by

NTBCC meeting minutes 26 September 2022

Minutes of New Town & Broughton Community Council’s ordinary meeting, at Broughton St Mary’s Church, on Monday 26 September 2022 at 7pm

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

1 Welcome/Admin/Apologies

1.a Attendance

Mike Birch NTBCC Nick Reid NTBCC
David Clarke NTBCC Bruce Ryan Minutes secretary
Annick Gaillard NTBCC Cllr Jack Caldwell Leith Walk ward
Laura Graham NTBCC Cllr James Dalgleish Leith Walk ward
Stephen Hajducki NTBCC Cllr Finlay McFarlane City Centre ward
Deirdre Henderson NTBCC Cllr Jo Mowat City Centre ward
Jack Hugh NTBCC Jenny Bruce Edinburgh World Heritage Trust
seconded to Edinburgh Council
Susan Macinnes NTBCC Gabriella Laing Edinburgh World Heritage Trust
Carol Nimmo NTBCC PC David Lee Police Scotland
Richard Price NTBCC 10 residents/visitors

1.b Apologies

Simon Hoilledge NTBCC Cllr Jule Bandel Inverleith ward
David Renton NTBCC Cllr Max Mitchell Inverleith ward
Alan Welsh NTBCC Cllr Vicky Mitchell Inverleith ward
Peter Williamson NTBCC Deidre Brock  MP Edinburgh North and Leith

2 Minutes of 8th August 2022 meeting and matters arising

Adopted as-is (proposed R Price, seconded M Birch, ND)

2.a Matters arising (if not mentioned below)

  • C Nimmo: thanks to Cllr McFarlane for following up on electric vehicle charging

3 Police report

PC Lee reported:

  • Police have been tackling youth antisocial behaviour in St James Quarter. A dedicated officer works here with staff and school liaison officers. 50 individuals are now banned from the city centre. This appears to have reduced trouble.
    • C Nimmo: has the problem simply moved here from Waverley Mall?
    • PC Lee: There is a lot less bother at the mall, but there may have been a shift: problems occur when there is a big empty space. Free bus travel may have contributed to problems. The new security manager is helping.
    • D Henderson: what is being done to give youths more positive options, e.g. using the currently empty shops?
    • PC Lee: as things open (e.g. in St James) there is more for youths to do.
  • Police have been undertaking speed checks in the Gt King St area.
  • There has been an increase in vehicle crime across Edinburgh. Significant numbers involve motorbikes in George St. A city-wide operation is in progress.
    • M Birch: motorbike thieves were recently filmed by the US consulate’s CCTV. They seem to be very organised.
    • PC Lee: there is a dedicated team, operating out of Drylaw. It is aware of previous offenders.
    • PC Lee: if a crime is ongoing or threatened, people should call 999. Otherwise phone 999 or Crimestoppers.
  • There have been 2 incidents of housebreaking since the start of August. This is a ‘reasonably positive’ number.
  • There have been many patrols against ‘Tyre Extinguishers’, but no reports of further incidents.

3.a Q&A

Some questions and answers are noted above under the relevant main points.

  • M Birch: what can be done about people scooting and cycling on pavements?
    • PC Lee: neither is legal. E-scooters are legally motor vehicles so they should be insured and taxed, but companies will not insure them. Officers are stretched.
    • D Clarke: I remonstrated with a pavement cyclist, who then attempted to assault me.
    • PC Lee: The assault is a crime in itself. assaults are more pressing matters for Police Scotland.
  • D Henderson: please can Police Scotland provide crime statistics, as done for Leith Harbour & Newhaven CC?
    • Cllr Mowat: can statistics be broken down by time of day, so we can understand e.g. the night-time economy?
    • D Henderson/D Clarke: please also tell us about trends, especially how these refer to equalities matters.
    • PC Lee: some of this should be possible.
    • Action: NTBCC to decide which statistics it wishes.

4 Presentation: ONTE World Heritage Management Plan for 2022-7 Community engagement and Q&A with Gabriella Laing/Jenny Bruce

Ms Laing and Ms Bruce reported:

  • The current management plan expires at the end of 2022. It was created by a partnership between CEC, Edinburgh World Heritage Trust (EWH) and Historic Environment Scotland (HES).
  • UNESCO obliges creation of a new plan every 5 years, but this time may be extended.
  • The current plan was based on the Scottish Government’s ‘place standard’ methodology, but tailored to EWHT’s needs. It’s a place-based conversation around 14 themes, e.g. feeling safe, housing, spatial developments, visitor management, awareness of the EWH site. EWH picked out high- and low-scoring themes to build into its work. EWH has been thinking about reviewing the plan for ~2 years.
  • EWH now wishes to use the same methods to understand progress and needs. A consultation will be presented online in mid/late October 2022 on the Council’s Consultation Hub. EWHT It also has secured funding to undertake focus groups with different demographics within and outwith the WHS area. There will also be stakeholder workshops at the end of October: CCs within the site are key stakeholders, including NTBCC.

