NTBCC minutes – Monday 14 October 2019

Minutes of New Town & Broughton Community Council’s ordinary meeting, held in Drummond Room, Broughton St Mary’s church, Bellevue Crescent on Monday 14 October 2019 at 7.30pm

Actions and decisions are red italic. nem con means that no-one spoke or voted against a decision.

Cllr McNeese-Mechan chaired the meeting until the end of item 5, at which point C Nimmo took over.

1 Attendance and apologies for absence

Susanna Beaumont NTBCC Bruce Ryan minutes secretary
Susan Duff NTBCC Sheila Warnock NTBCC, Great King St Residents’ Association
Stephen Hajducki NTBCC Peter Williamson NTBCC, Picardy Residents’ Association
Simon Holledge NTBCC Michael Birch NTBCC, Regent, Royal & Carlton Terrace & Mews Association
Jack Hugh NTBCC Cllr Amy McNeese-Mechan Leith Walk ward
Stuart McAllister NTBCC Cllr Claire Miller City Centre ward
Susan MacInnes NTBCC Chris Highcock Edinburgh Council
Carol Nimmo NTBCC Alan McIntosh Broughton Spurtle
Richard Price NTBCC 1 resident/visitor
Alan Welsh NTBCC

1.1 Apologies for absence

Laura Graham NTBCC Allan Jack NTBCC/India St Residents’ Association
Jonathan Finn NTBCC Fran Wasoff NTBCC
Deidre Henderson

Foysol Choudhury

NTBCC

NTBCC

 

Cllr Osler Inverleith

 

2 Chris Highcock, CEC elections manager and depute returning officer

Mr Highcock was asked to report and then take questions on the recent CC elections.

  • He is responsible for all elections in Edinburgh, from MP to CC.
  • He had oversight of the CC elections, but other officers were doing delivery.
  • The new CC scheme was approved by CEC earlier this summer, following some consultation.
    • It removes the need for CCs to approve their own constitutions.
    • It creates the role of engagement officer. [That is, every CC must appoint one.]
  • The new scheme also outlines the process for CC elections. This applies a ‘simplified and modified’ version of the local government election rules to CC elections. There is always a tension between open-ness and inclusivity, and maintaining integrity of the process.
    • As previously, nominees for election to CCs must be on the electoral register, [living] in the CC area, as must their proposers and seconders.
    • Hence the returning officer (RO) must confirm that these people are on the register as required. In the past, ROs have received copies of the register for individual CC areas. However, in part due to IT issues in the electoral registration office, it was ‘hard’ to do this for the 2019 CC elections. Hence Electoral ROs (EROs) agreed to check nominee’s names and addresses, if they were given these.
    • There are 45 CCs in Edinburgh, leading to ~430 nominations to be checked, and hence 1290 names to be checked.
    • This had to be done to a tight deadline, because many nominations were submitted close to the deadline.
    • Due to tight resources, some things were missed, and errors weren’t picked up until quite late in the process.
    • Hence lists of nominees weren’t available until quite late in the process. It took a couple of iterations for ROs to be content with the list.
  • There has been much review of the process.
    • The process is paper-based, i.e. nominees (and their proposers and seconders) submit paper forms. This is based on local government election arrangements.
    • However, there is a higher volume than in local government elections.
    • A number of issues arose, including the paper process not being fully rigorous. Had it been online, checking would have been faster. Online processes are being considered, as are ways to support ROs.
    • CEC wants the process to be both rigorous, but also open and inclusive.

Cllr McNeese-Mechan (Cllr MM) suggested using writable PDFs on CEC’s website, to prevent transcription errors. She also suggested an auto-reply, saying something like ‘your nomination form has been received’, to provide reassurance that nominations have not been lost in spam filters.

