LCCC October 2022 minutes

Minutes of Leith Central Community Council meeting, at Nelson Hall, McDonald Road Library, on Monday 17 October 2022 at 7:00pm

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

1 Welcome, introductions, attendance, apologies

1.a Present, apologies

Jun
(AGM)		 Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May
Voting members Alan Dudley A No meeting P No meeting P No meeting
Charlotte Encombe A P A
Pierre Forissier P X P
Nick Gardner P A A
Sheila Kennedy P P P
Ian Mowat P P P
Alex Ortiz NA P P
Harald Tobermann P P P
Lucy Wood-Watters P X P
John Wilkinson P P P
Non-voting members Bruce Ryan P A P
Cllr Jack Caldwell P P P
Cllr James Dalgleish P P P
Cllr Amy McNeese-Mechan A A A
Cllr Susan Rae X X P
Ben Macpherson MSP X X A
Deidre Brock MP A A A
Number of residents/visitors attending 9 4 8

P = present, A = apology, X = neither present nor sent apology, NA = not applicable

1.b Declarations of interest in any items on the agenda

  • While not an actual interest, it was noted in item 6.a.ii that A Ortiz is on AIrBnB’s UK community board. This is a voluntary role in which he communicates community matters to AirBnB.

1.c Order of business below

Agreed to follow agenda as-is, nem con

2 Approval of minutes of the ordinary LCCC meeting on 15 August 2022 meeting

Approved as-is (proposed H Tobermann, seconded I Mowat, nem con)

3 Matters arising from previous minutes (and not included on agenda below)

  • Item 5.a.ii: it had been agreed to write to CEC about meeting time issues, but LCCC is now able to meet 7pm to 9pm.
  • Item 12.b: action: B Ryan to (ascertain and) circulate an email address so LCCC can contribute to LC running costs.

4 Policing matters

4.a to note: Police Report(s) April to September 2022

  • No police reports have been received since April.
  • Action: L Watters to ask her contact in Leith community policing to come to LCCC meetings.
  • Action: B Ryan to forward to L Watters an example of police reports to LHNCC: these include crime statistics.

5 LCCC Governance

5.a to note: late cancellation of LCCC’s September meeting due to closure of library

Noted

5.b to note: previous start time (7pm) for LCCC’s monthly ordinary meetings and associated access and egress arrangements have been agreed with CEC

  • Noted: LCCC is grateful to the library shift manager and his colleagues for enabling LCCC to meet at its preferred times.
  • To enable this, the main door into Nelson Hall will be locked at 8pm. Attendees will exit via the McDonald Rd door.

5.c to note: proposed LCCC councillor co-option

  • Noted: possible co-optee is Zoe Stevenson. She moved to LCCC’s area ~1 year ago. She is a community housing officer, and is interested in planning, especially affordable housing.
    • Action: Z Stevenson to provide written summary of her interests.
    • Action: Z Stevenson to add herself to LCCC’s mailing list.
    • Action: LCCC to decide on L Stevenson’s co-option in November.

5.d Engagement Officer

5.d.i to note: resignation of Lucy Wood-Watters as LCCC’s engagement officer

  • This was noted, with thanks to her for taking on this role. (LWW is still a member of LCCC.)

5.d.ii to agree: appointment of new or stand-in Engagement Officer

  • S Kennedy has key to noticeboard so will continue to maintain this pro tempore
  • Action: C Encombe to become (pro tempore) engagement officer (nem con).
  • Action: A Ortiz to consider taking on this role.

5.e LCCC’s IT governance, usability, costs

5.e.i to note: need to review current arrangements for lead contact(s), operational access, recovery protocols, as well as usability, training/skills needs and costs/providers

  • B Ryan now has access to the Microsoft back-end using the appropriate identity and MS Authenticator.
  • Decision: to stay with Microsoft while working group in 5.e.ii reviews other possible service providers (not least because LCCC has paid for MS services up to Feb 2023).

