by

NTBCC ordinary meeting minutes 10 August 2026

Agenda of New Town & Broughton Community Council’s ordinary meeting, at Broughton St Mary’s Church, on Monday 10 August 2026 at 7pm

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

URLs have been added by the minutes secretary.

1 Welcome and apologies

Fiona Banatvala NTBCC Martin McDonnell NTBCC Cllr Jo Mowat City Centre ward
Pierre Forissier NTBCC Doug Neville NTBCC Cllr Hal Osler Inverleith ward
Chris Fletcher NTBCC Richard Price NTBCC Alan Macintosh Broughton Spurtle
Annick Gaillard NTBCC Peter Williamson NTBCC ~6 residents/visitors
Ken Lochrie NTBCC Bruce Ryan minutes secretary

1.a Apologies

Mike Birch NTBCC Susan MacInness NTBCC Cllr Jack Caldwell Leith walk ward
Laura Graham NTBCC Andrew Naughtie NTBCC Cllr Claire Miller City Centre ward
Simon Holledge NTBCC Nick Reid NTBCC
Joe McAdam NTBCC Gerry Wells NTBCC

2 Declarations of interest

  • None

3 Consideration of the general call for ideas from Edinburgh Council regarding the development of City Plan 2040

3.a Introduction (R Price)

  • City Plan 2040 is Edinburgh’s local development plan (LDP). CEC’s call for ideas is on the consultation hub.
  • Development of LDPs is a long process, involving several gate-checks by the Scottish Government. (The current draft has just been submitted for one of these.) As part of this process, CEC has developed an evidence report. The process should end in 2028 [so that the plan is in place for its 2030 start].
  • LDPs set land-use and development criteria, focussing on land and buildings, and are driven by development criteria, especially housing. Topics such as litter, parks, roads maintenance are not part of the LDP.
  • Anyone can respond to the call for ideas, but CEC asks for
    • sites in your area where you think development could happen
    • proposals for a development site
    • buildings or spaces that should be kept or protected
    • facilities or services are missing from your area or what could be improved
    • planning policy to stop or encourage certain planning uses
  • The call for ideas is open to 30 September. There are two parts: one for land-owners and developers, one for community bodies, stakeholders etc. Respondents do not have to own sites to comment on them. Respondents can submit 5 place ideas and/or policy ideas per response.
  • While other CCs have developed local place plans (LPPs), this session is the foundation for NTBCC’s equivalent. (CEC has noted that respondents do not need to resubmit LPP proposals or ideas as these will automatically be considered.

3.b Q&A

  • M McDonnell : are certain places already earmarked for housing development?
    • Cllr Mowat and Osler: It’s likely that areas so earmarked in City Plan 2030 will be carried forward. ‘Opportunity’ (OPP) sites (e.g. Broughton St market, an OPP site for housing) are to be reviewed from first principles. NTBCC should express views on these sites. CEC needs to show it has enough building capacity in total, so sites previously earmarked for housing would in principle need to be replaced. However, fewer housing units than previously predicted are actually needed.
  • F Banatvala: how do the ‘big plans’ (George St, Charlotte Square, trams) – which have had minimal consultation, and cut through the entire area – fit into CP2040?
    • Cllr Mowat: the consultation for Charlotte Square was done a long time. While only neighbours within 20m are directly informed, there are public notices. There are transport assessments, so CEC has had to alter earlier LDPs.
    • P Williamson: such justifications should be made very public as part of planning.
    • R Price, C Fletcher: transport is a land use, so should be part of CP2040 etc. However, most transport implementations, and waste bins, are permitted via TROs. Hence they are not treated as planning matters. Hence NTBCC should state that TROs are a planning matter.
  • B Ryan: can NTBCC’s submission cover only spatial planning, or also include social planning (e.g. infrastructure)?
    • Cllr Osler: the NHS makes its own decisions, and CEC is reliant on it to provide data. However, NTBCC can state that there is need for such infrastructure in its area.