  • B Ryan stated that he understood that high pressure, due inter alia to tight deadlines, can cause more mistakes.
    • He asked Mr Highcock whether more resources (i.e. more time and more council officers) have caught more errors before publication of nominees.
    • He then asked Cllr MM whether, if Mr Highcock wanted more resources, what extra resources CEC could put in.
      • Cllr MM replied that she is waiting for the Transient Visitors Levy to come in, and cited CEC’s need of savings.
      • B Ryan then asked whether volunteers could be used [to minimise costs of CC elections].
      • Cllr MM responded that she was not sure of the legalities around this.
    • Mr Highcock responded that more resources could have caught some of the errors, but given that resources are limited, CEC had to make the best use of the resources it has. He also said that CC elections are to be administered by CEC, following the scheme.
  • S Holledge asked whether the electoral register has [unique] numbers [for each person on the register]. If so, and if nominees, proposers and seconders knew their own numbers, they could enter these on nomination forms, making it easier to check that nominations are valid.
    • Mr Highcock said that numbers would still have to be checked.
    • A Welsh added that the electoral register is available at any public library.
  • R Price stated that, in view of the lack of resources, surely it would be better to extend the deadline for announcing valid nominations. That is, the deadline for submitting nominations would still be 30 September, but the announcement would be later into October, to give enough time to perform all checks.
    • Hence he asked who set the deadlines.
    • Mr Highcock replied that there has been lots of pressure for results to be released, and so CEC released lists of nominees that were thought to be correct. He also said that R Price’s suggest was worth looking at.
  • C Nimmo noted that NTBCC is not alone in having suffered from errors in the nomination process.
  • S Duff asked what the issues had been.
    • Cllr MM replied that physical forms had been lost in the post, emailed forms had disappeared en route, and some people had used ‘nicknames’ (or alternative names) rather than their names according to the electoral register. This had affected 4 nominees for NTBCC.
    • B Ryan commented that this implied >25% (4 out of 15) failure-rate, at least for NTBCC nominations.
      • Cllr MM replied that this failure rate had not been replicated across the city.
      • Action: B Ryan and his wife, who has a PhD in statistics, to work out likelihood of 4 failures in 430 items affecting only 1 group of 15 of those items. (That is whether the hight rate of nomination failures affecting NTBCC is likely to be random error or likely to be systematic error affecting only NTBCC)
    • B Ryan also asked what happened in this set of elections that might have caused an apparent increased failure-rate.
      • Mr Highcock responded that firstly this time there had been a question of resources. That is, in previous years, there had been a full-time CEC officer running elections. This year responsibility was spread part-time across several officers. Secondly, the verification process was hampered by software issues making it not cost- and time-effective to produce individual registers for each CC area. This is in part because CC areas may be in more than one CEC Council ward area.
    • B Ryan also asked what would have happened if two nominations had been lost in the post, and both of these nominees arrived at this meeting to claim the final place on NTBCC: would there be a contested election for NTBCC.
      • Cllr MM replied that this would be a matter for the CCs office-bearers, once they were appointed.
      • Mr Highcock responded that had there been more nominations than places available on the CC, there would have been a poll.
  • C Nimmo asked how such an election would have worked.
    • Mr Highcock responded that each candidate would be asked to produce a statement about themselves, and then CEC would run an online election. This would include each resident in the CC area receiving a letter with log-in details for them to take part in an online poll. They would then be able to vote for as many candidates as there are places available on the CC. For example, for a CC with 10 nominations for 9 places, the candidates with the high 9 vote-counts would be elected. This is currently happening in Queensferry and District CC. People who are uncomfortable with voting online can ask for help at the local library, where staff have suitable training.
    • C Nimmo asked whether a full-time CEC official would be in place for the next set of CC elections.
      • Mr Highcock responded that CEC is considering suitable changes. He reiterated the time and cost of producing registers for individual CCs. He accepted that the current method was not optimal.
  • R Price asked whether it would help if nomination forms included candidates’, proposers’ and seconders’ CEC wards. This would help ROs to go immediately to correct lists, because ward registers are generated frequently by CEC.
    • A Welsh recommended consulting with the National Library of Scotland, which has expertise in producing overlays. He stated that boundary issues had been common for around 20 years, but technology should easily overcome this.
    • Mr Highcock responded that nomination forms have space for extra information that could help find which CC they are relevant to.
  • S Hajducki noted that each CC has a CEC cllr overseeing its elections. He asked whether such roles are properly defined.
    • Cllr MM responded that she was primarily a ‘postbox’.
    • Mr Highcock noted that all CEC elections must be administered by CEC, according to the scheme, and that CEC will approve an independent RO [for each CC election] who is a CEC cllr. Their roles are to announce results and take oversight of the [election] process, while Mr Highcock and colleagues take responsibility for delivering the elections.
      • Cllr MM agreed that bouncing emails back and forth is not optimally efficient.
  • S Duff noted that the nomination form has ‘for official use only’ where electoral register numbers might be entered. Without these words, candidates would be able to complete this field themselves.
    • Cllr MMM stated this is a good idea.
  • Later in the meeting, Mr Highcock was asked how any lessons and changes resulting from the recent elections would be published.
    • He responded that election timetables are not mandated by the CC scheme, so CEC could look into this.
    • A ‘lessons learned’ exercise is in progress, and its final outcome could be published.
    • He noted that the current CC will last for 4 years.
  • A Welsh noted that quite often CEC councillors and police had not attended NTBCC meetings, and suggested that this was poor practice. He suggested that the scheme should mandate councillor presence at CC meetings.
    • R Price added that NTBCC currently tracks CEC councillor attendance.
    • Cllr Miller said that she has a rota for cllr attendance at NTBCC, and offered to forward it to NTBCC (now received).