4.a Discussion/Q&A

  • R Price: NTBCC responded in 2016 using the place standard tool (PST). Can we do so again, referring to our 2016 submission? If so, will the tool be the same as in 2016?
    • Yes, but there will be an additional climate question. We hope the tool will go online in mid-October. This pre-plan engagement, via CEC’s Consultation Hub, to inform the draft plan will last 6 weeks. EWH will then analyse the consultation and stakeholder results to create a draft plan.
    • There will then be a formal consultation on the draft plan, using a summary of previous engagement and a full report, via Consultation Hub in 2023. The precise time depends on CEC’s committee cycles.
    • EWH is trying to engage with new voices as well as those who are already engaged. Hence there will be focus groups using appropriate facilitators for young people, people living within the site, people living outside it, different demographics, different abilities, and skill-sets.
    • Action: EWH to tell NTBCC precise details of focus group target demographics
  • D Henderson: Please can NTBCC see the questions in advance, so it can consider its response(s)?
    • They are already available.
    • Action: NTBCC to set up a session to generate an updated response to the PST and EWH to send stakeholder dates to NTBCC.
  • A resident: what status will the final plan have?
    • It will be a tool to support planning processes. EWH wishes this tool to be stronger. EWH has drawn out ~270 aspects of the city centre’s specialness, e.g. embodiment of the enlightenment, stone buildings, uniformity.
    • The City Plan (both current and proposed) requires regard to the new EWH plan, but the latter needs approval by CEC and HES.
    • EWH can make recommendations, but CEC can do/permit otherwise.
  • D Clarke: will the plan influence waste collection?
    • It’s already doing so. EWH meets weekly with the bin review team, considering each street and bin. Phase 4 of the review is being split into 2, so now phase 5 will cover the EWH site.
    • R Price: siting bins could be a major issue. Why is CEC sticking to requirements that residents disfavour (insisting that they are on the same side of the road to those use them whereas there are several examples of current General Waste bins being sited on the opposite side of the street, adjacent to a park/garden which minimises their impact with no apparent [reported] issues).
    • EWH reps: we had wondered about this. However, CEC are not supportive currently of forcing people to cross roads to access bins. EWH have already indicated their concern to CEC with this approach.
    • Cllr Mowat: the previous council may have been intransigent but the current one may be more open to discussion.
  • Gt King St Association rep: BIFFA has shown that recycling via communal bins does not work. Hence GKSA is trying another method, hoping it will work and then catch on in other areas. GKSA’s response to EWH is (1) the plan should be able to respond dynamically to events, so regular meetings are needed to discover and handle issues;
    (2) the EWH oversight committee has not met. We want it to be active, taking in CCs’ views, and review progress.

    • We agree.
  • M Birch: What is UNESCO’s role in approving the plan? Does it even visit the site?
    • No, but we inform them regularly. This is because EWH is not a devolved matter: it goes through the UK Government. UNESCO will receive a draft plan, and its advisors then respond.
  • Gt King St Association rep: our representative on the EWH trust died 2 years ago. GKSA has tried to send another rep, but was told that paying members are merely subscribers: they do not have votes at EWHT meetings. However street associations and CCs can apply to be voting members. The next EWHT AGM is on 5 December.
    • M Birch: a CEC councillor on EWHT board is on long-term sick-leave. Can someone else substitute for her?
    • Cllrs McFarlane/Mowat: this would need a full CEC motion because EWHT is a company. The other CEC board member is Cllr Euan Davidson (Corstorphine)
  • Action: NTBCC and residents’ groups to respond as discussed.

5 Engagement and Communications

5.a George Street & First New Town project: update – Stage 3 Design, Operational Plan and associated reports

  • D Henderson: NTBCC has not received the updated integrated impact assessment (due by the end of September).
    • DH: NTBCC has received the safety audit. It is welcome that this exists but it could be better. For example, it doesn’t identify different kinds of women. For example, there is discrimination against ethnic minority women. It could also cover women with disabilities, different levels of income, different working times etc.
    • DH: the last engagement on this was in March or April, and the audit does not mention NTBCC’s July submission. There is a line from the Edinburgh Access Panel, emphasising the importance of taxis and other vehicles for mobility-impaired people, but the report only mentions buses on side-streets and taxis in evenings.
    • DH: there are no further stakeholder meetings.
    • DH: overall, the equality assessment is so poor that I want to take it to the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
    • Action: DH to do this
    • Action: DH to circulate the audit and her critique

6 Planning

See also report in Appendix 1. All points made by R Price unless otherwise noted.

It was noted that all of NTBCC’s submissions are on CEC planning portal but NTBCC could have a better record of its work.

6.a 72/74 Eyre Place – revised applications

  • Local residents have submitted detailed objections. The proposal for townhouses on Eyre Place Lane is OK in principle but the details are poor. Hence NTBCC submitted a neutral comment on it, but objected to student accommodation.

6.b Former Royal High School (National School for Music) – update

  • NTBCC is happy that RRCTMA leads engagement with the applicant regarding possible impacts of demolition on local residents. . Demolition is likely to start earliest in Jan 2023.