3.c Context/policy

3.c.i Context

  • Cllr Mowat: CP2040 and other such plans must comply with National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4).
    • CP2040 can be thought of as how CEC implements NPF4 in its area.
    • CP2030 has already been affected by NPF4 and other legislation.
    • CP2040 might similarly be affected during its lifetime by future NPFs and legislation. This can be problematic for CEC and other local authorities.
  • Cllrs Osler and Mowat: LDPs are required by law, but the required consultation (if done well) can help local authorities know what is important to residents. It will be useful to understand community opinions as well as planners’ opinions. The 10-year timescale is suitable because it provides stability and time to achieve overall objectives. Strategic transport and other visions are also needed to complement spatial plans such as CP2040. CEC has asked SG for better guidance around creation of LDPs.
  • Cllr Mowat: NTBCC should consider (1) the city centre conservation area; (2) assessments of need. This might include considering presumptions against loss of housing. (This is not currently in place for NTBCC’s area.)
  • Cllr Osler: most development is undertaken by private, for-profit companies, which need to benefit commercially from such work. Hence some changes to detailed plans will happen as sources of revenue change.
  • P Forissier, P Williamson: I encourage everyone to read CP2030, and see how the draft CP2040 is much better. Problems arrive from developments that do not comply with CPs still being approved, perhaps because individual policies within CPs not being detailed or tight enough (i.e. there are loopholes). Therefore NTBCC should examine each policy in CP2040, and related guidance documents, and suggest ways to fix loopholes.
    • Cllr Mowat: NTBCC needs to take into account where the SG reporter has overturned parts of other CPs.
    • Action: P Forissier to undertake/co-ordinate such work, then draft this part of NTBCC’s submission.
  • Cllr Mowat: CEC cannot specify technologies or materials (e.g. for insulation) in ten-year plans because new versions arise. These are specified in building standards. Also, NPF4 assumes that all environmental measures will be taken.
  • P Williamson: NTBCC’s area is already very full.

3.c.ii Contextual/policy ideas

  • C Fletcher: CP2040 needs to take into account constraints as well as opportunities.
    • For example, there is much pressure on green space, so any development should have its own green space. As a precedent, 50% of land in Vienna is green space. CEC does not begin to match this.
    • A McIntosh: there should be policy requiring open space to have mature large trees to provide shade and cooling, and to help with mental health. This should be part of the early stages of planning, not a later bolt-on, so that developers can’t say ‘the root system would interfere with the building, and it’s too late to change plans’.
    • A McIntosh: CEC should mitigate against global warming, encouraging natural ventilation instead of air conditioners. Where possible, these should be built into plans from the start, not bolted on towards the end.
    • Action: C Fletcher to draft the ‘green space’ part of NTBCC’s submission, looking at policy already in the draft plan.
  • D Neville: NTBCC should compare the OPP sites in CP2030 and the draft CP2040 (i.e. which are in CP2030 only, which are in CP2040 only, which are in both), so it is aware of what is being considered, and why.
    • Cllr Mowat: local knowledge will be very helpful. For example, knowledge that an area is already used for sheltered housing will help prevent earmarking this area for high-density residential housing. Similarly, NTBCC members will know detail of local employment.
    • M McDonnell: only 38 of the over 200 OPP sites have all the needed information. Few have numbers of homes.
    • M McDonnell: the ‘strengths, challenges, indications’ information shows that the New Town and West End areas have insufficient DPs and dentists, and more pubs and entertainment venues.
    • Action: R Price to undertake/co-ordinate this ‘OPP’ work, then draft this part of NTBCC’s submission.
  • While it is not possible to predict 10 years into the future (e.g. short-term lets, vape-shops, student accommodation have all arisen or increased massively in the last decade), there should be policies on saturation and horizon scanning (i.e. watching out for saturation beginning to build up). In addition, there should be policies on these for local areas.
    • Cllr Osler: the latter would need CP2040 to state ‘XYZ should occur here while ABC should only happen there’. Hence CEC needs to balance needs. However, it is difficult to state when there is too much of anything. NTBCC does not need to specify how any idea is to be implemented and how it might affect other area: CEC’s task is to make such balances. There are already policies for the Old and New Towns, and other areas can be different.
    • F Banatvala: because NTBCC is in the city centre, it is less suitable for new housing than outlying areas. CEC currently has no policy on numbers of hotels in the city centre. It is not sensible to put so much student accommodation (e.g. at Heriot Watt) without increasing numbers of busses etc.
    • Action: K Lochrie to draft ‘saturation’ part of NTBCC’s submission.
  • P Williamson: NTBCC needs to justify its ideas, perhaps building on the idea of ‘amenity’. Planning policy needs flexibility in the face of the uncertain future. there needs to be some control on the impact of tourism.
    • Cllr Osler: this could be asked for in terms of the conservation area.
    • Cllr Mowat: policies underpin criteria for assessing proposed development. There are currently fewer constraints on student housing than on other development types, although CEC now has to assess needs for it. It is theoretically easy to know the residential properties occupied by students: they have a council-tax exemption. It has proven harder to obtain relevant data from universities. Hence this work is still in progress. For short-term lets, I have always used the presumption against loss of residential housing in the Old Town [implying that NTBCC could ask for a presumption against loss of residential housing in its area].
    • P Williamson: there could also be presumptions/policies around maintaining employment and minimising time taken to travel to work, and resulting pollution.
  • P Williamson: plans should be clearer in terms of visions, e.g. minimising ‘tartan tat’ shops on Princes St.
    • Cllr Mowat: it is difficult to presume against individual types of retain use. Similarly, hotels and hostels are in the same class, so it would be difficult to ask for more (or less) of one of these.
  • B Ryan: to enable horizon scanning and understanding whether saturation is beginning to occur, to know the extents to which conformity and any targets are being achieved, and to obtain transparency, CP2040 should include a commitment to regularly publish relevant data, e.g. numbers of hotel beds (both currently available and planned) every 12 or 24 months. Such data-gathering would also help demonstrate compliance with NPFs and other legislation.
    • Cllr Mowat: SG mandates some such data-publication. (I don’t currently know exactly which data.)
    • Action: B Ryan to draft ‘horizon-scanning’ and ‘data’ parts of NTBCC’s submission.
  • P Forissier: there needs to be better enforcement and certainty that plans are not changed without scrutiny and/or justification, e.g. from residential development to student accommodation.
    • Cllr Osler: this is now in CP2030, in that there is an onus for adaptability of proposed student accommodation to normal residential use. However, it may be difficult to enforce this further.
    • Action: P Forissier to draft this part of NTBCC’s submission.

