by

NTBCC meeting minutes 8 August 2022

Minutes of New Town & Broughton Community Council’s ordinary meeting, held via Zoom, on Monday 8 August 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 Cllr Jule Bandel Inverleith ward
David Clarke NTBCC Cllr Jack Caldwell Leith Walk ward
Deirdre Henderson NTBCC Cllr Finlay McFarlane City Centre ward
Simon Holledge NTBCC Cllr Jo Mowat City Centre ward
Carol Nimmo NTBCC Daisy Narayanan CEC head of placemaking and mobility
Richard Price NTBCC Alan McIntosh Broughton Spurtle
Nick Reid NTBCC Mathew Reilly Gorgie and Dalry CC
Alan Welsh NTBCC ~10 residents/visitors

1.b Apologies

Annick Gaillard NTBCC Bruce Ryan Minutes secretary
Laura Graham NTBCC Cllr Max Mitchell Inverleith ward
Stephen Hajducki NTBCC Ben Macpherson MSP Edinburgh Northern and Leith
Ken Lochrie NTBCC Angus Robertson MSP Edinburgh Central
David Renton NTBCC Deidre Brock MP Edinburgh North & Leith
Peter Williamson NTBCC

2 Minutes of 11th July 2022 ordinary meeting and matters arising

  • Approved as is (proposed R Price, seconded F Pearson)

3 Police report

  • No report received.
  • Cllrs McFarlane and Mowat have contacted the police about the quality of reports to CCs, and police attending CC meetings. Police seemed amenable to improving their reports and attending meetings, apart from using Zoom.

4 Environment (part 1)

4.a Picardy Place – current proposal (PW paper), attendees for 16 August in-person event

See paper by P Williamson in Appendix 1 for background.

  • C Nimmo: PW has been seeking fuller discussion with CEC on this topic since 2019. Since an early meeting that enabled such discussion, there has been ‘no constructive contact’ with CEC, nor further information from CEC.
  • D Narayanan
    • My role with CEC is to link planning and transport, and relevant projects and strategies.
    • I sense and understand the frustration emanating from PW’s report.
    • I was originally seconded to CEC to lead the city centre transformation project, but over the past few months I have engaged with the trams team to ensure that Picardy Place isn’t just left, but is pleasant, safe and reflective of at least some of the preceding conversations about the area.
    • I am working on the ‘technical’ matters (e.g. funding) to further this. Only recently have I been able to obtain budget and timescales to discuss with and bring together stakeholders, to create a ‘starting point’ design
    • Realistically, the whole area will not be redesigned at this time, but we are considering trees, benches, gardens etc. We will bring together ideas, then ask for stakeholders’ reactions. Hence the public meeting on 16 August. Whatever happens, the trams team will deliver it but I will be watching over this and will be available as needed.
    • I am also in contact with Active Travel etc, so can help fit in ideas with other/later projects.
  • R Price: how many NTBCC people can attend on 16th? What should we expect?
    • DN: all are welcome. Contrary to the implications of the invitation, we do not have fixed plans for the area. Instead, we have a technical design as a starting point. Some features (e.g. tram lines) are fixed but there are other items on which we can collaborate. The meeting will be a conversation/workshop about what can be done.
  • A Welsh: we need to know whether the site’s size is fixed, the available budget, timescales. Once the trams and traffic are using PP, any opportunities to do any work will have been lost.
    • DN: we aim to deliver before the end of tram testing (i.e. summer 2023). I will arrange for more detail to be sent out before 16th. I have budget for design, some delivery. (I aim to have budget for delivery of all of that is agreed.)
  • C Nimmo: this is a very short timescale.
    • DN: if the design is ready in time, trams team can deliver.
  • S Holledge: please clarify when the starting point design was created, who approved it, where it can be seen, whether it can be revisited.
    • DN: this design was agreed by transport and environment in 2019, I believe. It was created by Open Architects for consultation and to simulate thoughts.
    • Cllr Mowat: consultation rejected the idea of developing the site but made sure various pavements were wide enough, hence shrinking the central island. Hence that design was a starting point, not a fixed design.
  • S Holledge: can the design process be restarted from scratch so it’s done properly?
    • DN: the fastest way to deliver was to use the trams team. Their architects (Atkins) will be present on 16th.
  • A resident: we’ve never known the parameters for the area. In particular, is the area to be a transit corridor or a dwelling place, or a mixture of these? What are the constraints, e.g. people leaving the Playhouse, access to tram-stops, interaction of pedestrians and cycle-lanes? Also, promotion of Broughton St (as well as St James) is a factor.
  • A McIntosh: please give details of the meeting on 16th.
    • DN: I will send details, and ask my team to assemble the parameters and constraints.
  • CN: much of the chat has been about (re-)greening, given that much has been removed. Currently the area is not somewhere people would want to dwell.
    • DN: I fully agree with the latter point.