5.e.ii to agree: to nominate a working group of LCCC members to review IT governance, usability, training/skills needs and costs/providers

  • Agreed nem con: working group members are H Tobermann, A Ortiz, B Ryan (potentially co-opting others as needed)
  • Agreed nem con: LCCC/working group can spend small amounts to trial possible new solutions
  • Agreed nem con: any new solution must have broadly the same functionality as the MS solution now in place

5.f to note: Councillor Caldwell’s ward report for LCCC (October 2022)

Noted: see report in Appendix 1

6 Planning

Action: P Forissier to update LCCC’s planning status document.

6.a Short Term Lets

6.a.i to note: Short-term Let Planning Guidance Consultation – Focus Group Invite
Tuesday 25 October 2022 – 3pm – For Short-term Let Operators/Business
Thursday 27 October 2022 – 3pm – Community/Residents
Tuesday 1 November 2022 – 3pm – Tourism/Festivals

  • Action: J Wilkinson to attend ‘community/residents’ session, then précis it to S Kennedy/H Tobermann.

6.a.ii to note: Proposed changes to Guidance for Businesses – Short Term Lets

  • It was noted that this is a consultation.
    • Action: S Kennedy/H Tobermann to respond to this consultation.

6.a.iii to note: draft LCCC policy on Short Term Lets in our area

it was noted that this policy is about planning (i.e. STL licensing is separate).

  • Under the proposed policy, LCCC would not comment on existing STLs unless asked to do so by residents, but would comment on all new STL applications.
    • Cllr Rae warned that there would be many retrospective applications.
    • S Kennedy gave an example of CEC refusing such an application. (There are many such rejections, according to SK.) While SK stated that it is possible to tell which applications are retrospective because they note change of use (e.g. from dwelling-place to STL), it was suggested that CEC should better distinguish new and retrospective applications.
  • A resident noted that CCs have limited resources due to their voluntary nature. Another resident stated that STLs are a big issue for the community, and requested that LCCC plays a more active role and provide more information about the process, e.g. whether CEC has presumptions for or against granting planning permission.
    • It was suggested that LCCC publishes weekly planning lists on its website. (This would automatically share them with LCCC’s website and Twitter followers.) H Tobermann suggested just publishing information, e.g. Scottish Government and CEC guidance, LCCC’s policy.
    • Cllr Caldwell: CEC’s presumption is against granting permission.
    • Action: Cllr Rae to ask CEC to provide separate lists of STL and other planning applications.
  • I Mowat: LCCC is not sufficiently aware of CEC policy/presumptions to decide on its own policy. (P Forissier concurred.)
    • A McIntosh: LCCC should contact NTBCC, which has a member who is well connected with PLACE Edinburgh.
  • Decision/actions:
    • LCCC to defer deciding its policy to November
    • P Forissier/S Kennedy to contact NTBCC/PLACE Edinburgh, summarise CEC policy – reporting to LCCC in November. (This report should distinguish between he planning and licensing aspects of STLs in Edinburgh.)
    • S Kennedy to join LCCC planning committee, working only on STL matters

6.b to note: any other Planning matters relevant to LCCC area

  • S Kennedy: there is survey on HMOs:
    • Action: SK to respond and report

7 Transport and clean streets

7.a Update on Trams to Newhaven construction works and final design (verbal)

H Tobermann: progress is happening, and the project is likely to finish on time and on budget. However it is not perfect. For example, traffic diversions cause issues (e.g. Picardy Place to London Rd is currently closed northbound for resurfacing work, but should soon re-open. After that it will temporarily close southbound.

7.a.i to note: CCTT deputation to Transport & Environment Committee 6-10-22

Noted: it informed new CEC councillors of the difficult last period of the construction work, which is due to finish in 2022.

