NTBCC minutes Monday 12 October 2021

Minutes of New Town & Broughton Community Council’s ordinary meeting, held via Zoom, on Monday 12 October 2020 at 7pm

Actions and decisions are red italic. ND (‘no dissent’) means that no-one spoke or voted against a decision.

1 Technology check

The meeting opened online at 6:45 pm to enable all attendees to connect before the start of business.

2 Welcome/Admin/Apologies/Well-being

2.a Attendance

Mike Birch NTBCC, RRCTMA Richard Price NTBCC
Susan Duff NTBCC David Renton NTBCC
Annick Gaillard NTBCC Alan Welsh NTBCC
Laura Graham NTBCC Peter Williamson NTBCC, Picardy Residents
Stephen Hajducki NTBCC Bruce Ryan Minutes secretary
Deirdre Henderson NTBCC Alan McIntosh Broughton Spurtle
Simon Holledge NTBCC/EACC Cllr Joanna Mowat City Centre ward
Carol Nimmo NTBCC Cllr Hal Osler Inverleith Ward
Susan Macinnes NTBCC ~23 residents/visitors

2.b Apologies for absence

Ken Lochrie NTBCC Cllr Max Mitchell Inverleith ward
Cllr Amy McNeese-Mechan Leith Walk ward

3 Minutes of 13 September meeting, and matters arising

  • Approved as-is (proposed A Welsh, seconded M Birch, ND).
  • No matters arising

4 Police report

See text of report in appendix 1, or PDF on NTBCC website.

  • Some NTBCC members were disappointed by the report’s lack of information relevant to NTBCC residents’ safety, such as
    • Omission of a serious, racially motivated attack near the Omni Centre on Friday. (People of other protected characteristics have also been targeted in this area.)
    • Omission of information on support for forthcoming road-changes.
    • Absence of information over preparations for CoP26 that would affect NTBCC’s area.
      • It was noted that CoP26 is relevant because all police leave has been cancelled (in part because ~36,000 attendees are expected), and many VIPs (including the UK Queen and US President) will stay in Edinburgh.
    • There was disappointment at lack of police attendance at NTBCC meetings.
      • It was noted that the speeding predicted in the report is already occurring, and the police may not have the resources to enforce against this.
    • Later, it was noted that the format of the police report (a PowerPoint slideshow containing scans of text) was not suitable for visually impaired readers.
    • Action: L Graham and C Nimmo to tell the police that NTBCC appreciates receiving the newsletter but has the above concerns.

