals are clearly preferred over others.
  • Analysis of the design consultation is not yet finished. There were fewer respondents than for the first design consultation, but the feedback has been generally positive.

R Leech suggested bringing the SFB and design presentations that will be seen by TAPOG to the next CCTT/TT meeting, along with resulting actions.

H Tobermann suggested that businesses currently much uncertainty (e.g. from Brexit), that businesses in the relevant area will experience a major impact from [construction of] TN, and that current uncertainty is likely to be exacerbated by current lack of implementation detail in the SFB package. Hence CCTT will push hard for resources to finalise such details and hence minimise [TN-related] uncertainty.

  • R Leech responded that this would be worth exploring in the next CCTT/TT meeting. He added that the fine detail of the SFB will be worked out with the successful contractor.
  • H Tobermann reiterated the point in CCTT’s submission that the best way to think about such issues was to consider ‘life during construction’. R Leech concurred.
  • C Encombe added that the previous tram work had been ad-hoc and hence far more unpleasant than was necessary. She noted that LCCC now has a clean streets committee that is likely to ‘police’ LCCC’s area during construction.
  • R Leech stated that a report on the [SFB and design consultation] analyses will be shared with CCTT. He is not yet sure how analyses will be made public, but a ‘”you said, we did” + action plan’ publication is likely. He anticipated that this would cover some of the issues raised by CCTT.
  • R Leech suggested that the remaining issues will be around fine detail, e.g. ‘this loading bay doesn’t work’.

4 Outstanding design issues and permanent TROs post construction including:

The discussion moved from item 3b to item 4 without a noticeable break.

Items 4q to 4e in the agenda were not discussed in any detail because D Wraight was not present.

J Marlborough expressed concern that consultation 2 concentrated on Leith Walk, and did not fully cover LHNCC’s area. She suggested that respondent analysis is broken down by area.

  • R Leech responded that the majority of the changes in the plans in consultation 2 were in the centre of the route, but that consultation 2 covered all of the route.

R Leech stated that the design must be completely finalised by summer/early autumn 2019. He added that when the FBC is presented, the fundamentals of the design (e.g. the number of traffic and tram lanes) will be fixed. A need for fundamental changes would cause the project to halt. However, the detail in J Marlborough’s list is not fundamental and so can be carried forward to the next stage.

C Nimmo asked about NTBCC and local residents’ concerns, including the right turn from London Road onto LW.

  • R Leech responded that in his opinion, this turn would not work [during and after construction]. However, he acknowledged that a full explanation of this was needed, so such concerns should be included in CCTT’s list of outstanding issues.

C Nimmo stated that to the best of her knowledge traffic modelling has not been undertaken.

  • R Leech responded that it has been done in the past, but that CN may have heard that it is waiting to be updated.
  • Decision: It was agreed to add this to the list of CCTT concerns, for discussion at a meeting with NTBCC and residents.
  • Action: When TT receives CCTT’s list , TT will check the list for ‘fundamental’ issues

o R Leech added that non-fundamental issues can be covered by the risk and contingency budget lines.

  • H Tobermann requested a ‘first-pass’ response to CCTT’s list asap.

H Tobermann added that CCTT has compiled its own timeline of TN events..

  • Action: R Leech to send TT’s own timeline to CCTT, so that CCTT and TT are using the same timeline.

H Tobermann reported that some CEC officials do not know that TN is happening, or significant relevant dates.

  • R Leech responded that TN has a project board (including senior CEC officers from finance, procurement, legal, transport) chaired by the executive director of Place. The board is briefed on TN timetable at its monthly meetings. There is also a technical working group, including [representatives from] all CEC departments involved in the TN. They are also briefed on timescales and their own input to this. There are also ad-hoc meetings with various CEC departments. Hence if CEC officials appear to be unaware of TN, they are acting incorrectly in some way.
  • H Tobermann added that if relevant CEC officials are unaware, he fears for the supplementary projects and other projects that might clash with TN under their control. He emphasised that this lack of awareness was not TT’s fault.

