Community Councils Together on Trams: Minutes of meeting held on Thursday 21 February 2019

Leith Links Community Council is a member of ‘Community Councils Together on Trams’ alongside Leith Central Community CouncilLeith 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 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

TAPOG is CEC’s leader and vice-leader, CEC’s transport convenor and vice-convenor, and transport spokespersons from each party

1 Welcome, introductions

1.a Attendance

Charlotte Encombe CCTT/LCCC Rob Levick CCTT/LHNCC Harald Tobermann CCTT/LCCC
Angus Hardie CCTT/LL CC Jennifer Marlborough CCTT/LHNCC Bruce Ryan CCTT minutes secretary
Allan Jack CCTTNTBCC Andrew Mackenzie CCTT/LLCC Darren Wraight TT/CEC
Rob Leech TT/TN project Carol Nimmo CCTT/NTBCC

1.b Apologies

None

2 Update from TT

Rob Leech outlined the next steps for the final business case (FBC), and the main points of its contents.

2.a Next steps

The FBC is on (post-BAFO) schedule. It goes to

  • CEC’s transport and environment committee on 29 February
  • CEC’s finance and resources TEC committee on 7 March, to consider procurement and contracts
  • Full council on 14 March.

2.b Contents

Minuter’s note: subjunctive (‘would’, ‘should’) is used where relevant because many things will only happen if CEC approves the FBC.

2.b.1 Background

  • This project is about completion of phase 1a of the original tram scheme.
    • This should have been completed years ago, i.e. along with the existing line from the airport to York Place.
  • The existing line is performing ‘extremely well’, e.g. 7m passengers in 2018.