  • H Tobermann: Key issues include fixing defects: the contractor must fix any arising within 2 years of project finish.
    • These are separate to commitments, i.e. CEC promises to change other things around the central project that have been built to the designs but are (later) found to be sub-optimal. Examples include the current design of Elm Row.
    • TT will share an overview of defects and its commitments register.
    • HT: if (e.g.) façade work impacts tram, need to get agreement of tram operators, so don’t worry (if process goes OK)

7.a.ii to note: tram works issues for local residents

  • Points raised in item 7.a.i:
    • H Tobermann: the left turn from southbound Leith Walk into Brunswick St is closed temporarily, but will eventually be accessible by traffic, as will other such junctions (e.g. at Dalmeny St)
      • Cllr Rae/A Dudley: that junction is not working – it is dangerous.
      • Cllr Caldwell: it is likely that all such junctions will have painted guidance.
      • H Tobermann: the designs are intended to benefit pedestrians. Police should intervene in dangerous driving.
    • A resident: The Croall Place bus shelter is planned against the back wall, which would place pedestrians crossing the cycle-path in danger. The trams team (TT) has agreed to visit the site on 31 October. This visit would also cover loading bays: there are none here, nor are there suitable crossings to loading bays across Leith Walk. (This is despite TT suppling plans showing a loading bay near McDonald Rd.)
      • H Tobermann: this lack of loading bay may be a defect. This bus-stop and others are on my agenda.
    • A resident: residents and businesses will need permission to have work done on their buildings on the tram route.
      • H Tobermann: this is probably concerned with tram electrical wiring affixed to such buildings, or to avoid problems with scaffolding being placed on cycle-paths. Such work would need the tram operator’s agreement that this work will be undertaken safely, and should not cost owners financially – if the process works well.
  • Action: Cllr Caldwell to chase up traffic-change data about Easter Road before and after commencement of trams work.
  • PForissier: please enquire about CEC’s strategy for monitoring noise due tram operation.
    • It was noted that CCTT/TT meeting minutes can only be published after approval at the following meeting.

7.a.iii to note: tram works issues for local businesses

  • L Woods-Watters: things appear to be improving for local businesses – there are noticeable amounts new customers, and there is quite a buzz around the reopened shops in the sandstone buildings near the Foot of the Walk.

7.b to note: October 22 update on communal bin review rollout

Noted.

  • J WIlkionson: the bull-bars on Bonnington Rd have been bent somewhat by a crash.
    • H Tobermann: such matters should be reported to CEC. Also, waste-lorries have in-cab issue-reporting technology.
  • J Wilkinson: waste teams are not applying brakes on bin-wheels.
  • S Kennedy: bins have not been placed into the new hub on Abbeyhill – they remain ‘all over the place’ because CEC is not moving cars that are in the way.
    • Cllr Caldwell: There may be staffing issues causing this problem.
    • Action: Cllr Dalgleish to chase this up with CEC staff.

7.c to note: absence of usage statistics for North Bridge (and therefore impact of closure)

Noted

  • H Tobermann: North Bridge will be closed until 2025, but CEC has no idea how many people are affected by this. CEC has an unwelcome history of not collecting such data.

7.d to note: (belated) response by CEC to LCCC’s comments/objections to the advertising of the traffic order for Phase 1 of the Strategic Review of Parking

  • I Mowat: the original report appeared not to show that CCs’ comments had been considered but it turns out that comments were arranged thematically. It would be better if CCs’ comments are highlighted.
    • It is confusing that Spey St Lane would have ‘notional’ double yellow lines but Spey St would have single yellow lines.[1]
    • Action: I Mowat to enquire what the quoted words will mean in practice and to ask for CCs’ future comments to be shown.
  • I Mowat: this response covers TROs for CPZ phase 1, i.e. up to Bonnington Rd. Phase 2 TROs are now being considered.

7.e to note: any other Transport and clean streets matters relevant to LCCC area

  • A resident: DVLA has taken no action on an untaxed, un-MOTed car that has been double parked for a long time.
    • S Kennedy: Police can intervene if this is a hazard.
    • Action: Cllr Caldwell to follow this up.
  • A resident: signage design is poor – can LCCC pursue this? Cllr Caldwell has told me that CEC is trying to minimise signage-clutter by using lamp-posts and signs on walls.
    • H Tobermann: there will be no lamp-posts on Leith Walk when tram-construction is finished. There are too many signs here already. I will urge for the commitments register to include rationalisation of signage.
    • Action: I Mowat to engage with CEC over signage that suits conservation areas.

