by

NTBCC ordinary meeting minutes 11 August 2025

Minutes of New Town & Broughton Community Council’s ordinary meeting, held via Zoom on Monday 11 August 2025 at 8pm

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

URLs have been added by the minutes secretary.

Actions (to be omitted from online version)

1 Welcome and apologies

1.a Attendance

Fiona Banatvala NTBCC Susan MacInnes NTBCC Cllr Jack Caldwell Leith Walk ward
Michael Birch NTBCC Richard Price NTBCC Cllr Margaret Graham City Centre ward
Annick Gaillard NTBCC Nicholas Reid NTBCC Cllr Max Mitchell Inverleith Ward
Stephen Hajducki NTBCC Gerald Wells NTBCC Cllr Jo Mowat City Centre ward
Shaun Hodge NTBCC Peter Williamson NTBCC Alan McIntosh Spurtle
Joe McAdam NTBCC Bruce Ryan Minutes secretary At least 9 residents/visitors

1.b Apologies

Pierre Forissier NTBCC Vanessa Roëves NTBCC Cllr Hal Osler Inverleith ward
Simon Holledge NTBCC Cllr Finlay McFarlane City Centre ward
Ken Lochrie NTBCC Cllr Claire Miller City Centre ward

2 Declarations of interest

  • none

3 Approval of minutes of meeting June 2025 and matters arising

  • Approved as-is (proposed M Birch, seconded G Wells, ND)

3.a Actions from June meeting

Item Actor Action Status
3.a M Birch/NTBCC Forward CEC survey on governance/election to NTBCC members. NTBCC to hence submit written feedback Held over: MB to forward the survey link just now. See also item 4.c below
3.a M Birch Ask local councillors to ask Cllr Jenkinson to meet East London St residents Held over
6.a NTBCC Hold a separate meeting to decide how to proceed about Blenheim Place See item 5.e below
6.b R Price Circulate details of pre-application meeting about Thistle St Complete, hence feedback submitted
6.c NTBCC Hold a separate meeting on the former RBS site at Dundas St, including seeking honesty about letting intentions Complete: discussion held, submission made
6.d R Price Write a website post about CityScope Complete: circulated to NTBCC planning group. App appears to have disappeared
9.b M Birch Write to CEC officer to clarify NTBCC’s position on city mobility plan capital investment Complete
10 Cllr Mowat Investigate CEC’s plans around weeding Held over See also item 4.a
10 G Wells G Wells to compare NTBCC’s current and previous constitution In progress

4 Chair’s report

All points made by P Williamson unless otherwise noted.

4.a Pride In The City initiative

  • This initiative stems from CEC waste/cleansing: additional teams will tackle various wards (which are to be decided), to provide a range of services around cleansing, e.g. graffiti, dumped items. But there are questions:
    • How is it to operate?
    • What is NTBCC to do in this context? Could it build on its previous walkabouts to identify issues?
  • M Birch had circulated an email from CEC which stated that members should contact the relevant CEC group. August had been set for the city centre. MB had tried to obtain further information, but to no avail. (The CEC email stated it wouldn’t necessarily give feedback.)
  • Better communication is needed to understand what CEC offers/provides. For example, CEC has not responded to my request to deal with weeds in my area.
  • S Hodge: can NTBCCC map problem hotspots in its area?
    • Action: S Hodge to set up spreadsheet for NTBCC members to achieve this
    • Action: Bruce to create website form for NTBCC residents, from Shaun’s draft spreadsheet
    • NTBCC should manage expectations by not promising anything on these other than to pass on data to CEC. Alternatively, NTBCC could gather data about Mitu Miah’s area, which has problems.
    • Action: M Birch to ask CEC again what its plans for the city centre are.
  • R Price: according to CEC’s website, it will tackle the city centre in August, the South Side in September to November, other areas later. Hence NTBCC will need to act swiftly. CEC has done a good job in my part of Leith Walk ward.