2.b.2 Contents

  • The FBC has been updated (from the outline business case [OBC]) to take account of tendered prices, inflation, design-changes (resulting from consultations) and the ‘support for business’ package.
  • The FBC has a section on lessons learned from building the existing line. This includes information on retaining knowledge from that project .
  • It has been prepared in accordance with Scottish Government and UK Government guidelines.
  • It contains much on the strategic case, i.e. reasons for building this extension.
    • Edinburgh’s population is set to grow by 20% by 2039.
    • Employment will also grow by 7% by 2022.
    • There is low car-ownership in the Leith area and the Leith Walk corridor.
    • CEC wishes less car-ownership/more sustainable transport, i.e. shift from private motor vehicles to public transport.
    • There is very high population on the corridor where this extension would run.
    • There is content on connectivity between employment centres, and employment during and after construction.
    • There is content on sustainable development at the waterfront.
      • Good public transport enables reduced car-dependency in such areas, hence enabling different life-choices.
      • That is, it allows people to live near their work; it reduces need for commuting and urban sprawl.
      • This would lead to improved air-quality in the tram corridor.
    • The extension would enhance Leith and Newhaven as destinations.
    • Hence chapter 3 (the strategic case) covers how this project would
      • follow UK treasury guidance (the ‘green book’), and CEC policies and strategies, e.g. local development plan
      • link 3 out of four economic centres in Edinburgh: airport/international business gateway/Edinburgh park; city centre; Leith waterfront. (Tram would not serve the SE quarter economic centre.)
    • Overall, the FBC presents tram as an enabler for growth that would not occur without it.
  • Concerning the economic case:
    • The capital cost is set to be £196m. (It was £165m in the OBC.)
      • This allows for risk, using a quantitative analysis using ‘green book’ methods.
      • It includes an amount for contractor-pricing. This was initiated by the collapse of Carillion, leading to contractors undertaking much more due diligence when tendering.
      • It also includes inflation and design-changes.
      • It also includes the ‘support for business’ package.
      • There will also be two contracts, hence increased contract-management overheads. (Management will be by a blended team, including a delivery unit containing experienced light-rail consultants, and senior CEC officials such as D Wraight. At peak, there will be around 30 CEC managers in this project.)
      • Early contractor involvement (ECI) adds some management overheads, and adds 6 months to the programme.
    • In addition to the £196m, £10m has been added for optimism bias (OB), following government guidance.
      • This takes the total cost to £207·3m, giving a benefit to cost ratio of 1·4:1. (In public transport schemes, this ration is expected to be between 1·2: 1 and 2:1, because public transport has quite high construction and operational/maintenance costs. The OBC had 1·64, but the majority of the change here is due to changed government guidance on costing time.)
      • At the start of a process (before design starts), the ‘green book’ mandates a large OB (66%). However, there is then a sliding scale based on Network Rail’s GRIP design process. This scale moves from optimism bias to quantitative risk analysis (QRA). SO FBCs should be base costs + an amount from QRA. (Economic cases should include OB, but the guidelines are ambiguous about inclusion of OB in financial cases. TT has assumed 6% OB. The OBC had 20% OB in its economic case, but not in its financial case.)
      • Also, professor Bent Flyvbjerg and colleagues have an alternative method for calculating risk, based on an ‘outsider’ view using information from similar projects about projected and actual costs. (The UK and Scottish Governments do not currently accept this method.) Flyvbjerg and colleagues calculated this project’s capital cost as £257m, not £207m. However, they recognise that the project is very advanced from the initial design stage, that some utilities have already been moved, and that this project is an extension of an existing line, not de novo. These could reduce the overall cost but such reductions are not part of their model.
      • Hence £50m (£257m – £207m) has been earmarked as a contingency to be managed by CEC’s head of finance and a finance and risk subcommittee (reporting to the project board).
      • The impact of such drawdown would increase the 2024-27 borrowing from £1·9m to £14·8m. This level of borrowing would be repaid by 2037.
      • The FBC hence considers mitigation, e.g. borrowing at less than 4·1%, moving away from parity of fares between bus and tram, and optimising tram maintenance and infrastructure costs.
    • The economic case is also based on patronage forecasts of 15·7m in 2023 (first year of operation).
      • This comes from high population densities and increased development on the corridor, e.g. Cala development.
      • Increased patronage would come from bus and car, i.e. people would use trams rather than buses.
      • Suitable wording in the FBC has been agreed with Lothian Buses (LB), recognising that this project is part of an integrated public transport framework. This section also covers what LB needs to remain robust during and after construction. These include clear radial routes into the city, e.g. double-red lines at the Roseburn shops. Hence LB wants CEC to enforce route-clarity more strongly than is done today.
      • (C Encombe suggested that implementation of a CPZ in LCCC’s area would help enhance route-clarity.)
      • (H Tobermann suggested that historically CEC has not enforced well in the past, and questioned why LB has not asked for route-clarity enforcement previously.)
    • This extension was always the part that would make Edinburgh trams financially positive.
    • There are also anticipated wider benefits, which may add between 15 and 40% to the economic case. (There is no agreed method for assessing their financial value, so they have not been monetised in the FBC.)
      • These benefits include employment opportunities, connectivity (agglomeration of businesses), linking brownfield sites with other economic centres to provide more opportunities, higher population densities.
  • The financial case centres on future tram revenues, but also relies on £20m dividend over 11 years from Lothian buses.
    • LB already pays a dividend to CEC.
    • In early years during construction, there is drawdown of money, but no revenue [from ticket sales].
    • There would be a cashflow-issue (2024 to 2027) of £1·9m. This would come from CEC’s reserves. Later, revenues should grow, enabling replenishment of CEC’s reserves.
    • This use of reserves would cause an opportunity cost. (Examination of this was inspired by the Hardie enquiry.)
    • The extension would give Edinburgh £395m economic benefit (net present value) over 60 years.
      • The FBC includes downward sensitivity-testing, around patronage and cost of borrowing. This assumes 4·1% interest, but CEC can borrow more cheaply than that. It also assumes no loss of revenue from stoppage.
  • The FBC also includes a commercial case.
    • This covers ECI and contract-conclusion.
  • The FBC also includes a management case.
    • This covers how the project will be implemented, e.g. heritage and archaeology work, large work-sites, no double-digging, support for businesses, governance.
    • There is also a section on supplementary projects. It has been agreed that CEC would fund these (e.g. from its active travel and capital roads budgets) in parallel with the tram-work. However, these are outwith the tram-project’s limit of deviation and are hence not part of the FBC. It is very likely that TT will deliver these supplementary projects.
      • The supplementary projects do not include integrated ticketing.