4.b George Street & First New Town Project (GNFT) – update / submission response (12 August)

  • S Holledge: NTBCC made a submission on 9 May. A reply was received on 31 May, suggesting a follow-up meeting. On 15 June, we accepted this offer, and asked for (1) the integrated impact assessment; (2) the safety for women document. Neither of these have been received, nor has the follow-up meeting happened.
    • DN: I will ensure NTBCC receives these documents.
  • D Henderson: we have not received an equality impact assessment. The integrated IA was not an assessment. CEC appears to not have lived up to its public sector equality duty. We are being asked to respond to a design that has not yet considered such matters.
    • D Narayanan: I know an IIA was done for the concept design. I will check what has happened since then.
  • S Holledge: we have three specific questions:
    • Is there a process for resolving issues (e.g. around access) that need to be overcome before TROs are approved?
      • DN: I will check. We need to get the operations plan right – there are many stakeholders. The TRO process also enables relevant discussions, but much should be resolved by October.
    • Will there be a substantive report on GS to transport and environment on 6 October?
      • DN: yes
    • Is the Sustrans grant for George St indexed to inflation?
      • DN: I will speak with Sustrans about this. There is inflationary pressure on all capital projects.

A Welsh: access to George St (e.g. to the church, for disabled people) need commitment. We also know that the sewers will not be investigated, so CEC does not know what is underneath the street.

4.c Q&A with Daisy Narayanan / Chris Mcgarvey (CEC) on the above

See previous sections.

5 Transport

5.a East London Street – update following July NTBCC discussion

  • M Birch: I have followed up with ELS residents and local councillors. It is not clear whether changes anticipated by Lothian Buses have been implemented. Great King St residents have raised issues about speed and volume of buses, most of which are returning to the depot.

5.b EV charging – status update on recently installed chargers

  • M Birch: it’s not clear whether the East London St chargers are operational, but they were due to be operational in July.
    • The Montgomery St chargers are awaiting handover from CEC to Charge Place Scotland.
    • Cllr McFarlane: I will seek further information on this.

6 Licensing

See also licensing report in appendix 2.

6.a STL Licensing consultation #2 on Draft Policy Conditions – closes 5 Sept

  • C Nimmo: Scottish Government has confirmed that all of Edinburgh will become a short-term let control area, starting on 5 September 2022. After this, use of a whole dwelling place as an STL will be a material change of use requiring planning permission. However, there is separate legislation about a mandatory licensing scheme.
  • D Henderson: It is to CEC’s credit that it started this process (in 2017). The consultation is about the last stage of the licensing process. See the materials I’ve just put into the meeting chat. These can be used to craft your own responses. In essence, CEC has been given a toolkit from which it can choose, and so is consulting on which tools to use.
    • One of the questions is about tenement and main-door housing. Place Edinburgh wants to protect accessible housing, which is in short supply in Edinburgh.
    • Place Edinburgh favours people being able to let their homes around four times a year (e.g. when they are on holiday) but not changing tenants every day of the year.
    • Currently, is someone has operated an STL for 10 years, they would automatically receive planning permission. Place Edinburgh is against this.
    • Enforcement will be key to the success of STL regulation.
  • C Nimmo: NTBCC will also make a submission.
  • R Price: Relevant information is on NTBCC’s website. A Gaillard will draft NTBCC’s submission.