5 Environment

5.a GPB Campaign update

  • P Williamson noted
    • To extend the campaign, NTBCC’s environment committee will produce leaflets that are themselves less information-dense than previous leaflets, but contain links to more information and can be blown up to poster size.
    • The CEC report was disingenuous because it claimed engagement had covered all of Edinburgh but there had only been 12 events attended by ~600 people, so the report had no robust data. Investigation of a trial in Albert St had obtained only a 10% response rate. Hence CEC should be clear about how it will engage fully with citizens.
    • CEC has recently stated that its approach in the world heritage area will be subject to a further options appraisal, including engagement with residents and consultation with Edinburgh World Heritage.
  • C Nimmo: a few councillors asked interesting questions at a recent CEC meeting. It is possible that some of the engagement covered in the report is from long ago. It is not yet clear whether NTBCC should approach CEC or vice versa. NTBCC needs to hear from all interested citizens in the World Heritage site, especially those who have shared (communal) waste bins. (There are already some partial non-fixed bin-hubs, e.g. in Hart St.) NTBCC members from such areas need to find out more about what their neighbours think, and NTBCC needs to disseminate information in these areas.
  • Cllr Mowat: CEC today emailed councillors in the area where a TRO is needed to install new bins, stating the first engagement is on Wednesday 13 October (Marchmont). I have responded that 2 days’ notice is inappropriate, and much better advertising is needed. An engagement is due in Bellevue in November.
  • A Welsh: the main problem is CEC’s ‘one-size-fits-all’ preference. Much of Edinburgh is not tenanted but much of NTBCC’s area is, and is an outlier because of use of gull-proof bags. In the long run, some compromise will be needed, perhaps smaller hubs. Engagement with local citizens is needed, perhaps via the TRO process.
  • C Nimmo: there is an 83%:17% split between those who do and support NTBCC’s online campaign from the poll running on the NTBCC website.
  • A resident: what are the results of Angus Robertson MSP’s survey? Edinburgh World Heritage is not doing much on this topic, so what would we like them to do?
    • C Nimmo: that survey may still be open. (Minute-taker’s note: as of 17 October, it is still open.)
  • M Birch: there is an important difference between consultation (being done with Edinburgh World Heritage) and engagement, i.e. just giving out information. The engagement in Southside has 9-days’ notice. This is a ‘ridiculous’ waste of CEC officials’ time. CEC planning officers have decided that no environmental impact assessment (EIA) is needed for locations of bins in the World Heritage site; because the Council’s Planning department has assessed that there will be no significant impact on the area. This is contrary to NTBCC’s, Edinburgh World Heritage’s and Historic Environment Scotland’s views that streetscape is part of the area’s universal value, so it is not understood how planning officers arrived at their decision.
  • A resident: Although NTBCC’s online campaign has registered about 500 people being against the current proposals; I suspect that most people have not heard of the proposals. To date, the main campaigning is about retaining gull-proof bags, which are not used in significant parts of our area, so such campaigning does not speak to such residents. The term ‘bin-hubs’ gives a false impression: ‘bin-dumps’ is more realistic. In Albert St (length ~480m) there are 17 ‘bin-whatevers’ so they are ~28m apart, not the advertised ~100m apart. This leads to permanent piles of garbage. I agree this is not a traffic/TRO issue.
  • B Ryan: so how should NTBCC update its online campaign? How long should it remain in its current format?
    • A Macintosh: NTBCC’s online campaign has a very leading statement before asking ‘do you support NTBCC’s campaign?’ This tactic is contrary to NTBCC’s criticism of other campaigns with leading questions or statements.
    • C Nimmo: this adds to the need to change NTBCC’s online campaign. NTBCC needs to get its own material out, so more of its members need to help with publicity.
  • C Nimmo: a deposit scheme is forthcoming, covering bottles, some plastics, juice containers and drinks cans. This should make a huge (welcome) difference to what is recycled, so there should be much less need for on-street recycling bins [in the hubs]. Hence a pause is needed on any permanent fixtures. NTBCC will ask about this.
  • P Williamson: an EIA is needed. There is lack of relevant information. The CEC report claimed hubs would enable space for social distancing, and improve local environments, aesthetics and cleanliness. However, there is no evidence put forward in support for this. The mention of engagement does not match my understanding of the CEC report, which mentions further options appraisal including consultation. Hence just drop-ins will not be sufficient. I can ask Paul Lawrence what the plans [for engagement/consultation] really are, so NTBCC can then help publicise them, and ask for more notice of consultations.
  • M Birch: NTBCC’s web-campaign should be broadened to not exclusively mention gull-proof bags. It’s easy to get relevant material onto the NTBCC website. Gull-proof bag campaigners elsewhere are keen to help get information out.
  • A Gaillard: Cllr Doran had mentioned staff safety being a factor in this debate. The example of a hub I’ve seen looks hazardous, so residents’ health and safety is important. I will ask officials on Wednesday how specifically Blenheim Place, Rose St (which is liable to be damaged by bin-lorries and another street that is steep will be, so we have practical detailed examples of what is planned.
  • Cllr Osler: in Inverleith ward, the current system does not work. If more streets are added to this system, it will be even more strained. There is capacity to trial new systems in areas that already have bin-hubs, so additions should not be made until there is one or more functioning systems. NTBCC’s campaign can be increased by asking for this.
  • A resident: CEC should ascertain and deliver residents’ wishes. NTBCC’s role is to campaign for its residents’ wishes.
  • Action: P Williamson to write to Paul Lawrence as suggested above

5.b Update from Environment Committee meeting on Communal Bin Review across NTBCC area

See above discussion

5.c Draft 2030 Climate Strategy – Council discussion/report at this week’s Policy & Sustainability Committee

See also full report on NTBCC website.