2.b.3 Q&A

Minuter’s note: the information in some answers has been included at relevant points in the above, so is not repeated here.

  • The cost of the completion phase is ¼ of the cost of the initial phase because the initial phase is ‘extraordinarily expensive’. Building from lessons learnt from the original tram project, firstly the contracts for this project use NEC industry standards. (The contracts for the original project were bespoke.) This form of contract mandates that contractors cannot stop work if there are (contractual) issues, and that contractors will continue to be paid.
    • Secondly there are large work sites, so contractors can (and are contractually required to) continue work in other, non-problematic areas while problems are being resolved.
    • Thirdly, excavations for utility-diversions would not be covered over, and then re-dug to enable construction. Instead, a swept-path process would be used: excavations would be dug, utilities diverted, then construction would occur. Because there would be several stretches of work using this method, if a problem occurs in any area, work can continue in other (parts of) stretches while problems are being resolved.
  • The contracts now use the NEC4 standard, rather than NEC3. The main difference is that NEC4 mandates a project bank account from which main subcontractors are paid directly. Hence, should the main contractor become insolvent, the main subcontractors would continue to be paid. This would also enable ECI.
  • There are two incentive mechanisms in the contracts:
    • During ECI, there is an incentive mechanism to reduce costs: this would benefit both the contractors and CEC.
    • Once construction starts, a ‘pain-gain’ mechanism would start on the Infrastructure & Systems Contract. That is, should costs exceed the target price, CEC would share the costs 50/50 with the contractor up to a threshold of 120% of the target price, thereafter the risk is with the contractor for all the main civil engineering works. Should costs be less than the target price, CEC and the contractor would receive equal shares of such savings. Hence th contractor would have a ‘massive’ incentive to deliver for less than the target price.
    • However, there is no incentive to cut corners. While the contractors are self-certifying. CEC’s technical services (provided by Atkins) will check contractors’ designs as they arrive. Similarly, TT will employ 3 quality-control inspectors (1 during ECI). Their sole responsibility is to be on site all through the work, checking that everything is as per the designs. TT will also inspect the inspections.
  • Price-increases were partly cause by market price-testing. (R Leech is not privy to the actual contractors’ costs for each part of the design.) However, it is very likely that risk has been priced into the costs. There were risk-costs in the OBC’s £165m costs.
    • H Tobermann stated that the construction cost has increased more from the OBC cost than he would expect.
    • R Leech responded that probably as a result of Carillion’s collapse, contractors took a more diligent approach to tendering. RL believes this is a positive step because it means prices are realistic, and contractors really understand what they are taking on. (Too often, they haven’t known, so ‘disasters’ happen during work.) ECI also adds to this positive effect.
  • TT has closely followed the evidence presented to the Hardie enquiry. It has also undertaken its own ‘lessons learnt’ process, based on knowledge from people who were involved in the original work.
    • It was suggested that the people available to this process were only involved in ‘rescuing’ the original project, so they know what went wrong but not what caused this. However, RL stated that people with knowledge of the original project, pre-mediation, are available to advise the project. Physical work would start before the end of 2019. However, ECI work will start before this, leading to some minor road-works and accompanying traffic-management. An outline of the main works is on the TT website.
  • The principles for landscaping designs have been created but detailed designs for areas such as Elm Row have yet to be finalised. This will specify details of trees etc.
  • It needs to be decided whether and how these CCTT/TT meetings will continue. However, RL believes that they have been beneficial. D Wraight stated that other groups have asked how they can be involved in these meetings.
    • H Tobermann suggested that further meetings should cover the timetable and [CCTT’s list of] supplementary projects.
  • Much documentation is being published along with the FBC. Stakeholders will be emailed when the FBC and accompanying documents are published, giving links to them.

Leith Links Community Council Meeting, 25 March, 6:30pm, Leith Community Centre

The next meeting of the Leith Links Community Council will be on Monday 25th March, at 6:30pm in the Leith Community Education Centre, New Kirkgate.

If you live in the area, you are warmly welcomed to attend.

Please find here the Agenda for the meeting and the Minutes of the last meeting (draft until adopted). Earlier papers are stored in our library.

