Minutes of New Town & Broughton Community Council’s ordinary meeting, held via Zoom, on Monday 13 October 2025 at 7pm

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

1 Welcome and apologies

1.a Attendance

Fiona Banatvala	NTBCC	Joe McAdam	NTBCC	Bruce Ryan	Minutes secretary
Michael Birch	NTBCC	Masudun Nessa Mitu	NTBCC	Alan McIntosh	Broughton Spurtle
Pierre Forissier	NTBCC	Susan MacInnes	NTBCC	Cllr Jack Caldwell	Leith Walk ward
Laura Graham	NTBCC	Richard Price	NTBCC	Cllr Claire Miller	City Centre ward
Stephen Hajducki	NTBCC	David Renton	NTBCC	Cllr Margaret Graham	City Centre ward
Shaun Hodge	NTBCC	Nick Reid	NTBCC	At least 9residents/visitors
Simon Holledge	NTBCC	Gerald Wells	NTBCC
Ken Lochrie	NTBCC	Peter Williamson	NTBCC

1.b Apologies

Annick Gaillard	NTBCC	Cllr Max Mitchell	Inverleith ward	Cllr Hal Osler	Inverleith ward
Vanessa Roëves	NTBCC	Cllr Jo Mowat	City Centre ward

2 Declarations of interest

None

3 Approval of minutes of September 2025 meeting and matters arising

Approved subject to noting that P Foressier was present (approved PF, seconded M Birch, ND)

3.a Actions from September meeting

Item	Actor	Action	Status
3a row 6	· B. Ryan · S Hodge	· Report on ‘pride in the city’ survey responses · Boost awareness of NTBCC’s PITC survey	Complete. NTBCC may try social media.
3.a row 7	M Birch	Forward ‘pride in the city’ correspondence to CEC cllrs	Complete. PITC is finished in NTBCC’s area for now. Action: NTBCC chair and transport/environment convener to meet with Essential Edinburgh chair over maintenance of Picardy Place.
3.a row 9	NTBCC reps	Attend EACC meeting about CC elections	Complete (No NTBCC reps attended this.) Cllr Graham: this discussed comms with CCs and bureaucracy, and place planning. Discussion of election feedback was held over to EACC’s next meeting.
3.a row 11	Cllr Mowat	Chase about the fading zebra crossing that nearly cause S Hodge to be run over.	Complete. it was repainted the next day.
3.a row 13	Cllr Mowat	Review CEC’s handling of flypast matters	Complete. See Cllr Mowat’s email below.
4.a	· S Hodge · Cllr Caldwell · NTBCC	· reach out to local businesses about volunteer days to maintain Picardy Place · (in lieu of city centre cllrs) chase up PP issues with CEC · follow up PP issues	In progress
4.b	G Wells	Circulate to members NTBCCs current constitution, suggested changes, draft ‘final’ version	Complete. Edinburgh CCs have used the CC schemes since 2009. Action: GW to create an easy-access version.
4.d	· Police Scotland · S MacInnes · B Ryan	· Supply their contact email addresses to NTBCC secretary · Circulate these to members · Advertise them on NTBCC’s website	Incomplete. SM/S Hodge to chase, and include relevant issues in covering email
4.d	Police Scotland	Raise with officers tracking offending cycle-hirers via hire-system’s GPS	S Hodge: an angle-grinder was used to steal a Voi bike, and a recording of this went viral on social media.
8.a	M Birch	Inform city centre cllrs of NTBCC’s dissatisfaction with bin review, demand to be included in discussions	Complete
8.b.ii	M Birch	Submit complaint about ETRO issues to public service ombudsman	In progress
8.c.i	M Birch	Submit a deputation on ESDG/pavement widths/tables and chairs issues	Complete

Email from Cllr Mowat

I’m not sure what review handling of Flypast matters was to entail. The Council has had a couple of motions raising this in the last six months. The first to Regulatory Committee was responded to by a report which detailed that we don’t have any controls over these from a Regulatory point of view. There was another motion to Council about possible pollution from flypasts (which was inaccurately drafted for a start) and the Council voted to take No Action on the matter. The outcome of the first motion was that the Tattoo would improve its publicity of when the flypasts would happen – which seemed to be the case this year. No action on other types of flypast or flights over the city have been proposed or discussed – despite them occasioning more complaints in my experience.

4 Chair’s report

All points made by P Williamson unless otherwise noted.

4.a New Local Interest Group – Gayfield Association

Laura Graham now represents the Gayfield Association on NTBCC. GA has ~80 members.

4.b Prospective new community councillor

• Andrew Naughtie has asked to be co-opted onto NTBCC. He was engagement officer on another Edinburgh CC, but has now moved into NTBCC’s area.
  • Action: NTBCC to consider co-option in November.