4.b Edinburgh World Heritage update

  • There has been quite positive discussion by relevant community councils and residents’ associations (12 June, end of July). This is ongoing, in a sense, because appointment of EWH directors is not as open as it might be, and EWH is not drawing on local residents’ knowledge and commitment. Hence further proposals are needed from EWH.
  • M Birch: plans to change EWH’s constitution to a single tier are now on hold, so EWH will have to follow its existing articles of association. More detail of how this would work is needed. I will apply to be a member on behalf of my RA.
  • EWH seeks various skills, which is OK, but there needs to be geographical representation too.
  • M Birch: this is about board appointees having the necessary skills. Membership is a different topic. EWH could choose to reserve 2 memberships for local reps. It is positive that Terry Leventhal will become EWH’s director in September.

4.c Consultation on Community Council elections 2025 (29 August)

  • There are questions around CEC’s elections communications processes, and the requirement to sign a declaration, announced after the elections. This need and the content caused much concern, and was subsequently withdrawn.
  • M Birch: input from NTBCC members is needed to form its response. There are many other examples of lack of clarity.
    • Action: P Williamson to ask NTBCC members for their experiences/responses/views.
  • It may help to invite CEC governance to hear from CCs, so it knows that the election was not well run in some ways.
  • R Price: EACC is also looking for feedback. I have submitted mine. In October, EACC will hear from CEC governance.
    • Action: P Willimson to work via EACC on this.

4.d Police report

  • It is not satisfactory that these are intermittent. When there has been discussion, it appears not to have led anywhere.
  • S Hodge: reports appear to be generic. Police need to improve their attendance. I want to raise issues: for example, I was nearly run down on a zebra crossing, in part due to faded paintwork, in part because the driver was on his phone. The police responded quickly, taking suitable action. CEC has not responded to my request for repainting the crossing.
  • M Birch: the last police report was in April. NTBCC’s normal police contact had been on sick-leave. Because this meeting is via Zoom, which police cannot use, they might attend in September.
    • Action: S MacInnes to ascertain this, and chase for a report.
  • F Banatvala: is attending meetings too onerous on police and NTBCC? Can there be single points of contact, outwith meetings?
  • A Gaillard: there is an alternative to calling 101: Online Reporting Form | Police Scotland. But it’s unclear how to use this if the answer to question 1 is ‘no’. I’m puzzled as to how one should report burglary, theft, noise from neighbours, vandalism, graffiti and so on, (or how any meaningful statistics could be produced for that matter).
  • Cllr Mitchell: this method works well. There are also generic police email in-boxes. While there is immense pressure on police, presence at CC meetings can help people engage informally. CEC cllrs can pressure senior officers if needed. It takes police considerable time to generate statistics from their records.
  • Cllr Mowat: I can take NTBCC’s issues, e.g. about better contact, to police. I will chase about SH’s zebra crossing.
  • M Birch: A superintendent presented to EACC’s June meeting. There are more informal discussions with some Edinburgh CCs, which appear to be positive.
  • B Ryan: is there any analysis of trends in data in police reports etc? if not, can we do it?
  • Cllrs Mitchell and Graham: there are biennual reports with data to CEC. There is also coffee with a cop.

5 Planning matters

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

5.a Spiegeltent Application – St Andrews Square gardens

  • NTBCC and others have commented on the process and that it seems to get bigger each year. It was in operation before the comment-window had closed, putting CEC in a difficult position. DMSC’s discussion was robust, but DMSC will now work to get applications in earlier to enable proper scrutiny. See also this Spurtle article.
    • Cllr Mowat: if the application had been refused, the applicant could have appealed – and CEC couldn’t have imposed conditions about trees.

5.b Royal London Henderson Row live application (25/03716/FUL)

  • There had been a pre-application consultation with NTBCC. The plan is to make this former office building residential: there would be very few external changes apart from extending the roof in an ‘alien’ form. NTBCC should object to this ‘monstrous’ roof but otherwise congratulate the planned reuse of the existing building and the affordable housing.