Leith Links Community Workshop – Parklife project

Later this year the ParkLife project (a collaboration between City of Edinburgh Council and University of Edinburgh) is coming to Leith Links!

Everyone who uses or has an interest in Leith Links is welcome to attend this community workshop to find out more about the project & what it means for Leith Links. This is also an opportunity to feed into the work of the project moving forward.

The workshop is being held on Monday 1 April 2019 from 6pm in Leith Community Centrefollow this link to book your seat.

The ParkLife project is looking at how new uses of data and technology can help us understand how people use and value parks. The aim is to support the city and park partners to work together to improve parks to benefit everyone. The project includes the installation of a wifi enabled model which park users can engage with, should they wish to do so.

The workshop will give you an opportunity to share and develop your ideas about ways Leith Links can be improved and how technology might be able to help. During the workshop we will design several ‘prototypes’ that could be built and installed in Leith Links. These can be anything from a digital notice board that provides information about park activities to a system for timing yourself running a mile.

You don’t need to have prior understanding of technology in order to be able to join. You just need to be a person who cares about parks! Your views are important and will directly contribute to the project. Parks are diverse spaces and we would like to hear from as many people as possible.

 

Community Councils Together on Trams: Joint statement

Joint statement by Community Councils Together on Trams (CCTT) – a coalition of the four community councils that cover the areas most impacted by the route of the tram extension [which includes Leith Links Community Council].

In advance of Edinburgh Council’s imminent final decision to go ahead with the tram extension to Newhaven, which represents a major intervention in the areas covered by the four Community Councils along the route, CCTT has reviewed the information gathered from documents in the public domain and provided in monthly meetings with the Tram Project Team.

While we continue to support the broad principle and ambitious aims of the tram extension, a number of our concerns have yet to be fully addressed.

We recognise that a strong feeling exists among many people in our communities that this project is being pushed through with undue and unnecessary haste.

We remain sceptical about the absence of sufficiently robust progress or commitment over the following measures which are essential if the tram is to achieve its steep environmental mode-shifting targets and if the collateral damage of the inevitably disruptive construction period is to be reduced.

CCTT seeks firm commitment from Edinburgh Council, Transport Scotland and Transport for Edinburgh for the following project-critical measures:

  1. Fully Integrated Ticketing System (FITS): this is key to achieving a material modal shift from car to public transport (as opposed to the 87% modal shift from bus to tram, as projected in the tram business case)
  2. Staged construction sites, ie avoiding simultaneous closure of (a) Leith Walk, (b) Constitution Street to Bernard Street and (c) Melrose/Ocean Drive to Ocean Way; in parallel, CCTT seek bus priority route deviations with quality temporary bus stops: these two measures are key to minimising disruption to the daily lives of 75,000 residents and 1500 businesses
  3. Controlled Parking Zones along the tram corridor: this is key to preventing the tram corridor from turning into Edinburgh’s largest park and ride area.
  4. Constitution Street: construction of strengthened pavements and the introduction of a streamlined dual permit system for scaffolding, as well as further serious engagement with residents and businesses about the detail of the design for the street.
  5. Early and maximum clarity on the logistics intended to serve local businesses during construction to allow traders (along the tram corridor and – if necessary – along the diversion routes) to plan ahead and make appropriate arrangements that will allow them to survive the inevitable disruption during the construction period.

CCTT has been a valued partner of the Tram Project Team during the months leading up to this point in the process, contributing local knowledge and providing a critical sounding board.

If real progress can be achieved in relation to our key concerns and the above measures, we will stay involved and work constructively with the Tram Project Team during the Early Contractor Involvement and construction periods.

 

 

Suggestions sought on possible new locations for Just Eat Cycles hire points

In 2018 the Edinburgh Cycle Hire Scheme (operated by Serco under contract to Transport for Edinburgh) introduced a hire point in Leith Links, sadly this had to be removed following serious damage.

Leith Links Community Council will be considering other suitable locations at our next meeting on Monday 25 March 2019 (18:30 in Leith Community Centre), with a view to submitting a request or requests, and is keen to hear your suggestions.