  • S Holledge: the consultation closed on 12 September, and a report went to CEC policy and sustainability on 5 October. This decided that £50,000 would be allocated for a community climate forum including EVOC, Our Future Edinburgh and EACC. I hope for more information on how the money would be spent. EACC has a meeting on this topic on 21 October.
  • S Hajducki: environmental concerns have existed for more than 20 years. It’s now time for an action-plan, not platitudes. There were omissions in the report, e.g. no discussion of the current (i.e. baseline) position, so it’s not possible to assess outcomes of any actions. Climate change has been happening for millennia, so we need to consider steps that cannot wait, e.g. fixing drainage. Other omissions include the effects of tourism on construction, e.g. use of much concrete. There were no cost considerations, e.g. that heat-pumps are expensive to run and do not deliver overall savings. Burning waste to create energy is not sustainable. Electric vehicles improve immediate environments but require significant increases in electricity generation. There was no mention of hydrogen as a fuel, or that many Edinburgh buildings paid off their carbon footprints a long time ago. Initiatives need to be at the scale of Scottish or UK government: individual cities can’t make much difference, so this plan is mostly virtue-signalling.
  • A Welsh: buildings in the World Heritage site were not designed for current levels of rainfall. Hence planning policy should permit adaptation of buildings, otherwise they will be lost.
  • S Holledge: Edinburgh World Heritage has been active considering the impact of climate change to the area. Information is available. Climate is the biggest, most complex issue we face, so I’ve been trying to arrange talks by relevant people, but they are all unavailable due to CoP26.

6 Transport

See also full report on NTBCC website. All points below by M Birch unless otherwise noted.

  • I welcome A Gaillard to NTBCC’s transport committee.
  • When this meeting’s agenda was created, it was thought the main transport topic would be trams and Picardy Place. However, CEC is due to review a report on Spaces for People this week. This includes proposals for:
    • Waverley Bridge: NTBCC previously noted that this has led to buses being displaced to St Andrews Square and Regent Rd, neither of which are designed to be bus stands. This is also causing congestion and other hazards.
    • East end of Princes St: the bus-gate here would be retained via an experimental TRO, but the trams project wishes this area to be a diversion route while it works on Picardy Place, so it’s not clear whether the gate will be retained.
    • London Rd: NTBCC is concerned about the location of the cycle-lane here, and that it encourages cyclists to go into the middle of the tram-work
    • Broughton St: a review would be undertaken, to lead to an ETRO. This differs from previous plans to remove almost all SfP measures here. NTBCC needs to understand how and when this review will be undertaken.
      • Broughton St Roundabout: there are plans (without detail) to improve pedestrian crossings here.
    • Bellevue to Canonmills: changes (removal of the scheme) north of Rodney St are now planned for November, but other details are unclear.
  • I have also been investigating options for a participation request under the Community Empowerment Act 2015.
    • Action: NTBCC transport committee to consider this option.
  • There has been some work on identifying potential changes to pedestrian crossings. So far assessments have considered changes’ detriment to traffic-flows, not their benefits to pedestrians, contrary to CEC traffic hierarchy (page 24 of City Mobility Plan).
  • A Welsh: I’m concerned that the latest planned diversion for tram-works is divided between buses and non-buses, the former using London Rd, Annandale St, East London St, Broughton St. Hence the trams project is undermining SfP plans. There appears to be no co-operation between trams and SfP staff.
  • NTBCC should restate its position on these by a deputation to the CEC meeting.
    • Cllrs Mowat and Osler: we recommend oral deputations, especially for virtual meetings, so there can be dialogue.
    • Decision: NTBCC to submit a deputation

6.a Buses on East London St

  • It is welcome that there has been positive work to reduce numbers of buses here in early mornings and late at night. Buses will now go out via Annandale St, and so get caught in tram diversions, which will increase time taken to get onto routes. However Lothian Buses will not increase numbers of buses on ELS until May 2022 (phase 2 of tram works), but this will only be an increase of 2 buses on ELS each morning and evening.
  • There has been discussion between the trams project and local councillors on traffic-calming and speed-reduction measures on ELS, including installation of a controlled pedestrian crossing and road-narrowing. There are already concerns that there are too many vehicles using (and speeding on) this setted street that also has a primary school. Existing defects on this road also need to be addressed.
  • Cllr Mowat: Cllr Miller and I met with the trams project, welcoming such measures. Tarmac could be laid temporarily to reduce traffic noise but this might increase speeds. Also, bins could be used to narrow the road, so long as this is safe for bin-users. I will meet with the trams project this week about Picardy Place: input is welcome.

6.b Leopold Place

  • The trams project has now agreed to pay for resurfacing here. This should take place in the next 2 months.

6.c Update from Trams to Newhaven team (CCTT meetings) including any updates on York Place etc.

See also some points in item 6.a.

6.c.i Modelling

  • NTBCC had been told that modelling was complete, and that this supported closing the left-hand lane. However, it’s now been admitted that modelling has not been done. Hence the basis for decisions is not robust. It has been promised that modelling will be shown to CCTT.