8 Parks and green spaces

8.a to note: any Parks and green spaces matters relevant to LCCC area

  • A resident: Pilrig Park had lacked bins and benches but there were improvements. However, since the former chair of Friends of Pilrig Park went away, FoPP done nothing, despite the park being much used, especially during lockdown.
  • Action: J Wilkinson (FOPP’s treasurer) to liaise with FoPP and the resident about the poor state of Pilrig Park paths.

9 Licensing

9.a to note: any Licensing matters relevant to LCCC area

All points made by S Kennedy unless otherwise noted.

  • A Turkish restaurant on Elm Row applied for catering and alcohol licenses until 2am. LCCC objected, and licenses were granted only to midnight.
  • LCCC did not object to licensing applications by a skin-piercing/tattoo parlour and a second-hand dealer.
  • Membership of LCCC licensing committee was confirmed as S Kennedy, J Wilkinson, N Gardner, I Mowat.
  • J Wilkinson: there appear to be many hurdles to attending meetings of the Edinburgh licensing forum. (This is chaired by Cllr Mowat.)
    • B Ryan: JW should contact NTBCC’s licensing convenor, who has successfully joined the forum.
    • Action: J Wilkinson to report on progress at LCCC’s November meeting.

10 Open Forum (local residents)[2]

No items raised

11 AOCB (LCCC members)[3]

  • H Tobermann: there was notification about change of use to student accommodation at Ashley Place. (item 6.b. in LCCC August minutes.)
    • Action: P Foressier to delve into this matter.

12 Bulletin[4]

No items raised

13 Future ordinary meetings (usually 3rd Monday of the month) and meeting topics/presentations

13.a to note: future meetings on 3rd Monday of each month at 7pm (except July and December)

2022: 21 November; 2023: 16 January, 20 February, 20 March, 17 April, 15 May (AGM), 19 June

14 Appendix 1: Councillor Caldwell’s ward report for LCCC

14.a Bicycles on Leith Walk closed lanes – raised under Open Forum by resident;

Action; I contacted TTN to put up more ‘Bike Lane Closed’ signs, which they did, but anecdotally I don’t believe it’s made much of a difference.

14.b Bin hubs – Dalmeny St concerns previously raised by CCllr Pierre;

The bin hubs have had ongoing ‘growing pains’ and I was disappointed Councillors didn’t vote for a recent amendment in September’s TEC which would’ve stopped some of these issues expanding to neighbouring CCs. However I gave an oral and written deputation to the last TEC (written is attached) and was pleased that Cllrs are starting to come together a bit more to revisit Phase 1 issues, such as identified by Pierre. In summary we’re now getting details soon on how feedback will be collected and I’ll be pushing for KPIs such as noise and flytipping levels to be collected. I am continuing to liaise with Erica and her team until then.

14.c Speeding on Leith Walk at night – raised in Open Forum by resident;

It was raised that the stretch outside Leith Depot has drivers “doing up to 80mph” on traffic free hours of night and early morning. Obviously speed bumps can’t be placed on a tram track. This area has now been identified for the next batch of speed monitoring in the next month or so, which is just as well as those wires won’t be able to run across the tram line once the tram actually starts running down there. I’ve attached the relevant letter.

14.d Leith Chooses

I’m continuing to work with community councillors on the steering group as the application deadline is this Friday 14th.

14.e Bus shelter next to Leith Walk Police Box

Raised with SRO Hannah Ross at our meeting however she outlined to me the challenges of moving it forward. I believe there’s a TTN site visit being arranged. Carried forward.

14.f Bicycle lane lips on Leith Walk and Croall Place etc.

I’ve made clear to TTN that my preference is some kind of paint on the lip to highlight it. However I’m hoping we start a ward councillors forum as we get to final weeks and can keep liaising on that issue through that channel. Ongoing.