Below is a map of our area (the area within the red boundary line), if you can think of a suitable location please let us know and tell us why you think it would be suitable.

We’ll circulate a list of the suggestions in due course.

  • If you find an abandoned bike you can report to Serco by email, telephoning 0131 278 3000 or Twitter so that they can consider collecting it.

 

update 30/3/19: We have removed the suggestion form and considered the suggestions at our meeting on 25 March 2019, please view our minutes of this meeting when they are published on this website for further updates

 

Community Councils Together on Trams: Minutes of meeting held on Thursday 30 January 2019

Leith Links Community Council is a member of ‘Community Councils Together on Trams’ alongside Leith Central Community CouncilLeith 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

TAPOG is CEC’s leader and vice-leader, CEC’s transport convenor and vice-convenor, and transport spokespersons from each party

1 Welcome, introductions

Attendance Apologies
Charlotte Encombe CCTT/LCCC Jennifer Marlborough CCTT/LHNCC Harald Tobermann CCTT/LCCC
Rob Leech TT/TN project Andrew Mackenzie CCTT/LL CC
Rob Levick CCTT/LHNCC Bruce Ryan CCTT minutes secretary
Angus Hardie CCTT/LL CC Darren Wraight TT/CEC

2 Update from TT

2.a Summary of current status

D Wraight noted

  • TT is still on target for its programme, so no amendments are needed to a programme document circulated by HT.
  • TT is building up to Transport & Environment Committee meeting on 28 Feb, and to full Council on 14 March .
  • They still need to complete political briefings, and open a data room for CEC members to scrutinise the business case.

Action CE to forward most recent programme document to BMR.

2.b Supplementary projects

2.b.1 Foot of the Walk to Ocean Terminal options appraisal around active travel

  • Stakeholders convened before Christmas
    • These include active travel groups, POLHA, local elected members and C Encombe as CCTT representative
    • The objective of this meeting was to set key objectives for the appraisal. One of these is affordability criteria.
    • Action: D Wraight to supply agreed key objectivesinfo [AECOM’s slides) to BMR and other CCTT members
      • NB this is not for publication, simply because it is not TT/DW’s document, but the information can be used.
  • Stakeholders reconvened on 14 January with AECOM to consider strategic corridors in this area.
    • Initial suggestions were derived by AECOM from the local development plan, active travel plans, key locations, trip generators etc. Then a workshop considered whether AECOM’s suggestions were correct. (They were.)
    • The strategic corridors are Constitution St, Newkirkgate to Kirkgate, Henderson St, Great Junction St, and east-west routes (Salamander St, Ocean Drive)
    • Then local links into these strategic corridors were considered. Many such links are already on the active travel plan.
    • Debate focussed on Leith Links’ connections with the corridors.
    • POLHA’s input about their properties was useful in this discussion, e.g. to consider use of Links Lane by children
  • Now AECOM will collate information and score each corridor and link against the key objectives.
  • They will report within 6 weeks of 14 January.
  • Then there will be a further discussion, then a public consultation. The format of the consultation depends on the outcomes of preceding steps.
  • AECOM will also provide high-level figures (presumably costs) for the full council meeting in March.
  • However, the other steps, including the consultation, will not be complete until May 2019. At this point, there will be a fully costed and consulted design for this region. It will then be CEC’s decision whether to proceed with construction.
  • This appraisal process has been funded by Sustrans.
  • CEC has not yet funded any construction that might stem from this appraisal process.
    • Sustrans has offered 50% match-funding.
    • Other funding arrangements are also being discussed with Sustrans.

It was noted that C Encombe and/or A Hardie may be CCTT’s representative in relevant fora, and that AECOM might also present to CCTT. There was then a discussion of where is and isn’t cycle-friendly in the area.

2.b.2 Duke St roundabout (bottom of Easter Road)

D Wraight noted that the current roundabout needs to be removed during tram-construction because of extra traffic that will then be using Easter Road. Temporary signals would allow traffic to enter the junction sooner, reducing congestion. Also, CEC transport staff wish to replace the roundabout with a signalised junction to deal with current congestion, but don’t currently have budget to do so. The junction is also considered not to support pedestrians or cyclists.