6.c Dunard Centre (Impact) – latest news

  • This now has full planning permission. There are many funding sources, including the Dunard fund, but there may currently be a shortfall so fundraising is ongoing. Overall, there is positive progress.

6.d Floodlight pylons at Drummond tennis club

  • It was not clear that the neighbour notification was done well so NTBCC publicised it more. There were ~150 comments: more objections than supporting comments.
  • The application has now been withdrawn, but is likely to be resubmitted with more detail and pictures. It should also be clearer about the hours of operation. The club is surrounded on three sides by tall tenement buildings overlooking the club.
  • A resident (who is a club member): the club does not plan to open in the winter, because the playing surfaces do not permit this. The area is unique. The surrounding buildings cause noise reflection, and residents would see large areas of high illumination. 90% of objectors are immediate residents, while 90% of supporters live elsewhere.
  • Action: NTBCC to publicise this matter further.

6.e New applications

6.e.i 40-41 London St

There is now an application for this to become residential accommodation. (It’s currently a ‘sauna’.)

6.e.ii Marshall’s Court

  • A resident: the opportunity to comment on this application has now reopened.
  • Action: NTBCC to consider further actions

7 Environment

7.a Picardy Place (PP) – update from August 16th meeting and next steps

  • R Price: the discussion at this meeting was useful but in part a fait accompli. Questions included
    • Is PP is a dwell-space or thoroughfare?
      • Attendees’ answer: the latter because it’s too small and surrounded by vehicles, so it’s about pedestrian and cycle flows. It’s disappointing that the proposal is for hard landscaping without knowledge of future pedestrian flows from the relocated tram stop once it’s open..
    • is it in the right place?
      • There was a suggestion to leave it basically as it is now, then watch how it’s used. However, there is pressure to get it finished from within the council at the same time as tram-works finish.
    • RP: it is frustrating that the contractor will collate ideas into a ‘final’ design, but will not allow time for discussion of this given the newly-adopted schedule. (which NTBCC does not fully understand).
    • Cllr McFarlane: construction will happen in Spring 2023 during tram-testing. A ‘You said we did’ is due to be published in transport and environment committee meeting papers on Friday (6th October). There has been some movement since the meeting. There is a focus on delivering good SUDS (Sustainable Drainage Systems) , and a Scottish Water tap. There may be a third plinth, and trees. Hard landscaping can also mitigate against ‘hostile vehicles’ (i.e. it’s an anti-terrorism measure).
    • Cllr Mowat: there has been a long history of lack of budget for PP.

7.b Waste collection – rollout of CBH in NTBCC area as now approved

  • M Birch: this is about the N1 area. NTBCC has raised concerns because some of its input was not considered. However, CEC transport committee approved the TRO as submitted. Hence NTBCC should be clear when it is submitting objections, and get sufficient individual objectors, because a CC ‘vote’ has only the weight of a single resident’s ‘vote’.
  • MB: Roll-out is due to be paused for 6 months pending a consultant review but there has been no news about this for 3 months. If CEC does something that is known to be ineffective, this is a waste of residents’ money – and BIFFA has told us that communal bins do not improve recycling rates.
    • Gt King St rep: West Lothian and Stirling Councils now make money from its recycling, while CEC pays for its poor recycling. 90% of ‘recycling’ put in communal bins is incinerated, while 50% of door-to-door collections is recycled.
    • L Graham: there are issues for disabled residents who can’t make the lid-opening pedals work.
    • MB: there has not been a proper rights-based assessment of moving the risk from CEC to residents.
    • Cllr Caldwell: CEC intends to phase out these pedals, introducing smaller bins with lighter lids. Please CC ward councillors when submitting objections.
    • Cllr McFarlane: the area has been split due to another party’s amendment. Relevant papers should be published soon. I’ve pushed for good success metrics.
    • R Price: the situation in the N1 area is very, very poor: recycling bins are full of rubbish. However siting waste and recycling bins next to each other is a good idea. I fear that while the new set up will be better, it will still be far from optimal. But CEC should just get on with it, and see how well it works.
    • Cllr Caldwell: the new system is in action – and observable – in Leith Central CC’s area.

7.c Calton Hill

  • C Nimmo/M Birch: there was a terrible mess here. Today, MB and I met with the hill’s custodian. CEC is not acting here. Hence a committed steering group is needed, as are better toilet facilities and other functional facilities. The mess has now been cleaned very well.
    • Cllr Mowat: CEC did a lot of work ~10 years ago but it’s now stopped.
    • Cllr McFarlane: CEC waste staff need training in cleaning graffiti from heritage works
    • L Graham/Cllr Mowat: a friends group could be created. Grants are available for such initiatives.