3 Declarations of interest

None

4 Declaration of election result

4.1 Local interest Groups (LIGs)

Cllr MM announced the first LIG to be represented on NTBCC is Claremont Court Residents’ Association (representative Lewis Press)

  • At this point, R Price noted that Lewis Press had represented CCRA until the elections, but then stood down, noting that CCRA has ceased to exist. (Other issues with the list were brought up after item 4.2.1.)
    • Hence he queried the foundation of CEC’s list of LIGs for NTBCC.
    • Cllr MM noted that she received this list a few days after the list of individual candidates for NTBCC, so she had assumed it was correct.
    • R Price asked Cllr MM to check the verification of the five LIGs on the list for NTBCC. Action: Cllr MM to do this asap.
    • Later in the meeting, it was noted that the LIGs likely to be represented on NTBCC are
      • Regent, Royal & Carlton Terrace & Mews Association
      • India St Residents’ Association
      • Great King St Residents’ Association
      • Picardy Residents’ Association.

Cllr MM then moved on to elected members of NTBCC

4.2 Elected members of NTBCC

It was noted that LIG representatives have the rights to vote and be office-bearers as elected and co-opted members.

Cllr MM announced that NTBCC’s elected members are

Carol Nimmo Stephen Hajducki Richard Price
Foysol Choudhury Simon Holledge Stuart McAllister
James Kilner Susan MacInnes Laura Graham
Susanna Beaumont Deidre Henderson Jonathan Finn
Jack Hugh Fran Wasoff Susan Duff

Hence 15 members had been elected, leaving one vacancy.

B Ryan asked for all names and email addresses of elected members and LIG representatives, so he can update NTBCC’s mailing list. He noted that an email from Cllr MM stated that Drummond Civic Association and Lord Moray’s Feuars inter alia were approved LIGs for NTBCC, but that their representatives had not been named.

Later, NTBCC members and others present spoke about why they joined/follow NTBCC, and, if relevant, LIG memberships.

  • During this, there was discussion of how to handle the NTBCC archives held by A Welsh and C Nimmo.
  • Action: S McAllister to transport materials held by A Welsh to C Nimmo.