The predesign is complete, and detailed designs are in progress. Building is due to be completed in summer 2019. It was noted that if there is a TRO, there will be relevant consultation. Active travel aspects will also require some consultation. So DW expects that at minimum, community councils will be consulted

2.b.3 Duncan Place

There are three questions about [work on] this area: (1) Can it be extended to include Academy St and Wellington Place? (2) Can the road condition be improved? (3) What is the final look of these streets to be?

Predesign is in progress, following consultation, by the capital roads team DW anticipates CRT will opt for a renewal (i.e. resurfacing, possibly also look and feel, including maybe reconsideration of one-way systems) of these streets around summer 2019. AECOM is also looking at active travel in this area. This study may also affect the renewal/look and feel work.

2.b.4 Controlled parking zones and other items not [necessarily] on TT’s list

  • C Encombe noted that a Leith CPZ is third priority on CEC’s list of potential CPZs. (Corstorphine 1st, Morningside 2nd.)
    • DW noted that he, A Mackenzie and J Marlborough attended a meeting with local councillors about CS, where CPZs were discussed. Cllr Booth has contacted a relevant CEC official, and received a response, so this topic is ‘open’. DW also noted that despite the priorities, when major projects come online, relevant other/additional features must be considered. Hence the Leith CPZ is ‘open to discussion’. C Encombe noted the community strength about Stead’s Place, and suggested that this strength may influence CPZ decisions. (A Mackenzie noted that CPZ discussion was mostly about Leith Central’s area.)
  • Action: DW to ask Cllr Booth to share with CCTT the reply he received about the CPZ priorities.
  • C Encombe noted that Monty Roy has not received a response about issues affecting her police box. (DW noted that he has received MR’s communication.) Shrub hill work is encroaching onto the pavement, hence affecting MR’s business.
    • DW noted that TT has liaised with all developers along the tram route, and so knows what will impact the tram designs. MR’s issue should be handled by the locality team. DW also noted that despite police boxes are not deemed as fixed buildings, this one is now on TT’s drawings, and that DW would contact MR in the immediate future.
  • J Marlborough noted a new application to build a car-park on Ocean Drive to serve MV Fingal and Port Authority staff The relevant drawing implies the car-park would encroach on the tram route. Action: DW to investigate this potential issue
  • Constitution St
    • DW noted that he met with relevant CEC cllrs, Am and JM about this area. Prior to Xmas, DW was tasked with investigating parking and loading arrangements.
      • It was felt that creating such facilities in the church area was disrespectful and impractical, so the soft landscape area at Kirkgate House (KH) was considered for both parking and some loading facilities.
      • This week, TT’s recommendations around two design options will be taken to TAPOG. In general, option B is likely to be taken forward, with the caveat that other thing must be provided. Option B involves centralised tram-tracks, widening the footpath either side, introduction of a general traffic restriction at some point between Coatfield Lane and Laurie St (hence no parking or loading in this section). It also involves reinforcement of the pavement on the east side of CS to allow use of scaffolding and relevant vehicles directly outside houses. Option A had been rejected by the CS meeting.
      • The time-frame for restrictions is as yet undecided, but some local councillors prefer 7am to 7pm. Such restrictions on traffic are desirable because at peak hours there is much pedestrian use of relevant streets.
      • At TPOG, it was decided that this is part of the TRO considerations, and more work is needed to decide timing.
      • In the soft landscape area adjacent to KH, TT proposes providing loading facilities for up to 3 vehicles.
      • TAPOG has signed off moving forward with option B with loading provision and path-reinforcement before other tram-work starts. It was noted that walls in the CS area are grade A listed and so must be reinstated as is.
    • AM noted the meeting’s consideration of complete bans on traffic on CS. Sizes and weights of cherry-pickers that may be used in practice for inspecting and maintaining CS roofs were discussed. A 3-D model was suggested. He suggested that this is where negotiations over parking, loading, traffic restrictions should begin, rather than end.
    • DW emphasised that TT consulted in summer 2018, noted that strong concerns were raised about CS, met residents to discuss these concerns and hence gone to TAPOG with recommendations resulting from meeting residents.
  • JM asked about the conversion of Ocean Drive junctions from roundabouts to signalised junctions, hence preventing cars making U-turns. DW and RL responded that this issue will be resolved, potentially by the capital roads team removing the central reservation from Ocean Drive when it is resurfaced, and asked for time to go through processes.
  • A Hardie asked about coherence of design, specifically [adverts on] bus shelters, which may enhance TN’s image.
    • DW responded that TT has to perform a ‘massive’ comms task, which would involve the eventual contractors. Work on this is in progress but because the contractor has not yet been selected, this comms task can’t be started yet.
    • RL added that Hannah Ross is co-ordinating matters at senior levels in CEC.
  • The quantum of small business supporthas been signed off by TN’s board, despite low response rates to consultation.
  • Concerning other developments around Western Harbour, the contact is development@edinburgh.gov.uk.
  • TN now involves 127 building-fixing agreements, This will not involve 127 fixings, because there may be more than 1 person per building or group of buildings. Of the 127, currently only 11 are outstanding.