6.b CEC Licensing Board – ‘direction of travel’ regarding ‘over-provision’ policy

  • R Price: The overprovision policy is now due for renewal. NTBCC was happy with the text of the original version but it appears not to have achieved much, due to lack of application. For example there have been many applications for alcohol licenses in the east of the city centre, but the policy is not having any effect.
    • Cllr Mowat: CEC’s quasi-judicial functions do not really affect each other. For example, overprovision of alcohol licenses does not affect planning. This has led to difficulties. All alcohol applications have to be considered on their own merits, and the policy was not sufficiently robust to withstand legal challenge. Overprovision is difficult to design and enforce without specific ‘dry’ areas.
    • R Price: NTBCC’s A Gaillard has applied to join the licensing forum, so this may help.

6.c Outdoor Area permits vs Planning consent for static outdoor seating area

  • R Price: Some establishments have T&C permits but then set up seating areas which are not removed at the end of each day. Hence A Gaillard is investigating why some apply for planning permission for these areas but others do not, what NTBCC’s role should be, and whether its comments can be seen as material.
    • Cllr Mowat: policy was devised during lockdown. Scottish Government has stated that enforcement should not happen until October. However, T&C permits were required to ensure pavements were not blocked. The situation has shown that better management is needed. Legislation makes it impossible to object to temporary and occasional licenses, and such applications are often not advertised.
    • R Price: does use of pavements fall under CEC’s transport function, adding to complexity? There are examples of applying for batches of occasional licenses, without applying for permanent licenses.
    • Cllr Mowat: there will be a new policy. You should raise this with the new licensing convenor. The licensing forum is another useful route. T&Cs are permitted, rather than licensed.
  • M Birch: issues included heras fencing on Elm Row encroaching on the footpath. Hence T&Cs here reduce pavement to less than 2 metres. When this happens, are permits automatically removed? At the top of Leith St, the pavement was extended to enable pedestrian access. However T&Cs are now preventing this. Hence, can permits be seen by the public? How can concerns be raised?
    • Cllr Mowat: there is no automatic removal. There is a public register of permits. Objections can be made but it’s not an easy process. I am working with officers to improve it. I will check the Leith St T&Cs.
    • Cllr Caldwell: I recall that businesses were offered T&Cs permits as part of the trams support for business. I will search for relevant documentation, and look into the Elm Row pavement-encroachment.

6.d St James Quarter

  • R Price: NTBCC commented on the planning application for the Spiegel tent, concerning noise. The only amendment was to lodge a noise report acknowledging there is a problem. Hence CEC’s environment function did not support this application. However permission has been extended for a further 21 days. NTBCC is supporting residents.

7 Planning

7.a NTQ – communication received on proposal to site contractor blocks on Dundas Street

  • R Price: Ediston has contact local residents about siting workers’ accommodation on Dundas St in front of the current RBS building. It would be in place for 2-3 years, straddling pavement and taxi-rank, and would be 5 storeys high and 50 m long. It would include kitchens and toilet blocks, external staircases. There was a similar issue in GDCC’s area.
    • A resident: local residents strongly object to this proposal. Accommodation is available nearby.
    • M Reilly: With the Haymarket development (corner of Morrison St and Dalry Rd), there was on-site workers’ accommodation. This needed to be moved offsite (to Distillery Lane, near Haymarket Yards), so a full planning application was made. The local residents’ association co-ordinated objections, but the application was approved due to absence of ‘loss of amenity’. The issue was publicised further to no avail. NTBCC’s case is in a conservation area, so permitted development rights should be fewer. It will also reduce public amenity. I’m happy to supply our objection letters.
    • R Price: the difference is that the Dundas case would occupy public pavement and roads. NTBCC will need to see if the developer makes the relevant planning application. The Road Occupation Permit route may help.
    • C Nimmo: because it’s in a conservation area, Cockburn Association and Historic Environment Scotland can act.
    • A resident: there will be serious loss of amenity, including ongoing light pollution. This accommodation should be within the site, rather than taking up public space. The developers are simply profiting from residents’ loss.
    • A resident: if this proceeds, what is the process for ensuring CEC is aware of strength of feeling?
    • A Welsh: NTBCC should raise this with the media, the Cockburn, World Heritage asap.
    • R Price: NTBCC has responded to the original informal enquiry. It should wait to see if there is a full application.