7.d ‘Fly Festival 2022’ and PSMP (Public Spaces Management Plan) update

  • C Nimmo/R Price: this has been postponed for 1 year: this year’s tickets will be valid next year.
  • Cllr McFarlane: the PSMP is coming to CEC culture and communities committee in the current CEC cycle
  • Post meeting note: the PSMP [‘Use of Public Spaces for Events & Filming’] appears to have been delayed/removed from the culture & communities committee meeting agenda for 4th October) .

8 Transport

See also report in appendix 2. All points raised by M Birch unless otherwise noted.

8.a East London Street/Drummond Place and Lothian Buses

  • There was a good meeting of ELS and DP residents, Lothian Buses and Cllrs. I have now written to LB because their response is that it cannot do anything now but will do so as conditions permit. Can Cllrs help get LB to set goals etc?
  • Team-works will close Leith Walk from Picardy Place to Annandale from ~1st Oct for 10 days, so buses will be rerouted.
  • A resident: drivers under instruction are going along ELS. I count 50 buses in 2 hours, not 50 a day as promised. I would like to give further details at a future meeting.
  • Some traffic is going down Broughton St so not traffic is all along ELS. However GPS AIs learn the routes people use and then promote them, leading to extra use.

8.b EV charging – update

  • 3 out of 4 chargers on ELS are working. There is a mismatch between CEC’s website and the truth.
  • NTBCC needs to ensure heritage issues are properly considered in further roll-outs.

9 Licensing

See also report in appendix 4. All points raised by A Gaillard unless otherwise noted.

Thanks to St Mary’s Cathedral representative for providing feedback at this meeting

9.a Short Term Lets 2022 – consultation2 – NTBCC response

See NTBCC response (submitted by A Gaillard) in appendix 3

  • I have submitted NTBCC’s response, and will circulate this to members
  • After 1st October, new STL hosts or operators will need licenses. Existing hosts or operators will have until 1st April to apply for licenses.
  • The consultation refers to home-sharing, home letting and secondary letting; SL will also need change of use permission.

9.b Other licensing points

  • The licensing board met this morning. It will consider the statement of licensing policy and overprovision assessment.
  • There will soon be a consultation on the draft policy, covering (1) preventing crime and disorder; (2) securng public safety; (3) preventing public nuisance; (4) public health; (5) protecting children.
  • The board will also consider, relative to overprovision, licensing hours, extension of licensing hours, children and young people’s access to premises, temporary licensing and occasional licensing. (There is currently no limit on the number of times OLs can be renewed.)
  • As far as I know, no licensing application in the city centre has been denied.
  • I am now on the licensing forum. It next meets on Wednesday. It has 6 trade members and 6 community members.
  • There has been no response to NTBCC’s objection to an occasional license for St James Square.
  • An application for Baxter’s Place has been withdrawn
  • I have engaged with the heads of licensing and trading standard enforcement. The online documentation is very poor. The new system should benefit the public by rapidly providing information, as the planning portal does. Currently it can take 5 months for information to become available online.
  • NTBCC is not a statutory consultee for licensing of outdoor temporary events. St James has declined to send a representative. There is less protection of residents from noise from outdoor events than from licensed premises. A particular example is St James/Cathedral Square: the Cathedral has not been warned of public entertainment events.
    • St Mary’s Cathedral rep: we used to be able to tell St James Quarter about our bookings, so there would be less noise interrupting weddings and funerals. A public space in the middle of Picardy Place may cause interruptions.
  • Residents chose not to submit noise complaints about Bar Hütte (St James Square). No noise impact assessment was supplied as part of that application. While this space now cannot be used for such ‘events’, Bar Hütte season 2 may still take place.

10 Finances – Treasurer update

Carried over to October

11 Any other business & news from local residents’ associations

  • All matters carried over to October.
  • Decision: the next scheduled NTBCC meeting on Monday 10th October will be on Zoom

12 Appendix 1: planning report

12.a 72 /74 Eyre Place – revised applications

As discussed at previous meetings, following the pre-application consultation for this site in March 2022 (formerly Jewson’s yard) – which was originally intended as a 200+ student block (PBSA) – in early August, 2 separate planning applications were lodged (22/03833/FUL for 9 [4 bed] townhouses) & 22/03834/FUL (for a 146 bed PBSA).

Local residents’ groups were very active and submitted detailed objections to the PBSA with a more nuanced position regarding the 9 townhouses. The Cockburn Association have also submitted similar comments. NTBCC requested to be a statutory consultee & as such, although comments to both applications were closed to the general public on 2nd September, NTBCC had until 15th September to submit representations on both applications.

NTBCC’s position was to formally object to the PBSA application, both in terms of the height / massing of the proposed blocks as well as questioning if this is a suitable location for student accommodation. It is clear that the proposal will have significant impact on the amenity of existing residents in the area.

Whilst we agree with the principle of redeveloping the lower extent of Eyre Place Lane for residential use, there are aspects of the proposal that merit further consideration & hence we propose submitting a neutral stance, supporting the principle.

Although there were 2 lodged application covering the 0.27 hectare site – which is marginally above the 0.25 hectare threshold for student housing which then requires additional housing to be incorporated, including an affordable housing (AF) element, the approach taken if the applications are determined individually would not appear to require the inclusion of AF. NTBCC have argued that according to non-statutory guidance, these should essentially be determined as one application.