3 Date of next meeting

21 February 2019 (Subsequent meetings are to be agreed.)

Leith Neighbourhood Partnership meeting – 27 February 2019

Leith Neighbourhood Partnership will be holding its next meeting on Wednesday 27 February 2019 at 6pm in Leith Community Centre.

City of Edinburgh Council recently took the decision to abolish Neighbourhood Partnerships so this may well be the final meeting of Leith Neighbourhood Partnership.

This meeting will consider updates on matters such as Leith Chooses and the Leith Links Play Park upgrade works.

Members of the community are welcome to attend.

Permission sought for Leith Links 5k

City of Edinburgh Council are considering an application to permit a Leith Links 5k to be held in Leith Links (organisers also plan to use the Restalrig Railway Path).

The request doesn’t contain a great amount of detail but is published here for your information, please be aware we have removed the name of the individual making the application.

If you have any views either in support or objection to the request, or just a general comment please let City of Edinburgh Council know;

 

Trams to Newhaven: Final Business Case published

Earlier today City of Edinburgh Council published their Final Business Case, in advance of a meeting of their Transport & Environment Committee due to be held on Thursday 28 February 2019.

The release of the Final Business Case to Committee is another step towards a full Council meeting on 14 March 2019 when a decision will be made as to whether to finish constructing the tram line to Newhaven from York Place.

Public consultation on fireworks

A public consultation on the use and regulation of fireworks in Scotland is now live, running until Monday 13th May.

The Scottish Government seeks views on how people use and enjoy fireworks, the impact they have on people and communities across Scotland, as well as their impact on animals. It also seeks views on the sale of fireworks to the general public, and ideas on what action can be taken to ensure fireworks continue to be enjoyed safely and responsibly.

While much of the current legislation on the sale of fireworks is reserved to Westminster the consultation will help to identify gaps, issues or unintended consequences with the current regulatory framework.

Alongside the consultation, there will be a series of engagement events to create opportunities for members of the public, alongside local partners, to deliberate on the key issues and discuss with others what could be done going forward. Details of events alongside access to the consultation on Citizen Space can be found via the following link https://consult.gov.scot/safer-communities/fireworks/

The consultation events that have been organised so far:

  1. Wednesday 13thFebruary, 6- 8 pm at Craigroyston Community High School, Edinburgh
  2. Monday 18thFebruary, 5 – 7 pm at Pollokshields Community Centre, Glasgow
  3. Thursday 28thFebruary, 1-3 pm and 5-7 pm at The Attic, Tolbooth, Stirling
  4. Tuesday 5thMarch, 2-4 pm at New Register House, Edinburgh
  5. Tuesday 19thMarch, 2-4 pm and 6-8 pm at Perth Leisure Pool, Perth
  6. Thursday 21stMarch, 2-4 pm at Spectrum Community Centre, Inverness
  7. Thursday 21stMarch, 6-8 pm at Jurys Inn, Inverness
  8. Monday 29thApril, 2-4 pm and 6-8 pm at Civic Rooms, Town Hall, Aberdeen

Events are also being planned in Elgin, Paisley, Dumfries and Galloway and the Islands.

1 2 3 4 5 6 54