3.d More specific topics

  • K Lochrie: can there be policy around numbers/impact of [apart]hotels?
    • Cllr Mowat: it may be possible to ask for derogations from section 4 (which presumes against changing class-uses). There are also permitted development types, but these tend to be less applicable to conservation area properties. NTBCC should tell CEC planning about its desires and expertise about its area.
    • Cllr Osler: for example, NTBCC could state that there is lack of local food-shopping and/or hardware stores in its area, couching this in terms of amenity for residents.
  • Cllr Osler: different types of student need different types of accommodation. For example, overseas students may well need purpose-build student accommodation.
    • Cllrs Mowat and Osler: until ~7 years ago, CEC assessed numbers of hotels. Thanks to the TVL, CEC will know what hotels charge this year and in the future. Visitor numbers are increasing, so we could try to spread out the impacts across the year. However, some residents prefer there to be some quiet periods.
  • F Banatvala: the city centre hosts most of the festival, so needs certain things that other areas do not. What is the Edinburgh World heritage Trust’s contribution to this process, and how can/should NTBCC join with any EWHT submission? This would help fulfil the ‘conservation area’ point above.
    • Action: F Banatvala to draft this part of NTBCC’s submission.
  • A Macintosh, R Price, P Forissier: NTBCC should consider what it wishes in these areas:
    • the area between Gayfield Square and St Mary’s primary school (former art studio)
    • McDonald Place cash and carry (which is earmarked for housing)
    • McDonald Road drill hall
    • the Jewsons yard (Eyre Place)
    • Atholl Crescent (There is planning permission for some townhouses here, but most is a brownfield site.)
    • Shandwick Place aparthotel (This is outwith NTBCC’s area but may be an example to help NTBCC’s submission. This had been offices, so the use has ‘changed’ from commercial to commercial.)
  • M McDonnell: there should be more water-fountains in the city centre.

4 Any other business

  • See above for who is taking on what. NTBCC does not need to rewrite CP2040, just provide useful clear input.
  • Action: when this note is circulated, it should reiterate the call for ideas, and how to suggest items for NTBCC’s submission.