The local residents’ groups response can be seen here https://www.eyreplace.co.uk/action.html

It’s worth noting that due to the considerable efforts of the local residents’ group – the main application (22/03833/FUL) has well over 400 comments lodged, with 395 objecting & 25 in support.

12.b Former Royal High School (National School for Music) – update

Following the approval in February 2017 of the original application for St Mary’s Music School (15/05662/FUL & 15/5665/LBC) and the subsequent outcome of the DPEA Planning Inquiry which was finally issued in June 2020 – amended applications were brought forward in 2022. It’s worth noting that while 15/05665/LBC has now expired, the detailed planning application (15/05662/FUL) remains live until 27 February 2024.

The new applications (22/02449/FUL & 22/02450/LBC) are an “amendment to the approved consent 15/05662/FUL relating to the conservation of the Thomas Hamilton designed former Royal High School building to form new premises for St Mary’s Music School, including revised layout arrangements, a new opening within the west pavilion, and a proposed glazed floor light to the external portico” at New Parliament House.

This planning statement is therefore submitted in support of both a detailed application to amend the current planning permission and listed building consent that are submitted on behalf of the Royal High School Preservation Trust (RHSPT).

NTBCC submitted a representation in support of the amended /FUL application and deferred comment on the /LBC application to others. There were only a very small number of comments lodged against either of these applications (22/02449/FUL – 1 objection, 2 supporting & 22/02450/LBC – 1 objection, 1 supporting).

The current status on these applications is that (perhaps the less contentious) 22/02450/FUL is now ‘Awaiting Decision which I believe indicates a recommendation for approval and 22/02449/LBC is still ‘Awaiting Assessment’.

From an email sent to the RRCTMA – it would seem that further information is being sought by the planning officer regarding the /LBC application.

“We are addressing some minor issues raised by Historic Environment Scotland with regards to stairs in the main hall and balustrades and should have the revised details back to the Planners within the next two weeks. I presume the Planners will pass these on to HES for further comment. I would expect the scheme to be presented to the Committee on either 26th October or 9th November, leaving little time for mobilisation before the Christmas break. I therefore now anticipate a start on site in early January.

We have yet to appoint a contractor.”

12.c Dunard Centre (IMPACT) –supported by the Royal Bank of Scotland – latest news

With respect to the financing – an update was provided at the recent Council committee meeting (Edinburgh and South East Scotland City Region Deal Joint Committee) which stated that “the total capital requirement for the project is £75m, of which £25m will come from the City Region Deal (£10m from UK Government, £10m from the Scottish Government and £5m from the City of Edinburgh Council). A further £35m has been pledged by the Centre’s major benefactor Dunard Fund. The remaining £15m (plus a £5m contingency) will be raised from a fundraising campaign of which a significant proportion is already pledged.”

In addition to a £35m pledge toward the capital cost the Dunard Fund is also committed to providing its funds (with a £2M limit) ahead of monies received from the public sector; and underwriting pre-opening operational costs and any deficit incurred by the centre in the first three years of trading whilst the business model and venue are being established.

12.d Other Items of note

12.d.i 7 – 29 Beaverhall Road (HUB) aka ‘Beaverhall House (22/01654/FUL)

There was a pre-consultation for this in September 2021 & a presentation both to the NTBCC Planning committee as well as the full community council in December 2021.

The full planning application was submitted earlier in 2022 for a mix of Buy to Rent (currently very much in vogue) the and 25% Affordable Housing (~200 units in total with ~50 Affordable units (Mid-Market rent) as well commercial space to (re)-accommodate some of the businesses in the current building (mainly limited to those with a ‘creative’ element which seems to fit with the overall character of the building being aimed for).

The general view overall is that the proposed architectural proposal is a significant improvement on the current building although some concerns have been raised with the overall height and roof treatment. The application attracted 34 comments with 33 objecting.

NTBCC submitted a neutral stance – but raising issues wrt :

  1. Space being available for the current businesses
  2. Affordable Housing element – why no social housing?
  3. Demolition vs. reuse – but ultimately accept
  4. Cumulative impact on local facilities

Little visible activity on the determination of the application except for CEC Transport consultation response which, amongst other comments, stated:

“The applicant should be advised that, as the development is located in the extended Controlled Parking Zone, they will be eligible for one residential parking permit per property in accordance with the Transport and Environment Committee decision of 4 June 2013“.

This is similar to other applications in the Extended (peripheral) Parking Zone here which seems at odds with the reduction in onsite parking called for routinely when similar applications are on the DMSC.

12.d.ii 5 – 6 Marshall’s Court (21/06219/FUL)

“Development of 19 new residential flats, cycle parking provision, associated works and infrastructure”.

This application had the status of “Awaiting Assessment until recently but for reasons that are not entirely clear to NTBCC, has been reopened for comments again. There have been some late objections that have been accepted as well as a Daylight / Sunlight Analysis.

