£eith Chooses 2019/2020 | Your feedback is sought

The City of Edinburgh Council / Community Steering group who deliver the annual £eith Chooses local participatory budgeting process are seeking the views of our community on this years process.

Views are sought via an online survey.

It is important that as many people as possible take part in the consultation, whether they took part in £eith Chooses or not, as the collated views will inform future £eith Chooses processes.

 

To find out more information about £eith Chooses you can visit their website, their Twitter steam or their Facebook page.

Leith Links Community Council have played a key role in delivering £eith Chooses from its early days when it was known as £eith Decides.

 

 

Leith Links event application: Community Council responds to application for circus Extreme 2020

Earlier this month we let you know about plans being considered by city of Edinburgh Council for an event to be held on Leith Links by Great Russian Circus Limited, click here to view our original post.

We asked for your comments, and we have now submitted them to City of Edinburgh Council to consider alongside our own comments, which are copied below for your information.

We are not sure when the City of Edinburgh Council plan to make a decision, what information or views they will take into account or when we will be notified of their decision, but we will make a further post about the decision as soon as we know.

Please remember that comments, suggestions, questions etc relating to parks can be submitted to City of Edinburgh Council at any time by emailing parks@edinburgh.gov.uk.


Please find attached the comments from those members of the public who responded via our website. As you can see, the majority of the comments were negative towards the Circus being allowed to use Leith Links.
As for the view of the Leith Links Community Council, while we are aware that these comments are only representative of a very small number of those in our area entitled to a voice, we have concerns regarding transport, the area of the Links that the Circus may use and the need for reassurance that the Links is restored once the Circus takes place, if it does. So while we are not against the Circus using the Links, given the short time it would be there, we do need these concerns addressed.
We do not wish to be seen as ‘NIMBYS’ regarding every application that comes in. However have real concerns over the lack of information provided to ourselves to enable us to make a fully informed decision on applications to use the Links for commercial purposes.

Responses from members of the community included in our response:

“I think, given the current disruption around the area with the tram works etc, this event should be held elsewhere. Parking and traffic are already chaotic, and will be only be increased by the event.

If it weren’t for the current disruptions, I’d have no problem with the event.”

“Think this is fine, since the application is only for two weeks use and is appropriate for all ages.”

“I would rather not see this happen on the links. A full week of the summer with lorries etc on the grass. This will always wreck the turf, be an eyesore and obvious noise pollution. Leave the parks alone, send these sorts of things out of residential areas, ridiculous!!”

“Concerned by noise as I live in close proximity, also not happy about the restrictive nature of this for the public links space during peak summer time”

“This application should be refused. The amount of vehicles on the links will cause damage to the grass, many of these vehicles will sit on the grass for over two weeks. This is also the the part of Leith Links where the school children from the local school do PE, games etc. The area is also used for Cricket and football.

The volume of traffic around the links area is already a problem for local residents. Having up to 1400 more people coming into the area on a daily basis for 11? Days would cause more congestion.

This is also a commercial concern, what benefit will local people receive from this organisation. Public spaces should be used for events for local folk not commercial organisations who come and go and give nothing back to the people of Leith.”

“I don’t see a problem with this event. A circus aimed at families is a good thing upholding a fine tradition”

“Please reject.

Leith Links is for mostLeith residents the only green space left. Everything else is in vicinity is gone. I enjoy Leith Links, its green, calm and its a place where I can look around and don’t see human made things. It’s a place for kids to play, an older person to sit on a nice day, a stroll with the dog or a nice picnic. It’s a park where I charge my mental well being. It’s home to an amazing mixture of wildlife and nature. So no, leave Leith Links alone.

In addition, with the current tram works construction and many diversions etc. The infrastructure would not cope with 1400 performances. 30 vehicles on site would trash the park.

Its bonkers even considering this.”

“No Thank you, No Thank you, No Thankyou…it’s right in front of my home.”

“There is currently a lot of disruption around the leith links area due to property building works, tram construction, and other roadworks. I strongly believe the council must refuse this planning application. The cumulative effects of these construction works alongside the impacts associated with the circus events (noise and vibration, traffic and transport, local amenities, impacts on the flora and fauna in the links) would have a severe detrimental impact to the local area. Having a circus in this area with associated parking for up to 1400 attendees would put extreme pressure on the already busy and difficult to find parking for local residents. The council surely already is aware of this having proposed parking charges for locals. Furthermore the main routes required for emergency services to gain access are already diverted for to the tram works so I would put the question back to the council of what the emergency evacuation procedures would be? Can the roads around this support this? This is a predominately residential area, the links are used for sports teams, dog walkers and families and whilst the circus is present for a short time the longer term impacts on the grass of the links due up to 30 vehicles parking on the grass, toilets and the tent itself would leave a lasting impact.”

“I think this is a great idea and good use of the massive public space available.”

“I think its a great idea. Would bring a lot of people down to Leith who don’t usually go. I do however think there could be potential issues if people were to drive down because of the ongoing works on constitution street.”