J Marlborough asked whether the frequency of use of LW by emergency services has been taken into account, given that she sees such vehicles responding to emergencies whenever she visits LW. She added that the police use Constitution St regularly.

  • R Leech responded that TT has set up a traffic management review panel (including Lothian Buses, CEC, emergency services). It will meet regularly during construction. Emergency services will always have a clear route through construction. An in-progress part of the design process is considering how a clear route after construction. If an accident blocked the route, trams ‘up the line’ [and other traffic] would be stopped so that they didn’t cause further congestion.

R Leech stated that the TROs timeline is currently unknown.

  • This is because the TROs depend on feedback from CCTT and others.
  • D Wraight is assembling a note on the TRO process, considering statutory timescales, CEC needs etc.
  • This matter will be on a future CCTT/TT agenda.

4.a Design issues

See also appendix, item 8a.

R Leech stated

  • D Wraight is working on optimising bin locations etc. However, bins are CEC’s waste team’s responsibility, ultimately under the control of CEC’s director of place. Also, RL has a strong relationship with G Barwell, head of CEC’s waste division, who is very much alive to TN and working towards getting the bin situation right.
  • Work on bus-stop locations is in progress. This work considers the proposed 2-lane layout, pinch-points, bus trackers, signage etc. TT is ‘hooked in’ with J White, Lothian Buses’ operations manager. He has been working on traffic management plans and deigns. There is also a technical working group including Lothian Buses to finalise relevant parts of the design. This work will be completed over the next 2 months.
  • He is not currently sure of the progress towards solving TN-related parking issues. He is aware that Corstorphine is the CEC area that will first be promoted into a CPZ, and that Leith will be second, but has no power to influence this.

o H Tobermann was unconvinced that Corstorphine should be first, considering it is not having a tramline installed.

4.b Extract from Tram Design Manual

See appendix, item 8b.

H Tobermann asked whether this edition of the manual is current. R Leech stated that the principles are but this version has been superseded because street guidance has moved on very much in 13 years.

H Tobermann then asked what standards TT is working to, to which R Leech replied that there were very many.

Action: R Leech to supply details of guidance currently used by TT (This info is to come from Atkins.)

5 Review and update of tram pre/construction programme

Action: as noted previously, R Leech to send TT’s timeline to CCTT

R Leech confirmed that BAFO tenders arrived on 16 November, and that the relevant board meeting is on 3 December.

H Tobermann reported that he regularly checks whether Lord Hardie is due to publish his report on the issues in the initial Edinburgh tram construction, that he has found thorugh FOI that the cost of the enquiry is likely to soon exceed £10 m, and that it is highly desirable for the report to come out before TN gets too far.

6 Next meeting (10 January 2019)

6.a to agree: main topic: quantification of environmental benefits for area along tram corridor: before, during and after tram project

R Leech asked for clarification of the question CCTT is asking about the environmental aspects of TN.

  • H Tobermann responded that CCTT feels it does not have sufficient information from the TT, and that the existing environmental impact assessment (EIA) is from 2006, i.e. out of date. Hence it needs to be updated to reflect what is going to be built in 2019-2022.
  • That is CCTT wishes robust assurance that TN will provide a net environmental benefit from the start of construction until some years into its running life. He suggested that traffic modelling could aid such calculations.
  • There was discussion of the difficulty and various methods of proving environmental effects, e.g. effect of the new housing to be built in Leith, working from current car numbers, types and pollution levels.
  • R Leech reminded the meeting that he must follow the Tram Act’s requirements.
  • B Ryan asked whether the Act precluded an up-to-date full EIA being undertaken.

Action: H Tobermann to supply to TT detail of what is sought, including information on CEC’s LEZ staff; R Leech to respond to this

Action: main subject of next meeting to be the ‘you said, we did’. (See item 3b, bullet point 6 above.)