7.b 72 – 74 Eyre Place – Latest proposal for residential / student housing

  • R Price: this is the former Jewson’s depot. There was a pre-application consultation that proposed a ~200-bed student accommodation. There were many concerns with this proposal. Now, two formal applications, supposedly reflecting responses to the concerns raised, have now been lodged. One is to build 9 town-houses on the lower part of Eyre Place Lane. The other is for student accommodation (PBSA): ~140 beds. The planning portal is down, so it’s currently hard to check the details . The town-houses may be OK but there would be car-parking rather than gardens to the rear. The student accommodation will undoubtedly continue to be problematic. I will endeavour to post suitable material on NTBCC’s website and / or liaise with de-facto residents groups there.

7.c Royal High School

  • M Birch: there is pressure on the developer to deliver. NTBCC has met with the developer over concerns about how demolition would be done (e.g. control of dust, on-site stone-crushing, asbestos), which would affect residents. Currently there is no relevant documentation on such issues, despite these being mentioned in the planning application.

8 Environment (part 2)

8.a Waste Management – Communal Bin Hub proposed trial for World Heritage site – latest news

  • M Birch: CEC has decided to pause roll-out of communal bins pending a feasibility study and a trial of new gull-proof bags. It’s anticipated to start in September. NTBCC is working with CEC on this – the co-operation is very positive.

9 Edinburgh World Heritage (ONTE) Management Plan – to confirm presentation at September NTBCC meeting

  • R Price: NTBCC had hoped EWT would attend this meeting. The current management plan expires at the end of 2022. No engagement has yet happened.
    • A Welsh: NTBCC should obtain previous plans and hence should work out what it wants in the new plan.
    • C Nimmo: we have these. I agree they have become woollier over time
  • Decision: to invite EWT to next meeting

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

  • M Reilly: how has NTBCC reacted to applications for student accommodation?
    • R Price: NTBCC has supported some but been silent on most. It might be worth talking with Leith Central CC, who have many more applications.
    • C Nimmo: NTBCC has worked with other CCs on various issues – GDCC could try this.

11 Appendix 1: Picardy Place Central Island: background for meeting / ‘consultation’ on 16 August (Also to be discussed at the August NTBCC meeting on 8th August)

In January 2018 the Transport & Environment Committee of the City of Edinburgh Council (TEC) approved plans for changes to the roadway, cycleways and walkways in Picardy Place. The plan was essentially concerned with transport issues and was related to the Growth Accelerator Model Agreement (GAM) between the Council, the Scottish Government and the developer of St James Edinburgh relating to the St James Quarter Development. There had been considerable preparatory planning going back several years regarding Picardy Place, including as part of a (then) potential extension to the Tram network that would require a Tram stop at Picardy Place. The Council undertook presentations on, and consultation about, the proposals during the Autumn of 2017. The principal piece of feedback from the consultation was an overwhelming objection by those who responded to the creation of a gyratory roundabout in Picardy Place. The CEC however decided to proceed with its proposed layout for a gyratory.

The CEC report to the January meeting noted that the Central Island area in Picardy Place had originally been earmarked for development. However, the report argued that changes to the design of Picardy Place under consideration would mean that the site was unlikely to be suitable for significant development and should be retained as a public space. It was also noted that the “landmark public space within the island site will function as an important public transport interchange” although this was not defined.