14.g Abbeyhill Colonies and Rossie Place parking – raised by CCllr Sheila

Met with reps of Residents Association after concerns were raised that Rossie & 7 Colony Streets. Actions were agreed by myself and Coucillor Dalgleish. I liaised with my LibDem colleagues on TEC to put in an amendment with the following wording; “agrees that the process of monitoring and review within the Abbeyhill colonies, as promised on page 65 of the report, should involve public consultation not later than six months after the implementation of the new controlled parking restrictions; with a subsequent committee report on the consultation results and a recommendation on whether to retain this area within N6” which passed.

14.h Deputation mentioned in item 13b

I wish to raise some ‘learning experiences’ and ‘food for thought’ for both the Convenor and members of the Transport and Environment committee in regards to the nearly-completed rollout of Phase 1 of the Communal Bin Review across the communities of Leith, Pilrig, Bonnington and Abbeyhill. Although there are frustrations, I wish to preface this by thanking Officers for their engagement during the process which has been significant given the enormous task they were delegated from a previous iteration of the Transport and Environment committee. It is also significant due to the statutorily moderate range of powers delegated to them.

There are several items in the report which I believe need highlighted and addressed.

14.h.i Decision-making process challenges

  • Phase 1 (existing bin rollout) engagement

Further engagement for Phase 1, outlined in 7.2, is welcome, but this report does not outline how residents, particularly in my ward where rollout began around a year ago, can engage and influence change through the correct channels. I hope particular consideration is given to this in the next report. Several residents have indicated to me that they feel their neighbourhood in Leith Walk ward has been treated as a trial for the rest of the city since rollout began in 2021, which I do not believe was the Council’s initial intention. I note that two community councils in my ward have played an important role at engaging officers at the early stage and believe any engagement mechanism should continue to include them. Again I am grateful to Officers who have attempted engagements under the current scheme and it’s constraints.

Appendix 3 currently states that only “If road safety or accessibility concerns are raised post implementation or post approval of the TRO, the location will be revised accordingly.”. Again, this does not take into account other reasonable concerns such as noise (ie glass), smell, or view for nearby properties, nor desired lines for pedestrians.

  • Phase 2 (upcoming bin rollout) engagement)

For future rollouts, section 7.3 states that ‘all feedback from the public on specific locations gathered through the TRO process is considered and accommodated where practicable and in accordance with the project’s parameters and criteria’, however it is difficult to justify that statement when the Transport and Environment committee on September 1st did not approve the change of any proposals due to non-vehicle traffic-related concerns.

14.h.ii Operational challenges

  • Regular collections

Sections 4.4 and 4.5 outline ‘more regular collections’, and while this has generally been a net positive upon the previous system, with collections occurring three times a week, when collections are missed, as has happened on several occasions in north Pilrig, it leaves residents with less options than before in terms of places to dispose of their waste and/or recycling. This provides greater challenges to residents when the whole route is impacted versus one individual bin-hub being missed.

  • Flytipping

There have been a large number of reports regarding flytipping next to the bins. Although I can only provide anecdotal evidence, I would suggest that the new bin hubs attract a large amount of flytipping. I appreciate there has been a new protocol with waste lorries now having reporting mechanisms in-cabs and new training for Cleansing officers to report flytipping en-route, but I would also request Transport and Environment committee examine the large number of flytipped items in bin-hubs and explore options to make uplifts easier for the end-user to mitigate the amount of furniture which is being collected by the Council (ie making uplifts free).

  • Recycling contamination

The last challenge I would ask Transport and Environment Committee to dutifully monitor is mixed-recycling contamination and what impact having different types of bins grouped together has had on contamination levels.

I am happy to answer any questions upon request.

Thanks and regards,

Councillor Jack Caldwell, Leith Walk ward (Scottish Liberal Democrat group)

[1] CEC’s response says ‘Even though Spey Street Lane is a Permit Parking Area, it has an underlying yellow line (as do all areas in every CPZ), but that line won’t appear on the ground.’

[2] This agenda point allows members of the public to raise issues of public interest; during online meetings. Please raise your virtual hand.

[3] This agenda point allows LCCC members to raise issues not covered by the agenda.

[4] This is for information only; any discussion to be brought to a future meeting.