5.c Charlotte Square

  • See item 8.f below.

5.d RBS site application – update

  • The current plan is for this to become student housing, because the buy-to-let market has decreased. This led to over 350 objections, including ones from NTBCC, the Cockburn Association and Edinburgh World heritage.
    • S Hajducki: is there an explanation of why the buy-to-let market has decreased?
    • It may be due to Scottish Government current and potential legislation, but others are coming back to buy-to-rent

5.e Blenheim Place

  • A Gaillard: in July NTBCC received a ‘cursory’ response to its complaint, and has 6 months to respond. M Birch has submitted an FOI request on appointments to the relevant CEC committee. It still appears that this committee was misled by officers, so there is scope to pursue this.
  • P Williamson/F Banatvala: NTBCC should not let this complaint lapse, mostly because of how the decision was made.
  • A Gaillard: there is a useful precedent in the opposition to 5G equipment on Gayfield Square, which resulted in equipment being removed due to a complaint being pursued. So there is hope for better scrutiny NTBCC continues.
  • Action: A Gaillard/P Williamson to organise a meeting about Blenheim Place.

5.f Baxter’s Place

  • A Gaillard: this planning application had been refused but operations have started. Enquiries have been lodged with CEC licensing and with CEC planning about breach of control. AG will continue pushing these enquiries.
    • R Price: there has been no appeal on the relevant planning decision.

5.g Other recent planning applications and appeals

See report. NTBCC has objected to Royal London plans, but fears that if this building becomes a hotel, St Andrews Square would only have hotels.

6 Licensing matters

All points made by A Gaillard unless otherwise noted.

6.a Regulatory updates

  • This morning’s regulatory affairs meeting discussed short-term lets with regard to confusion caused by needing licensing to obtain planning permission. A letter has been sent to the relevant SG minister – no reply yet. There were some also some statistics about serial renewal of licenses.
  • There is a Green motion to ban flypasts: these were reduced from 7 to 5 last year and 5 this year. There is an element of amenity to these flypasts, and people enjoy them. The CEC convenor wrote to the relevant UK minister, who replied that the CAA needs to permit these. However, the CAA has not received requests about the tattoo flypasts for 8 years.
    • Clllr Mowat: flypasts were not raised at recent (potentially) relevant meetings. I will review this.
  • There is a petition with 1700 signatures to cap Edinburgh’s number of private hire vehicles (PHVs, as opposed to black cabs). There are concerns that while black cabs are disability-and environmentally compliant etc, and that drivers must prove their knowledge and be vetted, these may not apply to PHVs and their drivers.
    • Cllr Mowat: CEC will commission a study to see if there is overprovision. Without this data, no cap could be made. All new PHV drivers get 3 days’ training, and must renew this regularly. Black cabs must be DDA

6.b Licensing Board’s decision on overprovisioning

  • There was a big majority to discard the current overprovision policy, due to it being used as blunt tool.
    • Cllr Graham: from now on, applications will be treated in accordance with this new policy.

6.c Recent licensing applications

There have been very few of these, and no new tattoo parlour applications

7 Culture and Communities matters

  • S Holledge (via email): the last meeting of the City Council’s Culture and Communities Committee was considered at the NTBCC June meeting. The next meeting of the Culture and Communities Committee is not until 21 August.
    • P Williamson: NTBCC will pursue the eclectic nature of these meetings’ agendas.
    • R Price: I suggest that NTBCC C&C committee looks ahead to CEC C&C meetings, rather than reporting after them.

8 Transport and Environment matters

See report on NTBCC website. All points made by M Birch unless otherwise noted.