4.2.1 Co-option

A Welsh was co-opted into the above-noted vacancy (proposed R Price, seconded C Nimmo, nem con)

5 Appointment of office bearers

5.1 Required office-bearers

All of the following were elected unopposed:

Position Nominee Proposer Seconder
Chair Carol Nimmo Richard Price Simon Holledge
Secretary* Richard Price Carol Nimmo Peter Williamson
Treasurer Jonathan Finn Simon Holledge Stuart McAllister
Engagement Officer Simon Holledge Stuart McAllister Richard Price

* R Price indicated he is willing to serve until May 2020, and so a shadow would be needed, ready to take over at that point.

At this point, Cllr MM handed over chairing to C Nimmo. She promised that CEC would do better [at the next CC elections].

5.2 Associate members and committee convenors

B Ryan was reappointed as an associate (non-voting) member for minutes and website (prop. C Nimmo, seconded R Price).

6 Minutes of meeting of 9 September

These were accepted, subject to noting that A Jack had been absent (proposed C Nimmo, seconded A Welsh, nem con).

6.1 Matters arising

The chair suggested that NTBCC holds a business meeting, possibly in the 1st week of November, inter alia to choose committee convenors and members. It was noted that these will remain as-is [as much as possible] until that meeting.

  • Action: office-bearers to arrange this.

7 Police report

No police presence, hence no report.

8 Presentation: Quaich Project & West Princes Street Gardens, followed by Q&A session with David Ellis (DE), Managing Director, Ross Development Trust
(RDT)

He reported

  • This presentation is to update NTBCC on the current position, rather than starting from scratch.
  • In 2017, RDT ran an international design competition for redesigning West Princes St Gardens.
  • A concept master-plan was finished around May 2019.
    • Since then, RDT has been working towards a planning application, ideally to be submitted March 2020.
    • There is currently much stakeholder consultation, with statutory bodies, community bodies and much else.
    • A public consultation is due to start in November 2019.
  • Edinburgh’s urban design panel (UDP) had three concerns about the plans submitted to them:
    • The axial (east-west) paths – RDT is now re-planning the paths to meet UDP’s concerns.
      • At this point, DE agreed that RDT is not proposing any changes to the part of the gardens south of the railway.
    • DE then showed ‘before’ photo and ‘after’ mock-up of how the park is and would be seen from the castle.
    • The ‘after’ image appeared to have significantly more trees than the ‘before’ photo.
  • The purpose of the Welcome Centre is partly to connect the gardens to Princes St, by providing disabled/easy access. That currently does not exist.
    • It will have a two-tiered space for food and drink, so there will be no temporary catering space next to the fountain.
    • That is such activities will be hidden underground.

o The current plans pull back the Welcome Centre’s overhang, so that east-to-west views are not obscured.

  • RDT is also working on plans for the interface between Princes St and the Gardens, including the currently narrow and steep entrances.
    • Hence there would be a platform on top of the Welcome centre , to enable tourists to take photos without blocking the path.
    • This would involve removal of railings [from their current position along the boundary between gardens and street.
      • It was suggested that this would affect heritage / listed items.
      • DE noted that RDT has no power over people attaching hoardings to the current railings.
  • The top floor of the Welcome Centre would be a cafeteria space. The floor below would be a space for other activities.
  • The auditorium would have an internal space for community use and similar.
    • It would not be a full performance space.
    • It would be able to open out into an open air theatre, thus supporting the 5 or so major events during the year.
      • The design would reduce set-up and de-rig times for major events. This would increase the gardens’ public availability.
  • The amphitheatre is currently fenced off and locked all year.
    • RDT wants to remove this barrier, to introduce a new amphitheatre, so that it could be open to the public all year
  • Around the fountain:
    • Currently there is much hard-standing and an area that often floods, or is used for parking.
    • RDT wants to make this into a family space, with ‘fantastic’ play facilities.
    • CEC wishes some form of hard standing to remain. RDT envisage this being a ‘nice’ place to sit out.
    • RDT is happy to implement, within reason, public requests made via consultation for this area.
    • Children’s groups have asked for a shelter, so RDT is considering how this and some public toilets suitable for people of all abilities can be achieved sympathetically.
  • The bottom east-west path will be maintained, with a connection to a bridge over the railway.
  • RDT is considering how to maximise footpath use without damaging the trees that are currently present.
  • RDT proposes replacing both bridges over the railway. These are currently closed due to rock-falls.
    • That is, there would be a pedestrian bridge linking the two sides of the park, and a vehicle bridge with a weight-limit of 80 tonnes (accessed from King’s Stables Rd). A modern bridge ~1m wider than the current one can do this.
  • There are currently three shelters on the top side of the gardens, near the floral clock.
    • These are currently marred by antisocial behaviour, drug-use and rough sleeping.
    • RDT would restore these to their original state (including glazed screens as originally installed for increased security) in 2020.
    • Their use is in discussion, but they could be used for small exhibitions.
  • RDT is currently doing an environmental impact assessment. It is dealing with a huge range of experts/consultants.
  • It is also about to complete a heritage assessment. This will be published to inform the new design.
  • A 4-week consultation will start in November. This will be online and via various outreach methods, e.g. in libraries.
    • It is up to Edinburgh citizens to decide what is happen to the gardens.