While no final decisions were taken at the January TEC meeting regarding the Central Island, there was considerable local interest in the purpose and design of this public space. Calls were made for meaningful public engagement over these matters. At the conclusion of the January meeting the CEC Convenor indicated she would ensure that this would happen within weeks.

Since the CEC meeting in January 2018 there has been no formal public engagement on the purpose and design of the Central Island of any substance and merit.

In October 2018, a meeting was organised by the Council attended by a number of stakeholders and a Councillor to consider three design proposals for the Central Island. The proposals had been prepared by external consultants. Unfortunately, attendance at the meeting was very low. Some of the those attending wanted further exploration of other options around the proposals presented and requested clarification about how the public would be involved in the process of taking decisions. There were no definitive responses to these points at the meeting, but a further follow-up meeting was promised. There was never a follow up meeting for reasons that were never explained.

In March 2019, concepts for the Central Island similar to those previously considered in October 2018 were presented to the then City Centre Neighbourhood Partnership for discussion. Those attending included Councillors, representatives of Community Councils, Picardy Residents Association and other interest groups. There were no detailed discussions of the proposals, but instead attention concentrated on the next stages of the process and when public engagement would happen. A conclusion from the project team at the meeting was that there was no immediate rush because matters relating to the Tram works had to be resolved before work could begin on the Central Island. Subsequent ongoing attempts during 2019 and early 2020 by the Picardy Residents Association and NTBCC to get clarification of what was proposed for the project from those leading the project for the Council produced no further information. This lack of information was attributed to delays to, and uncertainties about, the adjoining Tram project.

In December 2019, the TEC received an update paper on Picardy Place as part of a Progress Update on Edinburgh St James’ GAM Works. The paper inter alia noted that “a design solution for the Central Island will be developed which complements the public transport and active travel arrangements that are currently being delivered.” The paper also asked the Committee to “agree the need for further public engagement on the public realm enhancement opportunities on the Central Island and that this should proceed in Quarter 1 2020.” No designs were forthcoming, and no public consultation took place in early 2020, most obviously because of the impact of the pandemic.

In Spring 2021, the convenor of the NTBCC Environment Committee was approached by Council officials to agree a way forward on the public engagement over the Central Island. On behalf of the Picardy Residents’ Association, and subsequently the NTBCC, he had been involved since January 2018 in a series of regular meetings with officials and Councillors to ensure proper public engagement. Discussions in Spring 2021 led to the idea of a two-stage process. This was to involve a range of local stakeholders preparing with Council officials a limited number of options for a design concept which would then go out to a wider consultation of the public. While this met with a favourable response from the officials, no final agreement was reached. These discussions then came to a complete halt in June. No explanation for this has ever been forthcoming. The officials involved moved on to other posts and there appeared to be delays because of handovers to new project staff.

In January 2022, Better Broughton organised a public meeting with Councillors attending to get an update on progress with Picardy Place. The meeting was informed by the then Vice-Convenor of the TEC that a project plan had been developed. The meeting was largely taken up with discussions of possible options in relation to the overall design for the Central Island, although it was not part of any formal consultation. Those attending made a request for sight of the briefing note from which the Vice Convenor had spoken at the meeting. It was only made available several weeks later. The briefing note was considered by NTBCC at its April meeting. The briefing note stated that a consultant design team was to be appointed to:

  • Develop an outline scope building on earlier consultations and consistent with the City Mobility Plan, City Centre Transformation, Street Design Guidance and other Council policies and guidance.
  • Create a programme setting out the project phases and estimated timelines.
  • Prepare a cost estimate to identify the appropriate funding.
  • Carry out engagement sessions with the local community and any other interested parties.
  • Carry out a detailed design based on the feedback from the engagement sessions.