8.a Communal bin review phase 6 consultation update

  • We know which streets will receive gull-proof bags (GPBs), and which will receive communal bin-hubs. Some people may not understand that waste collection arrangements will not necessarily be as they were before. There is insufficient/unclear evidence about some streets’ preferences so there will be further engagement about these streets (Carlton, Regent and Royal Terrace Mews, Drumsheugh Gardens, Eglinton Crescent, Lennox Street, Lennox Street Lane, Royal Circus North). Letters have been sent to these 413 properties, asking for preferences. Mews properties may also receive kerb-side services rather than green recycling bins.
    • I fear that NTBCC is being excluded from this engagement, and that there will be unclear results. Letters do not necessarily work, so there needs to be quality engagement.
    • A Lennox St resident and an Albany St resident: we have not received this letter.
    • NTBCC should post on its website, communicating what has been agreed, as part of acting as a community voice.
    • F Banatvala: Gloucester Place’s hub will be replaced, so it’s unwelcomely closer to housing. CEC comms are poor.
    • A resident: communal bin handles have now been turned inwards so it is hard to put rubbish in them.
    • A Royal Circus North resident: we have not yet received letters. We have created our own petition because we want to retain kerbside recycling and GPBs. How can we get this?
    • M Birch: you got onto the list due to your ongoing pressure. Summer holidays may be delaying communications. I am keen to engage with local groups to get a forum for moving together with CEC.
    • Cllr Mitchell: I received a copy of this and other relevant letters. The engagement ends on 31 August. The proposed location of your street’s hub appears to be outside #16. If you don’t receive the letter, we can send a PDF.
    • P Williamson: NTBCC is happy to offer whatever help it can.
    • Cllr Mowat: I can’t do much before Thursday due to committee commitments, but will liaise when I can.
    • A resident: thanks to Cllrs Mowat and Mitchell for their work.
    • M Birch: 31 August deadline is unreasonable. CCs meet once per month. We will highlight this.

8.b TRO 24/27 cycling exemptions – NTBCC objection

  • NTBCC submitted an objection, as did Living Streets. We won’t know how many until objections until the matter comes back to committee.

8.c George Street and First New Town: follow-up meeting

  • Our objections to the cross-street issues were dismissed, but there will be further follow-up with relevant CC officers.

8.d Trams to Newhaven – issues list and actions (to note)

  • CCTT met with Gareth Barwell for a 6-month review. Hence a dashboard is now on TTN’s website. There is concern whether there are sufficient resources to address the many identified issues.

8.e North/South tram route – forthcoming consultation

  • Much of the planned route will be outwith NTBCC’s area, but there will be impact on traffic management in the area. CEC will undertake a public consultation.

8.f Charlotte Square

  • There are some positive aspects to this public realm work, but it is not clear why it is being progressed with this priority when other projects are perhaps more deserving.
    • F Banatvala: CEC has not clarified this. CEC has talked about making quiet spaces but there is too much traffic noise etc for this to be possible. Those at the meeting were not prepared to discuss the merits of the whole scheme.
    • This is funded from active travel, so it should be treated as a transport/environment project.
    • R Price: the Cockburn Association did a walkthrough, leading to many questions. The handout provided dates from 2023. No information on how the changes would work has been provided. It’s not clear whether the project is heritage-led or transport-led. The square has become a coach-park. NTBCC should discuss this matter offline.
    • F Banatvala: if Queensferry St doesn’t have enough room for buses, then there might be a justification for use of the square. However, CEC seems not to have considered this, stating there is no demand.
    • P Williamson: this is yet another poor consultation by CEC. I will set up a meeting for NTBCC.

8.g ETRO 21/28A

  • Committee members have challenged the lack of information from CEC officers. There were no formal means for NTBCC to make representations, but committee members raised NTBCC’s concerns. The quality of responses from CEC officers was poor.

9 Any other business

  • A Gaillard: why are there now 3 cycle-lanes on Elm Row instead of 2?
    • Cllr Caldwell: one will be removed after the festival embargo. Other works (e.g. bollards, stop-kerbs) are due to be completed there too.
    • M Birch: I understand that there is an issue with delivery of suitable paving slabs.
  • S Hajducki: CEC needs to get its officers back into the office, rather than working from home.