8.1 Questions and answers

  • S Holledge asked when the heritage statement and tree survey will be published.
    • The tree survey will be published as part of the consultation. Every tree has been mapped and recorded.
    • It is not yet known which trees would be removed. RDT would not remove any unless this is absolutely necessary.
    • There will be further consultation in early 2020.
    • The heritage survey is likely to be published in mid-October. It’s huge piece of work.
  • A Welsh suggested that the bandstand will be a centre of activity, so access to that area will be problematic.
    • He suggested that heavy kit should be via the bridge right behind the bandstand, to minimise damage and closures.
      • DE explained this was impossible, noting that access to the bridge nearer the centre of the park is blocked by an outcrop of castle rock.
      • Articulated lorries would be able to cross the southwest bridge. These would be mostly hidden by the pavilion’s façade.
      • If such vehicles need to move while the park is open to the public, this would take up to 10 minutes.
      • It was asked whether there is public right of way along the paths from the King’s Stables Rd access-point.
  • P Williamson asked how will consultation input will be handled.
    • DE replied that there will be a database capturing input, and finding the relative weights of each public concern.
    • The results of this will inform the second consultation.
  • S Holledge suggested that there is a problematic triangular relationship between RDT, CEC and the public.
    • Hence an article in The Scotsman reported that there is desire for continuous use of the gardens for events.
      • DE reported that there is now no CEC restriction on numbers of events, but costs limit the number of events.
      • It was suggested that The Scotsman article was not talking about continuous large events, but about smaller, lower impact events, and that RDT wishes to restrict the number of large events.
      • Cllr Miller noted that CEC is responsible for maintaining and managing the garden, and for events. The idea of an arms-length company has been rejected. RDT is bringing forward plans, seeking planning permission and raising funds. The park will remain part of CEC Common Good assets. CEC policy is 5 major events per year.
      • DE added that CEC is working on a business case.
  • A Welsh suggested that some problems arise from people not understanding that Edinburgh is 3-dimensional.
  • R Price suggested that income from parks should be ring-fenced so it goes on parks upkeep only.
    • Cllr Miller responded that the parks budget has been reduced, so events can generate income.
    • Hence a business case is required to decide how the park will be used and what will happen to the parks budget.
    • R Price responded that parks officials told NTBCC last month that they needed to raise a further £150,000 in revenue. This would then go into the whole parks budget. Hence there would always be pressure to raise revenue.
    • Cllr Miller stated that it is impossible to ring-fence income from any park so it is only spent on that park, because some parks raise more than others, so it is best for parks management to decide how to distribute its budget.
    • Cllr Miller added that the business case will go to CEC’s Culture and Communities committee, hopefully by January.
      • S Holledge noted that at the last NTBCC meeting, it was stated that the report would go forward in November.
  • S McAllister suggested that the more the parks budget is cut, the more parks will be used as sources of revenue.
    • Cllr Miller responded that CEC is under huge budgetary pressure.
    • DE stated that the planned commercial events in the new buildings would lead to revenue from evening events.
    • He added that the business plan would cover 10 years, so the parks would only be used as permitted for 10 years.
  • S Hajducki asked whether the management plan could be bypassed, citing a recent example that had undermined ‘due process’ via an emergency motion to CEC. Cllr Miller agreed that this had occurred but she is now on CEC’s transport and environment committee, so would be able to act on such issues in future