6.c.ii Leith Walk

  • NTBCC have engaged with Living Streets and LCCC about Elm Row public realm, where the cycle-lane would be split in a very congested area, thus reducing pavement to below Edinburgh Street Design Guidance recommendations. It would also make getting on and off buses difficult here. Thus rationale for the split is not clear. Proposed to now l contact the Edinburgh Access Panel.
    • A Gaillard: the split may be to preserve trees.
    • C Nimmo: it is planned to remove these trees.

6.c.iii Picardy Place

  • I had expected PP to grind to a halt, but traffic is flowing today. (Queen St and Broughton St were blocked yesterday.)
  • Pavement at the top of Broughton St has been widened, despite previous information that this was not possible.
  • The uppermost bus stop on Broughton St is currently out of service due to the reduction to a single lane at the top of Broughton St. However, there isn’t an overall plan for buses, and different groups are doing different things. The impact of the North Bridge closure in November will be very wide.
  • Signage about traffic lanes could be better, and I’m concerned about bus stops on York Place causing congestion.
  • A Gaillard: there is lack of pedestrian access on the PP roundabout while work is in progress. (See map on Spurtle website.) This area is busy in mornings and evenings. The Playhouse has reopened, so this area is very busy. While queuing is orderly, pedestrian traffic is spilling onto cycle-paths, thus endangering pedestrians. There are concerns about the entrance to a hotel.
    • M Birch: pedestrian access will move as work progresses. There are other access-points now shown on that plan.

–– A comfort-break was taken at this point. ––

7 Planning

See also full report on NTBCC website. All points by R Price unless otherwise noted.

  • NTBCC needs to work out how to share its planning and other reports with residents before meetings.
  • A resident: I very much thank councillors who voted against the demolition of BUPA House.

7.a PAN for Beaverhall House & other proposals in the area

  • There are 2 relevant applications. One has already lodged to demolish and redevelop the Edinburgh Furniture Initiative building on Logie Green Rd into 48m apartments. This application is quite sympathetic and broadly acceptable, and the applicant has tried quite well to consult widely.
  • The larger application (~1·25 acres) is for Beaverhall House, a brick-built former biscuit factory (W & M Duncan) in Beaverhall Rd. This has been bought by a developer, who is now consulting on how to use the site prior to applying for planning permission. The building currently contains many artists’ studios, warehouses, offices etc. The developer wishes to retain current tenants, but there will be a gap in their tenancy during demolition and rebuilding. The developer and agent plan to meet with current tenants this week (13 October).
    • ~200 residential units would also be created here. More information is online at co.uk. This area is moving from mixed use to mainly residential, raising needs for infrastructure and services. It is a shame that this area has not had a masterplan.
    • A resident: I have run a gym here for 12 years. Many business owners here are concerned about lack of information form the developer. More than 80 people may lose their jobs when the current building is closed for demolition.
    • R Price: please keep me informed the developer’s responses to your concerns. If they are not satisfactory, NTBCC can take this on.
    • A Gaillard: this is not just about reserving places for existing tenants but also about how long they would be out, and where they would go during redevelopment. For example, the original Freemasons’ building on Leith Walk (Shrub Hill) was demolished and then a replacement building (& a bigger space) was provided in the new development, however matters took so long that the club disbanded. Could businesses be moved within the current wider area as redevelopment is done?

7.b Edinburgh Christmas Market (amended applications for EPSG & George Street and a new application for WPSG)

  • The context is that ECM has been run by Underbelly for ~5 years. About 3 years ago, Underbelly submitted 3 applications for 2020-2021, planning to use less of Princes St Gardens (PSG) than in 2019, but to expand ECM onto George St, Castle St and the High St.
  • NTBCC had objected to the previous application for East PSG due to proposed use of soft standing. NTBCC did not comment on the George St application for 2020-2021. CEC approved applications for East PSG and George St, but did not approve the application to use the High St. ECM did not take place in 2020 due to coronavirus. The High St application has now been withdrawn.
  • Underbelly has now submitted 3 new applications (one for East PSG, one for West PSG, one for George St), seen as variations on the original 3. These are open for comment until 22 October 2021.
    • The proposals for East PSG are similar but larger than those approved for 2020-2021, which left the remembrance garden free of activities but used the anchor points next to the Scott monument for large fairground attractions. Overall, this application is more intensive than the previous version, so NTBCC should object.
    • There was no previous application to use West PSG, so this application is new. Some of this would be on hard standing, broadly in line with local wishes, but some elements of the proposal would be on grassed areas.
    • The George St application would have food and drink outlets and other stalls, and a couple of big diesel generators. Apart from those, this application is less intensive than the previous approved application which covered George Street and Castle Street.