NTBCC did not make a representation to this application as the local informal residents’ group had already submitted a detailed response. The previous application for 25 flats was refused 20/00486/FUL). NTBCC objected to the 2020 application.

This was also the subject of a recent discussion by another local resident on alternatives for the site at NTBCC’s June meeting.

12.d.iii St James Outdoor ‘Entertainment ‘Area

22/02035/FUL Proposed Festival Event Space At St James Square Edinburgh : “Erection of temporary structures and enclosures, including Spiegeltent and bar, and other associated works to facilitate use of St James Square as an external events space”.

This was a request for permission in perpetuity. NTBCC submitted a representation, objecting to this application as presented. This application followed on from 21/05177/FUL, which sought permission to use St James Square as a festive events space for 8-10 weeks (installation & removal time included) for four years 2021/22, 2022/23, 2023/24 and 2024/25.

NTBCC expressed concerns at the time, with regards to the impact on residential amenity of the close neighbours in the listed tenement block at 23-26 St James Square. While we were supportive of an events space with the new St James Quarter, we urged that a reduced duration was considered for the facility, so as to allow for a ‘trial’ Christmas event for 2021/22.

Similar concerns were also raised by CEC Environmental Protection and permission was granted for the period of the first year i.e. 2021/22 only – with several conditions (“The applicant to confirm to the planning authority within 7 days of the decision that an acoustic consultant has been appointed to carry out a Noise Impact Assessment including the correlation of any noise complaints.

The expected standard to be achieved would be that all noise from the proposed development meets NR15 when assessed form the nearest noise sensitive premise, with the window slightly open.”

The current (22/02305/FUL) application did include a NIA which did indicate an unacceptable impact from noise on neighbouring residents which could not be adequately mitigated. Although the facility operated during August under the ’28 day rule’ – it was refused in September 2022.

12.d.iv BT Street Hub (Dundas Street) & General

A raft of applications for BT Street Hubs were lodged by BT (via their Agent Solution 30) for ‘street hubs’ – in most cases, replacing existing BT Phone Kiosks. These required a /FUL application as well as an /ADV application as the proposed facilities included a large static (but constantly changing) LED screen as well as other facilities. The /FUL for Dundas Street was refused, along with ~10 others across Edinburgh by delegated authority but most of these have now been appealed to the Local Review Body. The accompanying /ADV applications were also refused (determination is against more limited regulations) and again – the majority of these, including that for Dundas Street have been appealed to DPEA.

NTBCC’s objection to the Dundas Street BT Street Hub application was posted on the website.

12.d.v Proposed Changes to Planning Fees

Recent communication from CEC Planning on proposal to include a surcharge to planning fees (+25%) for any retrospective applications. The majority of these probably relate to retrospective Short Term lets (STLs).

Richard Price

13 Appendix 2: transport report

13.a Tram Works

We have been advised of significant new temporary traffic management arrangements that will take effect from Thursday 22 Septemberand last until at least Friday 30 September. This will result in the complete closure of Leith Street from Picardy Place (beyond the turnaround at the Playhouse) to Annandale Street. This closure is required for final ducting and resurfacing work on this section of carriageway. Work will be conducted during the daytime. All traffic wanting to head north or east will be routed around the Picardy Place gyratory system to access Broughton Street and then be diverted along East London Street and Annandale Street. This will include many in service buses and out of service buses returning to the Annandale Street depot. Some in service buses will be routed along Regent Road to rejoin their normal service routes to the north and east. There is no doubt that this work and the road closure will create significant problems for drivers, residents and businesses in the area.

13.b East London Street

Following the July NTBCC meeting, which was attended by residents from East London Street and representatives from Lothian Buses, we have noted that the commitments made by Lothian Buses to reduce the number of out-of-service buses using ELS have not been met. We have held a follow up meeting with Councillors McFarlane and Mowat together with Sean Gilchrist from the Roads Department to seek their assistance and support to make some immediate changes in the level of bus usage, commence monitoring of traffic levels and commence the development of a long term plan for traffic management along this road.

13.c Electric Vehicle Charging Places

The installation of the EV charging points on Heriot Row and East London Street is complete but the new Rapid chargers are not yet operational despite a statement on the CEC website that they would be working from 5 September. I have contacted the EV Charging team to establish the reasons for the delay and seek a meeting to discuss the next phase of the rollout of chargers in our area.

13.d Travelling Safely

The Experimental Traffic Orders have been published for the continuation of many of the Spaces for People measures including those for the Canonmills to Broughton Street corridor. Following a period of consultation, the ETRO were submitted for approval at the recent T&E Committee meeting. With regard to our area our comments have been reflected in the future plans but we await further detail on which of the measures will be retained or modified. The T&E Committee approved a Green Amendment to the motion, which will allow the Council to progress the publication of recommended ETRO.