The NTBCC Environment Committee Chair followed up the remit with the Council’s Senior Project Manager, particularly raising the concern that producing a “detailed design” would leave limited scope for “community engagement to shape the design of the central space” and asking how the project related to earlier commitments from the Council regarding public engagement. A subsequent suggestion from the Project Manager that the project outcomes and designs would be based, amongst other things, “on the initial feedback from the earlier consultations’ (which it transpired was effectively the consultation for the January 2018 proposals) [1] was also raised. It was not possible to obtain answers to these points because it was stated that matters still needed to be resolved by the project team and approved by its board first. The original project timetable slipped, but at no time was there any update provided. Nor was there ever any clarity about the means by which the engagement sessions with the local community would link into the subsequent carrying out of a detailed design as proposed by the project team.

On the 21st July this year, an invitation was issued to City Centre Councillors and some local stakeholders to a meeting on 16th August on Picardy Place. The invitation was from Turner and Townsend, a construction company connected to the Trams works, not the Council. There was no statement of purpose or agenda for the proposed meeting other than it would involve a presentation from the consultants Atkins. Discussions with the Project Manager has identified that the meeting will offer an opportunity for those attending to comment on proposals and put forward ideas. However, it was also acknowledged that the scope to do this successfully will be limited because of a range of constraints affecting the site, such as underground services, the site elevation and Council policies. There is not planned to be any follow up meetings to that on 16th August, but stakeholders will be informed of the outcome of the meeting. There is obviously to be no wider engagement of local residents and businesses. Interest groups who will only see the proposals on the 16th which makes it impossible for them to engage in any way with their ‘members’.

There is a legitimate question as to whether there will be an opportunity for stakeholders to have any meaningful influence at the meeting on the 16th. There is also a legitimate question of why – given the apparent tight deadline – that public engagement was not organised earlier, particularly given that the consultants are using the feedback from the consultation in 2017 despite its evident flaws. In summary, the request made that local interests had the opportunity to contribute to the design of the Central Island has been ignored. Instead, the Council has come up with its own design for comment.

Peter Williamson, Chair Environment Committee, 3 August 2022

12 Appendix 2: NTBCC Licensing Report – August 2022

Regulatory Committee: last meeting: 27th June, next meeting: 19th Sept

12.a.i Edinburgh Council Short Term Let (STL) and their Licensing consultation #2 (closes 5th Sept)

12.b Alcohol licence registers

Licensing Board: Last meeting: 25th July; Next meeting: 29th Aug

12.b.i 80 George Street (ex- Hollister Co. store) – monitoring for any application(s) in relation to the new proposed ‘Oche’ darts themedrestaurant and pub.

22/01207/FUL | Change of use from Class 1 (Retail) to a mixed Class 3 (Restaurant), Class 11 (Leisure) and Sui Generis (Public House) unit with associated internal and external alterations.

Will seek to object on the basis of over-provisioning – Appendix 2 of alcohol-licensing-policy-november-2018 (edinburgh.gov.uk) refers.

Nothing on the registers last updated 8/8/22.

12.b.ii St James Square – objected to Occasional licence applications 478752, 478753 for the ancillary pop up bar related to Planning application 22/02035/FUL | 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 for these reasons:

  • Over-provisioning locality – Appendix 2 of alcohol-licensing-policy-november-2018 (edinburgh.gov.uk) refers;
  • Noise Impact Assessment (NIA) belatedly published for the Planning application confirmed that the proposed pop up bar would not meet the NR15 requirement, as set by CEC Environmental Protection.

12.b.iii 7 – 15 Rose Street (ex- Fopp Music store) – monitoring for any application(s) in relation to the new proposed MOJO Bar – a chain targeting hen and bachelorette parties as their main clientele.

22/00791/FUL | Change of Use from retail (class 1) to mixed food and drink (Class 3 – restricted) and bar (Sui Generis) (as amended) was granted permission on 14/6/22.

Venue will seek to operate day-time, evening and late-night/early hours opening (11:00 – 02:00)

Will seek to object on the basis of over-provisioning – Appendix 2 of alcohol-licensing-policy-november-2018 (edinburgh.gov.uk) refers.

Nothing on the registers last updated 8/8/22.