9 Licensing

J Finn reported via email

  • 80 George Street (Hollister)– provisional licencing application and variations for Gaucho (St Andrew Square) and SYHA (Haddington Place). Do not think any of these are problematic as no residents in adjacent premises.
  • NTBCC’s ongoing concern about the take-away in Rodney Street (Erbil) has not caused similar concern at the Licensing Committee, but perhaps our comments will make the Councillors treat future applications with more care.
  • It would be worth having a discussion about the Fly Festival in September. So far, NTBCC has not heard how noisy the event was, but others might have comments to make.

10 Transport

A Jack reported via email

  • The 20mph scheme evaluation report taken at 5 October CEC Transport & Environment Committee showed a small reduction in speeds, and fewer accidents, but no proven link between these. The opinion survey showed continuing public support for the policy but also for stronger action on compliance (as NTBCC has argued throughout). CEC is considering further measures including Vehicle related speed signs (VASS) and physical speed reduction measures such as speed bumps, but only where the safety record justifies these (see discussion of options in Appendix 4 of the report).
  • Table 5 in Appendix 1 of the full report gives a more detailed picture and is worth studying. CEC lists certain streets to be considered for further survey, following expressions of concern - these include, in our area: Abercromby Place, Broughton St, Drummond Place, East London St, Queen St, Raeburn Place, Scotland St and Waterloo Place.
  • The T&E meeting also considered the findings from the LEZ consultation. The consultants (Scott Porter) assess support for the proposed city centre boundary as split 54%/46% with the latter % arguing (as did NTBCC) that the central area should be larger. This indicates a substantial body of support for the NTBCC position and would merit further analysis. The analysts' conclusions include:
    • that the vast majority of respondents supported the rationale for an LEZ
    • that many wish additional measures to shift people from cars to public transport
  • a list of key questions going forward, first of which is "issues pertaining to the edges of the city centre boundary and ensuring that these areas do not become more congested and polluted as a result" ( i.e. the NTBCC priority).

There was also a progress report on the Open Streets programme.

Finally, note that the National Transport Strategy consultation closes on October 23. The principles underlying the many recent consultation responses submitted by NTBCC could be used to construct a response to this from NTBCC.

Action: NTBCC to consider submitting a response.

11 Planning

R Price reported via email

11.1 New applications / Pre-applications

11.1.1 RBS Site - Dundas St/Eyre Place / Fettes Row etc.

NTBCC notified (along with ward councillors and other local interest groups) of pending Pre-application consultations (PAN) for new proposals for the whole site (incl. the area of bordering Eyre Place / KGV Park). First consultation held on 11 Sept – presentation boards available. Second consultation planned originally for 17 October but now delayed until Thursday 5 December (12pm - 8pm) at Broughton St Mary’s church.

“The rescheduling of the second public exhibition will allow further time to progress pre-application discussions with officers at City of Edinburgh Council and Historic Environment Scotland. In addition, this additional time will enable both feedback received in response to the first public exhibition, held on 11 September 2019, and the outcomes of the Greenspace Scotland placemaking workshop, held on 1 October 2019, including any additional work stemming from the workshop, to be reviewed and incorporated into the emerging design proposals.”

NTBCC (as well as representatives from the Friends of the Park & Fettes Row residents) attended a worthwhile session hosted by Greenspace Scotland. I completed a ‘place evaluation’ form covering evaluation of the site as now (Comfort & Image, Access & Linkages, Users & Activities & Sociability) as well as thoughts on possible improvements.