13.e Active Travel Participation Request

Following the decision to pause our Participation Request, we have received a proposal from Daisy Narayanan to set up regular meetings between representatives from the Community Council and members of the Roads Department. Subject to our agreement, it is planned to commence these meetings later this month

Mike Birch

14 Appendix 3: text of NTBCC’s response to Short Term Lets 2022 consultation2

Response ID ANON-F8K5-SEPX-X Submitted to Short Term Lets 2022 – consultation 2 Submitted on 2022-09-05 21:38:24

14.a Introduction

14.a.i Your details

  • First name: New Town & Broughton
  • Surname: Community Council
  • Email address: licensing@ntbcc.org.uk
  • Postcode: EH7 5JH
  • Yes, I consent to being contacted about this consultation: Yes

14.a.ii Which of the following apply to you?

Short term let neighbour, Live in Edinburgh, Work in Edinburgh, Other (e.g. trade group – please give details below) Other respondent type

Community Council

14.b Tenement properties

14.b.i In terms of section 4.16 of the proposed policy in relation to short-term letting in tenement properties, we have set out two options. Please indicate which option you consider to be most suitable for Edinburgh. “Secondary letting” means a short-term let consisting of an agreement for the use of accommodation which is not, or not part of, the licence holder’s only or principal home. “Rebuttable presumption” means that the applicant has to justify why their application should be granted as an exemption to this policy.

Neither (please comment below)

14.b.ii Neither option 1 or 2 reasons:

Option 1 should include whether the property has access to a private or common outdoor area – namely garden – where the impact on residential amenity could extend to that of neighbours further afield.

We have several issues with Option 2, primarily because it would very much depend on whether those providing consent would be doing so, where possible impact on residential amenity would be that of theirs, or others – e.g. their tenants.

14.c Home letting

14.c.i Should the Council limit the number of nights for which short term let accommodation may be used in each year?

Yes

14.c.ii How many weeks should the limit be set at?

Six weeks

14.c.iii Other: i.e. allowing to cover the duration of both Edinburgh International Festival & Fringe and Christmas & Hogmanay in any period of 12 months, typically.

Note: It is unclear from the question whether the 2022 Order would give the Council the power to impose a similar condition for accommodation being used for “home sharing”?

14.d Licensing policy

14.d.i If you have any comments on the proposed Short Term Lets Licensing Policy, please provide these below.

Refer sections 2.1 to 2.8 in the proposed policy, we would welcome a definition for “licence holder” – specifically, we assume that this would always be the “host” in the context of “home letting” or “home sharing”?

Where the licence holder/host refers to:

  • Owner(s), we would expect these to declare that they are the sole owner(s) for the property;
  • Tenant(s), we would expect these to declare that they are the sole and rightful tenant(s) for the property; (by rightful, we assume that tenant(s) may need permission from their landlord before they could sublet as STL?)

We would expect agents to be listed separately on the licence, primarily so as to maximise traceability – see below and our response to question 7.

Further, we would expect licence holder(s)/host to be contactable, and responsibility put onto them to keep their contact details up-to-date with the Council; or face having their current licence revoked &/or future licensing applications for STL refused.

14.e Temporary licences

14.e.i Do you have any comments on the proposed policy in respect of temporary licences? See 4.10 to 4.15 in the proposed policy below.

We would support temporary licences in the context of “one-off trial” by the nominated owner(s) or rightful tenant(s) for the property – subject to them declaring that they have not applied for a temporary licence for that property before; or should their declaration be incorrect, that they accept that this could prejudice any future licensing applications for STL made by them for the same property.

To support this, the Council shall be able to maintain the history of STL licence applications by nominated individual(s) and property address, for easy retrieval.

14.f Temporary exemptions

14.f.i Do you have any comments on the proposed policy in respect of temporary exemptions? 4.19 to 4.25 below.

Following our responses to questions 4 & 5, we would support temporary exemptions for home sharing, only.

14.g Additional licence conditions

14.g.i If you have any comments on the proposed additional licence conditions, please provide these below.

STL 10 – We would rather the licence holder/host advise guests (not ‘residents’) how to store &/or bag refuse inside the property, and the licence holder/host be made responsible to dispose of the refuse in the correct manner.

14.h Any other comments?

14.h.i Are there any further comments that you would like to make on any aspect of the licensing of short term lets?

Any other comments:

14.i About you

14.i.i What do you feel is your national identity?

Other

14.i.ii What is your age?

Not Answered

14.i.iii What is your sex?

Not Answered

14.i.iv Do you consider yourself to be trans, or have a trans history?

Not Answered

14.i.v If you would like to, please describe your trans status (for example non-binary, trans man, trans woman):

15 Appendix 4: licensing report

15.a Regulatory Committee

Last meeting: 27th June; Next meeting: 29th Sept

15.a.i Edinburgh Council Short Term Let (STL) and their Licensing consultation #2

Short Term Lets 2022 – consultation 2 – City of Edinburgh Council – Citizen Space

Points to note:

  • Type of letting is as per the Scottish Government’s definition, not CEC’s:
    • Home sharing – where the host is present
    • Home letting – where the host is absent e.g. during holidays
    • Secondary letting – AKA Short Stay Commercial Visitor Accommodation (SSCVA) – is what will also require Planning permission for a change of use (COU)
  • Licence holder would refer to an individual (e.g. property owner or company director), not an entity/organisation. This matters in the context of Temporary licences, should these be supported and intended to serve as one-off trial for a given property, and its owner(s) or rightful tenant(s).