12.b.iv 28 Rose Street (1 of 3 properties created at the rear of 64 Princes Street, ex- British Home Stores) – monitoring for any application(s) in relation to the new proposed venue by Adventure Bar Group, a chain known for their motto:

22/02817/FUL | Change of use from Class 1 (shops) and Class 3 (food and drink) to Class 3 (food and drink) and public house (Sui Generis), external and internal alterations, and associated works

Will seek to object on the basis of over-provisioning – Appendix 2 of alcohol-licensing-policy-november-2018 (edinburgh.gov.uk) refers.

Nothing on the registers last updated 8/8/22.

12.b.v Level 5, St James Quarter

objected to Occasional licence applications 477205, 477206 for the pop up ‘Calton View’ bar related to Planning application 22/02040/FUL | Erection of temporary structures and enclosures, including bar, and other associated works to facilitate use of Calton View as an external events space for the period going beyond 4x 14 days (i.e. asking for a reduction of the 11 weeks = 1/5th of the year requested in total), specifically when within one of the designated over-provisioning localities – Appendix 2 of alcohol-licensing-policy-november-2018 (edinburgh.gov.uk) refers.

12.b.vi 6 Baxter’s Place (Planet Bar)

will object to Variation of Premises licence application 473326, that seeks 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 is surrounded by residential flats.

12.c Civic & Miscellaneous licence registers

Licensing Sub-Committee: last meeting: 18th July; Next meeting: 8th & 9th Aug

12.c.i Outdoor Area (AKA Tables & Chairs) permits

  • Permit application 477900 for Planet Bar at 6 Baxter’s Place still sitting at “Consultees outstanding” on the register last updated 1/8/22. Encroachment in front of neighbouring properties has been done without permission of affected property owners.
  • Permit application 471872 for Amarone at Gf, 12-13 St Andrew Square was granted on 26th April for 12 tables for the period 1st April to 30th September – along with Occasional licences.

All structures in place for longer than 28 days, do require Planning permission however it was agreed at the February 2022 Planning Committee that no enforcement action would be carried out on the temporary structures associated with tables and chairs as per the relaxation of the Scottish Government’s COVID Planning guidance.
All temporary structures are due to be removed by 7th October 2022.

12.c.ii Late Hours Catering

monitoring for any applications in relation to the approved 21/05443/FUL | Change of use of premises from class 2 (bank) to class 3 (restaurant) (restricted) at 6 Picardy Place, reserved as the next Taco Bell in Edinburgh.

Nothing on the registers last updated 1/8/22.

12.c.iii Public Entertainment

monitoring for any application(s) in relation to the new proposed:

  • ‘Oche’ darts themed restaurant and pub at 80 George St – nothing on the registers last updated 1/8/22
  • Outdoor Fringe event at St James Square – licence application 478603 was submitted for the period 4th to 29th August; NTBCC objected on 27th June on similar grounds as 22/02035/FUL, however were advised the below:
  • Under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (legislation.gov.uk) Police Scotland and the Fire and Rescue Service only, can object to Temporary Licences – not Community Councils.

12.c.iv Busking

Amplified music that was heard down in the Greenside valley for over an hour (and showing no sign of stopping by 9pm) on 26th July was eventually traced to an experimenting busker at the top of Calton Hill!

12.d NTBCC Licensing mailbox

licensing@ntbcc.org.uk

12.e AOB

  • Amplified music – will seek an update from the Licensing Board on the nuisance condition for neighbouring properties
  • Premises operating plans – will seek an update from the Licensing Board on queuing control outside premises

Prepared by Annick Gaillard, 9 August 2022

[1] A review of the comments from the consultation at the end of 2017 identified c 15 suggestions for the central island. The most common theme was regarding cycle lanes. The others were not wide-ranging but made a specific statement (e.g. have a fountain, make it green) and these 15 comments collectively did not in any way offer a view on the overall design or really use. Further they were not all compatible with each other, and some could not be proceeded with once the road layout was agreed on 25/01/18.