4.c Councillor Margaret Graham’s motion to the City Council on an Edinburgh Heritage Strategy

• Cllr Graham: Edinburgh has a good, detailed strategy for its built environment but nothing else on heritage, e.g. natural heritage, peoples’ stories. CEC officers agreed this doesn’t meet, for example, SG’s definition of heritage; other LAs also have good heritage strategies. It’s important to capture stories, as well as preserve the built environment – and the connections between these. Culture and communities will be using some of the visitor levy revenue for this.
  • The oversight group for the old and new town plans will remain with CEC Planning.
  • Action: P Williamson to pursue this convenor.
• NTBCC will follow this with interest.

4.d Action on motorised bikes/dangerous cycling

• This issue keeps recurring, but there is no legislation enabling police to take action.
• S Hodge: people are being scared by such cyclists, so NTBCC should pursue this. I’m happy to draft a paper on these concerns, then contacting MSPs and CEC cllrs, pushing for a public information campaign. (agreed ND)
• M Birch: residents tell NTBCC that CEC should campaign against dangerous cycling, including on-pavement cycling.
• Residents: police don’t/can’t act, so we are standing in offenders’ paths. E-bike riders are being dangerous. The Highway Code needs backed up with actual, enforceable regulations.

4.e Picardy Place

See item 3.a (row 6) above and item 8.d below.

4.f Position on constitution

See item 3.a (row 7) above.

5 Planning matters

All points made by R Price unless otherwise noted.

5.a Royal London (Thistle Street) amended proposal (25/03183/FUL)

• It is planned to retain this currently vacant building but extend it both in height and towards Queen St. NTBCC objected to this, and was told the latest application invited comments. The original concerns remain. Also, the listed building consent application has not been amended accordingly.
  • P Forissier, P Williamson: NTBCC should object to the latest plans. PF is happy to help with this.
  • Action: RP to lead on NTBCC’s objection, including chasing about the LBC issue.

5.b Royal London (Henderson Row) (25/03716/FUL) (to note)

NTBCC broadly support the plans to make this building residential , but not the upward extension with a Mansard roof. NTBCC will continue to monitor this, and ask for local voices to be heard

5.c Edinburgh Christmas (2025/6 & 2026/7) – East/West Princes St Gardens

This proposal similar to the one approved last year, but there is some footprint creep. It is welcome that this application was submitted somewhat earlier than previous ones. Documents are on CEC’s planning portal. I will circulate links. NTBCC members should send me their comments.

5.d DPEA: Meadows to George St Traffic Regulation Order TRO/21/32 (Hearing)

• The cycle-route plans have been referred to SG DPEA (planning). A reporter has not yet been allocated. There appears to be some delay in communications from DPEA.
  • M Birch: the last such DPE item I recall was about Leith St. there was no physical hearing. Commenters on the original plans were invited to make further comments. However, I hope for a hearing on this matter. I expect the DPEA to publish all the documents. This project would impact others.
  • R Price: hearings can be drawn-out processes, requiring much work.
  • A resident: people are unaware that the route from Trinity to Kings Buildings would be cut, and that driving up the Mound would be forbidden, which would be disastrous. How do we raise awareness?
  • M Birch: this was part of our submission, which received media attention. The Mound would have cycle-routes and floating bus-stops on both sides, so the carriageway would become narrower and inacceptable to most traffic.

5.e Other applications of interest

• It is proposed to convert the vacant, grade 2 listed Charlotte Baptist Chapel into a hotel. It helped that NTBCC was invited to a site visit. NTBCC did not object to conversion as an idea but objected to the planned extensive intervention.
• Activity is now under way in areas of the RBS site where work is permitted. The site has been unused for too long

6 Licensing matters

No discussion

7 Culture and communities matters

See also report on NTBCC website for items 7·b and 7·c. All points made by S Holledge unless otherwise noted.

7.a Calton Hill Erosion Emergency – Culture & communities discussion on 2 October with Motion by Cllr McFarlane

• Calton Hill Conservation Trust declared an erosion emergency on 12 September. This year’s rainfall has been only half of the norm. CH has a lot of footfall, and grass has been over-cut. The declaration obtained 13 media organisation responses ,from the BBC to the Midlothian View to substack publications such as the Minute and the Inquirer. Cllr McFarlane’s motion resulted in welcome references to erosion, but not to the emergency, i.e. apparently there will be no follow-up action this year as requested. There have been no positive replies to emails to CEC officers.
  • Parks levy revenue (~£6k this spring) should have been ringfenced; CHCT has not been able to find out how it’s been used. CHCT is will soon crowd-fund action against erosion.
  • R Price: it is unclear why CEC doesn’t fund the relative small amounts needed. Levy revenue shouldn’t be ring-fenced to the particular parks it’s raised from but shared among all parks as needed.
  • Ring-fencing was decided by CEC culture and communities in December 2024. Concern was expressed about the relationship between CHCT and CEC officers, but the problem is that CEC officers are unavailable/don’t reply.
  • P Williamson: NTBCC should discuss/raise issue of CEC officials not responding to communications.
  • Cllr Graham: I put forward an addendum to Cllr McFarlane’s motion due to these tensions; the best way forward was to include all partners/stakeholders. CH needs a management plan. Officers have applied successfully for significant funding – more than £6k from the levy. CEC officers are stretched, so PW’s suggestion is worth following.
  • SH: there are two national lottery funds that could be used: Heritage Fund, Community Fund.