“As I live within spitting distance of this event with my bedroom on the main road i feel this would be detrimental to my quality of life both in terms of noise, lights and additional cars.

As there is a metal fence running the length of the site, vehicles will need to traverse the pavent at the bottom or top of the field, causing more damage.

As people will be living on the links for the period this will be an issue 24/7. I strongly object to the site location”

“I object to this event taking place on the links across from my family home due to the detrimental affect it will have on our enjoyment of our family home (noise level, volume of traffic etc ) and also our enjoyment of that part of the links during the schools summer holidays.”

“I am against this as it will destroy the grass and the community. Look at the mess of Princes St Gardens.”

“Self contained” with generators, that means 14 days of permanent generator noise to provide power for the accommodation of the 60 people on site. No thanks. Where are the visitors going to be parking their cars? Give or take call it a 1000 capacity, say 60% come by public transport. 4 people to a car that’s still 100 cars in an area where I even struggle to park my car during the summer months due to the increase of vehicles from B&B visitors.

“I think losing the ocean terminal red gravel site has left the council with a dilemma of acomodating requests like these, but leith links is completely unsuitable due to the close vicinity of residential property as well as there being no additional parking capacity to cope with the increase in demand.”

“The traffic conjestion around Leith is already at gridlock without further inconvenience. We are quickly losing trees/ green space as a result of development and trams integration so it would be dissapointing to have further space taken up with a circus.

Leith Links should not be used to house large-scale events of this sort.”

“Pollution from the cars. Noise from the event. What are the times of operations night? Does the money charged for the rent come back to the links?. Will the park be left in the same condition that it was before the event?”

“Please reject.

Leith Links is for mostLeith residents the only green space left. Everything else is in vicinity is gone. I enjoy Leith Links, its green, calm and its a place where I can look around and don’t see human made things. It’s a place for kids to play, an older person to sit on a nice day, a stroll with the dog or a nice picnic. It’s a park where I charge my mental well being. It’s home to an amazing mixture of wildlife and nature. So no, leave Leith Links alone.

In addition, with the current tram works construction and many diversions etc. The infrastructure would not cope with 1400 performances. 30 vehicles on site would trash the park.

Its bonkers even considering this.”

“Would the pressure of stages, stands and vehicles not ruin the football pitch? There have been shows like this in previous years, but were they not restricted to areas not used for football, cricket or rugby?”

“Parking, noise, rubbish, traffic, damage to 3 well used football pitches ect This is very close to lots of housing and is possibly the worst place in the links where it could be situated Links Gardens is already a traffic nightmare during peak hours and this will seriously exacerbate the issue”

“More than enough traffic issues in the area already with various, unneccessary roadworks. This will make things worse to the point of being unbearable. Presumably the council will be removing the disgraceful caravans parked there as a present to us who have to put up with a circus we have no interest in? No, I thought not. Use area for dog-walking and general escaping from the stresses of the city. Instead CEC is bringing the city here. Would want to know what the council’s approach to animal welfare is as well if there are animals. Likely to be parking hell for the duration of the event. Once again, no regard for the people who pay their council tax only to be faced

by yet another event the money from which does not seem to be spent on anything other than the city centre or some other vanity project. Disgraceful.”

“Hi, I’m concerned that, yet again, parks and land that is there for all to use, is being commandeered for a commercial enterprise. This will take over a significant amount of the links for two weeks in the summer, while kids are off school. No doubt the grass will be all chewed up, and they estimate 1400 attendees daily; how many will use public transport? I’d guess not that many, so parking, in an area where this already an issue for residents, will be even worse. I’m not sure how any of this is a benefit to the Leith community.”

“Totally oppose this. Will destroy accessibility, usability and peace that the park destroys in one of its most popular months for residents. Terrible proposal.”

“Public space and heavily used in the summer by local residents. This is not acceptable in such a built up residential area, noise, pollution and damage to the gardens themselves. What about the wildlife? Stop commercialising green space. Have this out in Islington.”

“I am against this application on the grounds,of my business, mike English food and stacks,will be serviley affected and not to mention the mess it will make on the two football pitches that have been very well looked after over the years.may I sergest the very far end of the links,towards portobello, you whoud not have to put up with cast iron fenceing that runs alongside your proposed site, and much better access for the cars,Van’s, and hgvs that it will be needed to sett up.thankyou”

“I would hope that planners have given consideration to visitor parking. When The Mela was held in this park last year vehicle traffic was not controlled and most roads in the area came to a standstill.”

“For the past two years the Mela has resulted in dangerous parking in he streets around the event on Leith Links / Claremont Park. Pavements were blocked, forcing pedestrians onto the roads, particularly those with prams; lines of sight were blocked at junctions by cats parked on yellow lines, meaning cars had to pull out into moving traffic without looking properly. The requested capacity for the event is far too big for associated cars to be accommodated nearby, even with significant event staff directing traffic because they can’t be on every corner, and every set of double yellow lines all the time. The Mela has shown us this to be true, two years running.”