Only been a few objections have been lodged so far.

  • S Holledge: Old Town CC is concerned about recent flooding and sewage problems in West PSG.
  • M Birch: diesel generators are very contradictory to zero-carbon efforts. However, planning officers have said that this is not relevant to planning. Applicants have not been required to undertake environmental impact assessments. We need to take relevant actions to enable change.
  • A resident: concerning George St, I run a charity based here. Last year, people working in GS were not aware of the application because paper notices were sent out to offices, yet many people were working at home. Many people did not see notifications on social media. ECM causes major disruption to charities in GS.
    • Action: C Nimmo to send this resident contact details for the George St Association.
  • S Hajducki: NTBCC has a responsibility to businesses in its area. The planned ice-rink would cover the entire carriageway, only benefitting ‘temporary incomer’ businesses but to the detriment of local restaurants etc. The rink should be narrower to allow local businesses to carry on more normally.
  • A Macintosh: there has been a long consultation process about transforming GS. Underbelly should not be allowed to set precedent for use of the ‘performance space’ and public areas here. Joined-up, consistent policy is needed for GS.
  • D Henderson: I concur. I am concerned this is about GS being dedicated to tourism. There is also concern about workers’ night-time safety because buses are being withdrawn.
  • M Birch: the Northern Lighthouse Board is concerned about plans for GS because NLB runs its lighthouses from GS.
  • R Price: the approved plan for George St appears to be contrary to some current CEC policies. I am happy to raise such concerns, but the applications are for 1 year, and will be determined by CEC planning, so NTBCC needs to be realistic. The longer term future of ECM should be to take into account the recent consultation results, while the Public Spaces for Events and Filming and City Plan 2030 policies should help to bring about something better for this part of Edinburgh. Hence NTBCC planning and other interested groups should reflect on the above comments.

8 Licensing

  • S Macinnes: there are no new applications or variations for NTBCC area, apart from applications for occasional licenses. I am concerned about lack of detail in the register, but have not been able to speak with CEC about this. It is curious that some businesses have applied for contiguous two-week occasional licenses.
    • Cllr Mowat: occasional licenses may be about extending licensed areas, or may be contiguous because applications for other types of license have not yet been processed. We are working to improve relevant information systems.
    • R Price: the Cumberland has had occasional licenses continually since May or June. This seems to be an abuse.

8.a Short term lets: control area consultation (now open until 5 November)

  • D Henderson: last week the Scottish Government announced a significant change in proposed legislation, due to be voted on later this year, in that the register of STL ‘landlords’ will now not show their names, only agency contacts. This may well facilitate bad actors. This will affect much of Scotland.
    • R Price: NTBCC can respond to CEC’s current STL consultation and I think this would be consistent with our previous position and hence should support the provision of STL Control areas in the New Town. The Scottish Government legislation may not be for so relevant for NTBCC.
    • C Nimmo: this legislation may be relevant to NTBCC’s residents?
    • A resident: one can obtain data on numbers of meetings of MSPs and STL companies. How many such meetings have occurred with CEC councillors and officials?
    • C Nimmo: an option would be to submit an FOI request.
    • S Holledge: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com would be useful for FOI requests.
    • Action: DH to circulate relevant information to NTBCC members.

9 Engagement and Communications

9.a ‘Use of Public Spaces for Events and Filming’: NTBCC views

See also full report on NTBCC website.

  • S Holledge: this was known previously as the Public Spaces Management Plan. A consultation is open until 15 December, see https://consultationhub.edinburgh.gov.uk/sfc/use-of-public-open-space-for-events-and-filming/. Parts of the report to CEC Culture and Communities Committee are worthy of support, these include key principles such as respect, contributions to Edinburgh’s cultural identity, quality of life for residents and adherence to net-zero aims.
    • The consultation has a significant amount of jargon. I am happy to help NTBCC members get through this.
    • Cllr Osler: the original PSMP was based on four CEC motions, including motions on the remembrance garden, generators and amplified music. However the plan did not deal with them, so councillors will use other tactics to comply with these motions.
    • S Holledge: we were disappointed that the workshops did not, due to time constraints, get to discuss guidelines, only the key principles. We want the involvement in the development of the guidelines, because they deal with the topics Cllr Osler has mentioned.