7.b Tour of France grand depart

See report.

7.c Right to grow

See report.

8 Transport and environment matters

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

8.a Charlotte Square NTBCC comments

NTBCC held a separate meeting on this. It sent detailed comments to the project manager who has suggested meeting on 22 October. MB is consolidating the issues; these include lack of clarity around the project’s intent, lack of community engagement, lack of clarity about how the project fits the city mobility plan. (Other plans might be more important.)

8.b Cornwallis Place dropped kerbs

CEC roads has stated that it will make pavement extensions permanent, but also plans to do more. NTBCC has concerns about this and about potential for flooding, e.g. of the church due to relocation of gullies.

8.c Engine idling

• Regent Rd is being used by a large number of buses and coaches, not all of which switch off engines while waiting. Some drivers have been rude when approached by residents. There is a regulation mandating fixed penalties but CEC is not enforcing this, possibly because the fine is very small due to lack of legislation. CEC had said this area would be a subject of June 2025’s clean air day but didn’t do this. Hence, the question is ‘what will CEC do?’
  • P Williamson: private vehicles also do this. It’s hard to enforce.
  • It just needs CEC officers to act. Buses’ diesel engines are more polluting – there are high levels of NO₂ on Regent Rd. Data on particulates isn’t available. CEC has little power but the traffic commissioner may be able to act.
  • A resident: there needs to be sufficient [CEC] staff to enforce, and a monetary penalty.
  • P Williamson: there should be more signage about potential penalties.
  • Resident: it’s important to see which bodies have legal duties to act, and the staff to do so.
  • Parking enforcement is done under a contract from CEC to a private company. I don’t know what this mandates.
    I will undertake an FOI request to ascertain this.

8.d Picardy Place community clean-up

• NTBCC and Essential Edinburgh will soon meet about maintaining PP. I have contacted CEC officers and cllrs, who are interested in NTBCC undertaking this clean-up, which might be at the end of October or early November.
  • I also raised this at the recent CCTT meeting: replanting of dead trees all along the route is the responsibility of a CEC officer (R Armstrong), under a relevant contract. Weeds may have been deliberately planted to create a ‘wild flower’ appearance. NTBCC will need CEC’s agreement to weed or litter-pick.
  • Cllr Caldwell: RA hopes to announce a firm date for replacing dead trees soon. The landscaping should also be redone.
  • A resident: I would be very cautious about getting EE involved: commercial interests may override public interests.
  • S Hodge: I have drafted a communication to local businesses, and a list of businesses that could be approached. I won’t issue the communications until we have clarity on who can undertake any work.

8.e North-south trams route

• A resident: why is CEC wasting money on consulting on this when it does not have the budget to implement the route? How should NTBCC respond to this consultation?
  • M Birch: I will draft NTBCC’s response in time for the deadline (17 Nov) focussing on issues relevant to NTBCC.
  • S Holledge: the south suburban line could be reopened instead, potentially saving budget.
  • M Birch: CEC’s TEC approved the work so far, including this consultation. Lack of funds should be recognised, as should other options not in this consultation.

8.f Bins

• A resident: thanks for including bin-hubs bit in the report. CEC decided to place bin-hubs in Royal Circus, despite low a response rate to this consultation. CEC is now reconsulting on the north side of RC, but not on the south side, where it believes residents want bin-bubs. This is untrue: 80% of residents state that they wish gull-proof bags, not hubs. Bin-hubs are an eyesore and are abused by fly-tippers.
  • M Birch: this original consultation – and hence the decisions from it – was flawed. I will liaise with this resident.
  • L Graham: CEC only replied to those who responded to the original consultation. Gayfield Square residents want bins on the garden side, not in front of houses. A natural garden has been established in GS, so similar could be done in Picardy Place.
  • F Banatvala: both Gayfield Square and Royal Circus are in the current review. (The resident disagreed.)

8.g TROs/ETRos

• A resident: there is no way for the public no way to object to TROs. Has this been raised by NTBCC?
  • M Birch: this is work in progress, enabling NTBCC to raise broader issues. The processes are unclear.

9 Any other business

• S Hodge: I complained to Scottish Power Networks about the state in which it left McDonald Rd. SPN has now restored it completely. There was delay in CEC obtaining the correct cobbles.
• M Birch: NTBCC’s November meeting with be in the church’s garden room, not the Drummond Room.
• P Williamson: I removed people who were behaving rudely from this call. I will do so again if necessary.