NTBCC response is in appendix 3

15.a.ii Timeline

See Licences and permits applications – The City of Edinburgh Council

New hosts, who didn’t provide short term lets before 1 October 2022, cannot take bookings or receive guests until they have a licence.

Existing hosts and operators will have until 1 April 2023 to apply for a licence.

All hosts and operators need to have a licence by 1 July 2024.

15.a.iii Licensing Service Workload

Current backlog is at ~8,000 applications, compared to 4,500 typically pre-pandemic. It is anticipated that it will take until 1st April 2023 to resolve the backlog.

15.a.iv Licensing system AKA ‘Civica APP’ to ‘Civica Cx’ upgrade – timeline and expected improvements.

An update was due to be provided at the next Regulatory meeting on 29th September, but this hasn’t been confirmed on the agenda:

Agenda Document for Regulatory Committee, 29/09/2022 14:00 (edinburgh.gov.uk)

Alcohol licence registers

15.b Licensing Board

Last meeting: 29th August; Next meeting: 26th Sept

15.b.i Initial Consultation on Statement of Licensing Policy and Overprovision Assessment

This should start shortly after the Licensing Board meeting on 26th September, and run for 10 weeks.

Purpose: Information gathering ahead of making proposed changes, which would then be subject to a formal consultation next year.

All consultations should have 5 licensing objectives set out in the 2005 Act as their primary focus:

  • Preventing crime and disorder;
  • Securing public safety;
  • Preventing public nuisance;
  • Protecting and improving public health; and
  • Protecting children from harm.

Additionally, they will consider these specific areas:

  • Overprovision
  • Licensing hours
  • Extension of licensing hours
  • Children and young person’s access to premises
  • Temporary licensing – particularly grant of occasional licences (when the current ability is to apply to unlimited number of these)

15.b.ii St James Square

NTBCC objected to Occasional licence applications 478752, 478753 for the ancillary pop up bar to the Spiegel Tent from 4th to 29thAugust. We didn’t get a response but we assume that these applications were granted as the venue operated during that period.

15.b.iii 6 Baxter’s Place (Planet Bar)

NTBCC objected to the Variation of Premises licence application 473326, that sought to extend opening hours from 1am to 3am (3am to 5am during Festival & Christmas/Hogmanay) Thursday-Sunday, and extend their use of the pavement outside i.e. longer hours; the venue being surrounded by residential flats.

The application was subsequently withdrawn.

15.c Civic & Miscellaneous licence registers

15.c.i Licensing Sub-Committee

Last meeting: 5th & 6th Sept; Next meeting: 3rd & 4th Oct

Summary of the discussion with Catherine Scanlin (Head of CEC Licensing) and Tom Veitch (Trading Standards & Enforcement) on 14thSeptember:

  • Temporary Civic Licensing – the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (legislation.gov.uk) doesn’t appear to preclude Community Councils from being consulted. However, the Council currently doesn’t consult Community Councils, primarily because of the volume of applications involved specifically during the Edinburgh International Festival & Fringe.
  • NTBCC argues that there should be an avenue for their submissions to be considered, should they choose to comment. We didn’t reach a clear conclusion on this, so the discussion will be continued.
  • Some examples to note, around St James Quarter, as related to Fringe events 4th to 29th August:
    • Cathedral Square at the top of Little King St was overlooked by NTBCC (and St James Quarter) initially, as the focus was about possible impact on residential amenity. St Mary’s Cathedral is single glazed and operates during the hours 1100-1800 that were requested for Public entertainment licence application 478592.
    • St James Quarter to their credit pro-actively worked with the Fringe so as to adjust the programme event times to best suit the cathedral’s regular hours of operations, incl. funerals.
    • The Spiegel Tent at St James Square proved to be a noisier affair however, which has further strained the relationships between St James Quarter and local residents at no 23-26 St James Square tenement. NTBCC had objected to Public Entertainment licence application 478603 but the submission wasn’t taken into consideration. The application was granted with conditions, which weren’t shared at the meeting either.

15.c.ii Outdoor Area (AKA Tables & Chairs) permits

All temporary structures associated with tables and chairs as per the relaxation of the Scottish Government’s COVID Planning guidance are due to be removed by 7th October 2022.

All structures in place for longer than 28 days will require Planning permission thereafter.

Processing of future Outdoor Area permit applications will resume to pre-Covid standards, whereby a Roads Authority officer should carry out a site visit and assess the area that can be applied for, outside given premises.

Further, CEC Licensing is considering handing over the administration of these permits back to the Road Authority, as they will need to refocus resources onto the new STL Licensing scheme.

Annick Gaillard