10 Any other business & news from local Residents’ Associations etc.

10.a ‘Adopt a street’ by local residents’ / friends’ groups – any interest?

Held over to next meeting.

  • Action: NTBCC to put this as the start of the next meeting’s agenda

10.b NTBCC membership update

No discussion

11 Appendix 1: text of police report

11.a Looking Back

  • September continued to see the city centre returning to pre-Covid19 levels of traffic and pedestrian foot flow. Officers are working alongside partner agencies such as City of Edinburgh Council CCTV and Street Assist to ensure minimal disruption during the night time economy. Operation Nightguard continues on a Friday and Saturday night with extra officers on patrol in the New Town and Broughton area providing support and reassurance to the community.
  • Within the area, there were a number of thefts from shops involving the suspects entering staff rooms and stealing personal items. A male responsible for this was traced shortly after, before being arrested and charged with offences. Community officers will be engaging with these premises to ensure best practices in keeping those areas secure.
  • There were reports of a break in to a business premises in the New Town and we would urge any suspicious behaviour to be reported to the police. A person was traced nearby for this incident and arrested in connection with it.
  • City centre officers dealt with an incident on Rose Street where 5 pedestrians were hit bit by a car in the early hours of the morning. The vehicle continued onto Lothian Road before striking a bus. All injured persons are in a stable condition with a 36 year old male arrested in connection with it.
  • Your community officers also worked on a number of operations throughout the city centre including football matches at Tynecastle, various protests, a music festival and a Royal Visit.

11.b What We’re Noticing

Unfortunately, a large number of vehicles within the area have been targeted, whereby a window has been smashed and contents stolen from within. Our Central Initiative Team based at the West End conducted an investigation, resulting in a male being arrested and charged with 9 offences. Local Sergeants have been made aware of these incidents and extra patrols have been carried out by response officers, as well as your local community officers to deter such behaviour.

This is of course no fault of any owners/drivers, we would of course urge everyone to ensure that any valuables are not left on open display within vehicles. Ideally, any personal items such as purses, wallets and bags are removed from the vehicle when parked up. Also, that any suspicious behaviour is reported to police, however, I appreciate that the times of these incidents have been when most are sleeping.

  • If you have a garage “use it” and lock it. If you have gates ensure these are locked. Consider using an alarm for your garage and gates.
  • Leaving items on show is an invitation – mobile phones, electronic equipment, coins, sunglasses, tools, clothing and bags should be removed from the vehicle or placed in the boot.
  • Keys and ignition fobs should be kept safe and out of sight and reach – a common way to steal a car or van is to take the keys or ignition fob, either when left in the vehicle or from your home through burglary.
  • Always lock and close the windows of your vehicle when unattended – on the drive, the petrol station forecourt or when parking, an unlocked vehicle is the easiest to steal or steal from. When away from home, consider using a Park Mark approved car park.
  • Fit theft resistant number plate fittings – stolen number plates are commonly used to hide the identity of stolen vehicles. Use one-way clutch head screws to secure plates.
  • Use a steering wheel lock and/or a lock that fits over the gear lever. Alternatively a security box can be fitted over the pedals to prevent thefts when the vehicle is parked up.
  • Double check: listen out for the sound of your doors locking, lights flashing and/or mirrors closing. if you don’t hear or
  • see this if make sure to double check.
  • Fit a tracker: These devices can alert you when your car in active and if its traveling in a new area.

11.c Looking Forward

  • With COP26 fast approaching, I wanted to update you on the effect this will have on your local officers now that all plans have been made. Local community officers are being seconded to Gayfield Police Station for 3 weeks. This will ensure continuity and local issues can still be addressed by officers with prior knowledge.
  • Local community officers are also in the process of implementing a Community Alcohol Partnership which encourages engagement with local off licences and education establishments. This partnership is a multi-agency initiative to tackle underage drinking and associated problems. A local survey has been sent out to gather the views of residents within the area.
  • If there are any issues which we feel you should know about, we will of course update you in the forthcoming newsletters, but if there is anything you would like us to address, or crime prevention information you would like us to provide, please let us know and we will tailor the content accordingly.

11.d Advice and Support

(This contained information on Victim Support Scotland, and people with dementia, but the text is too small to read.)

11.e About Us

  • Local Area Commander: Chief Inspector Clark Martin
  • Inspector Mark Hamilton
  • Sergeant Cameron Walker
  • Sergeant David Duthie
  • Plus 8 officers allocated to community issues in Edinburgh’s City Centre.


11.e.i Contact Us