“this is a ridiculous commercial use of public space and ought not be allowed. Noise will affect nearby residential premises, and cars on the grass will affect it long term.”

“On principle, I feel that we need to keep making the point that the Links is a public space, and we need every inch of our green spaces. I am strongly against colonisation / privatisation for commercial purposes! Also this area is really struggling just now with road closures, diversion, and generalised traffic and parking hell, so it does not seem sensible to add ANY extra burden to this chaos.

Having said that, this proposal is for a fairly short period only and I have no particular problem with this family friendly show, provided that there is a curfew (for noise) of about 9/10pm, and of course the necessary toilet and litter control provision. But The large number of vehicles proposed, to drive across and then park on the Links is completely unacceptable. They need to reduce this number drastically and park /‘camp’ elsewhere. And only have the smallest possible number of vehicles for set up and take down only, and basic support.

Also the location is wrong. This site overlaps with the school playground, and an area of known defective drainage. And there is no easy or short vehicular access – they’d have to drive the full length of the Links from Seafield to get here. I would suggest putting the circus in the middle of the west Links where it traditionally always used to go. It is outside the football season, so hopefully could be accommodated.”

“In principle I’m supportive of the events being held on Leith Links but the reality is that for large commercial events there just isn’t the parking capacity to enable them to operate. There are no car parks within the vicinity so it just isn’t viable.”

“strongly oppose this”

VULNERABLE MISSING MAN – LEITH, EDINBURGH

**Update as of 22:25 on 8/2/20 – Robert has been found.**

Police are appealing for assistance in tracing 83-year-old Robert Low who has been missing from Albert Street, Leith, since earlier this afternoon Saturday, 8 February 2020.Image may contain: 1 person, close-up

Robert is described as white, 5ft4 in height, of slim build and when last seen was wearing a blue checked jumper and tracksuit bottoms. No further details at this time.

Inspector Grant McCulloch, Craigmiller Police Station, is asking people to keep a look out for Mr Low. he said:

“We have officers carrying out a search of the area around Albert Street at the moment but would ask members of the public, especially taxi and bus drivers who may be in the area, to keep a look out for Robert.

“He doesn’t, as far as we know, have any money with nor a mobile phone with him. He may have gone into one of the local licensed premises so if you have seen him, then please contact Leith Police Station via 101 and quote reference number 2477 of 8 February, 2020”.

Community encouraged to make views known regarding proposed redevelopment of Leith Links pavilion

 

The Leith community croft at the north-western edge of the Links has submitted a planning application 19/06154/FUL – to carry out repair, refurbishment and extension to vacant dilapidated former tennis pavilion for community use, at 1 John’s Place, EH6 7EL.

You can view the application here and comment directly via the city council’s planning portal by the deadline of 14/02/20.An artist's impression of the plans for the Leith Links pavilion (Photo: Simpson and Brown)

Leith Links Community Council (LLCC) has been granted an extension of one week, at our request, until 21/02/20, to give us more time to consult with the community. As well as, or instead of, commenting directly on the portal you can comment by email to LLCC or below on this LLCC website, whether your view is positive, neutral, or negative. And we would respect any wish to remain anonymous, should it be requested.

In January 2020 we posted about plans by Leith Community Crops in Pots to transform a pavilion on Leith Links, view the original article by clicking here


 

Leith Links event application: Circus Extreme July 2020

Earlier today City of Edinburgh Council made us aware that they are considering a new application for an event to be held on Leith Links this summer.

Great Russian Circus Limited wish to bring their Circus Extreme show to the links. Their plan seeks to allow up to 1400 per performance with up to thirty vehicles on the site.

 

Unfortunately, the Council provides a very short window to consider & respond to applications, with the Community Council response to be submitted by 13 February 2020.

Leith Links Community Council would ask our community to submit their views, concerns and / or suggestions in relation to this current application to us by noon on 10 February 2020, this will allow us to take them into account & include them in our formal response to the application.

To submit your views, concerns and / or suggestions please use the form at the end of this post.


CircusExtreme
The information in this box with be shared with Leith Links Community Council and City of Edinburgh Council.
The information in this box will be shared with Leith Links Community Council.
The information in this box will shared with Leith Links Community Council, City of Edinburgh Council and publicly published. You should not put any information in this box which you feel is private or confidential, or would otherwise not wish to be public knowledge.

Brexit leads to a reduced membership of Leith Links Community Council

Following the United Kingdoms departure from the European Union at 23:00 on Friday 31 January 2020 the membership of Leith Links Community Council has decreased by six.Image result for european parliament

As per section 5.4 of the City of Edinburgh Council Scheme of Administration for Community Councils the six Members of the European Parliament representing the Scotland constituency are ex-officio members of our Community Council.

However, following Brexit the six MEPS elected by Scotland in May 2019 no longer hold office, and therefore are no longer members of our Community Council.

 

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.

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.

1 2 3 5