6.b to agree: (proxy) evidence to share in advance of the January meeting

Carried forward to a future meeting when environmental benefits are discussed

6.c to note: minute taker in January

Action: C Encombe to take this meeting’s minutes

7 AOCB

H Tobermann mentioned an email from Michael Motion of Turner Townsend, inviting CCTT to a meeting on 11 December (2pm to 6pm, venue TBC) about the Foot of the Walk to Ocean Terminal cycle way feasibility study. Action: HT to circulate this invitation.

  • R Leech stated that the meeting is to agree the objectives and scope of this project. He added that AECOM has been appointed to undertake a ‘route-optioneering’ exercise. There will then be a public consultation to sift options.

It was noted that Rory Garriock is now undertaking TN analysis and planning work, rather than being TT’s public face.

People who wish to contact TN/TT should email tramstonewhaven@edinburgh.gov.uk. This address is monitored daily.

8 Appendix

8.a Extract from CCTT response to consultation 2

Design issues: while many of the initial concerns have been resolved with the current designs, more detailed design work is required

  • in a few locations (especially at Ocean Drive, Constitution Street south; Shrub Place, Picardy Place)
  • optimising communal bin locations
  • refining bus stops/bays/shelters locations and dimensions
  • resolving issues around pavement/cycling/bus stop interactions at a number of locations
  • parking/loading locations (including side streets).

CCTT believes that this can be achieved in the available time, but such detailing may require additional design resources and a sincere engagement with the people most affected.

8.b Extract from Tram Design Manual 2005

A Commensurate Quality of Townscape and Public Realm Design

2.9 The proposed tram system is important not only as a new public transport project but also, as a strategic piece of new development, to act as an important catalyst and promote quality design within the townscape and public realm of the city.

2.10 Partnership working will be needed to ensure that an appropriate strategy for Edinburgh’s wider public realm can be put in place to complement works undertaken as part of the tram project. Fitting the tram route and its alignment into the townscape is the first stage of the design process. An understanding of the urban design issues that apply to a section of the tram route or a specific space along the route are required in order to achieve quality of design. This wider townscape assessment is essential in order for the tram to fit comfortably within a wider public realm and to realise the opportunity to improve the quality of streets and public spaces to a level commensurate with the quality of the city’s built heritage.

2.11 In order to ensure that a piecemeal approach is avoided, a joint programme of public realm works must be drawn up by the Council with input from key stakeholders, in tandem with the proposed tram implementation programme. This is essential to minimise disruption on site and to minimise abortive works.

 

 

Review of Community Council Scheme

The City of Edinburgh Council is currently considering carrying out a statutory consultation on a revised Scheme for Community Councils. The Scheme is the key document establishing governance, relationship with the Council and procedural rules for community councils in Edinburgh.

The current Scheme for Community Councils was approved by the City of Edinburgh Council in 2013. A number of areas have been identified where the current Scheme does not provide sufficient clarity or guidance. A formal review is therefore proposed in order to strengthen the community council governance and decision making framework by building upon the existing document. A final decision on whether to proceed to statutory consultation will be taken by Councillors in February 2019.

This consultation asks specific questions around the involvement of young people, the Code of Conduct, co-option of members, boundaries and a centralised Community Council body.

Leith Links Community Council will be considering its response over coming weeks, which will be shared on this website.

Leith Neighbourhood Partnership meeting – 3 December 2018

The next meeting of Leith Neighbourhood Partnership will be held on Monday 3 December 2018 at 6pm in McDonald Road Library.

The meeting is open to members of the public and will include an update on £eith Chooses (which is currently open for applications).

The papers for the meeting can be downloaded here in three parts:

Leith Links Community Council is an active member of the partnership, this month we will be represented on the partnership board by Community Councillor John Tibbitt.

 

1 2 3 4 8