11.2 DPEA (Scottish Reporter) Decisions / Pending

11.2.1 RHS Inquiry

Latest expectation remains that Reporters recommendation to be routed to Scottish Ministers in Autumn 2019. No further news at present.

11.2.2 Formation of additional flat in the attic space of 5 Royal Crescent (2F2)

Listed building consent (19/01397/LBC) appealed to the Reporter due to non-determination by the council. Application previously raised by concerned residents. Initial site visit on 15 September aborted due to inability to obtain access !

Reporter’s visit now rescheduled for 15 October at 1:00pm.

Associated planning permission application (19/01402/FUL) also not determined but instead went in front of the council’s Local Review Body on 18 September and was refused.

So – somewhat unclear as to the importance / relevance of the DPEA appeal.

11.2.3 Land South-east of 62 Broughton Road (behind 12/13 Claremont Crescent)

2nd application for a development of 6x 1 bed / studios refused by CEC (was originally submitted for 10 units) - decision appealed just within the 3 month period allowed. NTBCC in contact with local residents & a further submission to DPEA made. Historic Environment Scotland (HES) have made a further submission -supporting the stance that NTBCC took regarding the orientation / type of development

Site visit now scheduled for Wednesday 16 October at 11:00am.

11.3 CEC Applications

11.3.1 Baxter's Place (7 - 8) - 'boutique hotel' submitted in March / April 2019.

Still awaiting assessment. NTBCC submitted an objection based on the concerns over CEC's ability to control the use (number of beds) in such an establishment given the previous track record of the applicant.

Unclear as to applicant’s intent – entire building now on the market.

11.4 Other Consultations

11.4.1 Powderhall Development

Next steps proposal ('Delivery Strategy for Powderhall Development') brought forward to Housing, Homelessness & Fair Work Committee on 29 August (which was approved) In summary - proposes :

Pre-Application Notice (PAN) for the whole Powderhall site now submitted on 1 October (19/04682/PAN) - public consultations on –

  • 23 October (4:30 – 7:30pm) – McDonald Road Library
  • 24 October (5:30 – 8:00pm) – Broughton Primary School

A detailed planning application for the new nursery (on the Bowling Green site) is planned for submission in early 2020. The application will be accompanied by a masterplan for the whole site as required by Planning Committee via approval of the Place Brief.

“Housing led, mixed use development which includes the conversion of an existing Category B Listed stables building into a work and events space, new-build intergenerational nursery with older person's housing, new-build mixed tenure homes and a variety of public and semi-public amenity spaces. The development will include upgrades to St. Mark's Path, and provide new connections through, and across the site - connecting the wider community with St. Mark's and Redbraes parks. The development will also follow the principles of the Powderhall Place Brief. Separate applications will be made for each of the elements: stables, bowling greens, waste transfer station.”

A full planning application for the former waste transfer site will then be progressed. A masterplan will be submitted with this application. This will look to set key objectives around building heights, massing, road layouts and public realm, using the approved Place Brief and will be shaped by the community consultation.

Finally - although a further request for funding has been submitted to the Scottish Government Regeneration Capital Grant Fund (RCGF) - the first request was unsuccessful) - there is a low probability of it being successful. Latest proposal seems to be a minimal refurbishment approach & then CEC are looking to lease to a 3rd sector body for community space / artist studios etc. Edinburgh Palette, Out of the Blue and others seem to be interested.

Finally – an application for improved signage on Broughton St Mary’s (including a ladder sign indicating groups that use the building (‘Broughton & New Town Community Council’ shown on the schematic – our name (not exactly) in lights). /ADV application approved – despite an objection from AHSS and /LBC application submitted but invalid…………

Another attic conversion at 5 Rodney Street (19/03709/FUL) refused and another at 18 Nelson Street– which was appealed to DPEA as the Council had not determined – but appeal out of time.

12 Environment

No discussion

13 Communication

No discussion apart from S Holledge asking for members to volunteer to join this committee.

14 Discussion – future external presentations

No discussion

15 Neighbourhood Partnerships / local residents’ associations

No discussion

16 Any other business

No discussion