Minutes of Leith Central Community Council meeting, at Nelson Hall, McDonald Road Library, on Monday 21 November 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

Zoe Curry

No meeting

Alan Dudley

Charlotte Encombe

Pierre Forissier

Nick Gardner

Sheila Kennedy

Ian Mowat

Alex Ortiz

Harald Tobermann

Lucy Wood-Watters

John Wilkinson

Non-voting members

Bruce Ryan

Cllr Jack Caldwell

Cllr JamesDalgleish

Cllr Amy McNeese-Mechan

Cllr Susan Rae

Ben Macpherson MSP

Deidre Brock MP

Number of residents/visitors attending

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

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

Item 6b: C Encombe, H Tobermann and Cllr Caldwell live near the address concerned.
Item 7.a.vi: H Tobermann is chair of Edinburgh Bus Users Group.
Item 6.a (added while drafting minutes): B Ryan is a member of a spinning club that uses Leith Arches on Sunday mornings

1.c Order of business below

Agreed to follow agenda order nem con

2 Approval of minutes of the ordinary LCCC meeting on 17 October 2022

Approved as is (proposed S Kennedy, seconded A Dudley, nem con)

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

Action: minutes secretary to include summary of actions in future minutes
Item 5d: C Encombe is happy to be default engagement office
- Action: B Ryan to send her information on this role
Item 6.a.iii: Decision: LCCC will not put planning lists on its website because this would overtax LCCC’s resources.

4 Policing matters

4.a to note: Police reports April – October 2022

H Tobermann: LCCC has received no police reports since April.
- Action: C Encombe to chase this
H Tobermann: CEC has discussed asking night-time businesses to fund police getting people home safely. I am strongly against this: policing should be entirely funded by the Scottish Government because Police Scotland is a centralised force.
- Cllr Caldwell: the relevant motion would add a stipulation to licenses. It’s still at an exploratory stage. The suggestion is due to go to Edinburgh’s Licensing Board, which is not under the command of CEC.

5 Proposal of Application Notice (PAN) for purpose-built student accommodation with associated infrastructure and landscaping at 14 Ashley Place, Edinburgh, EH6 5PX

5.a Presentation by Paul Scott (planning consultant), Daryl Teague (Glencairn Properties), Kerry Nicol and Anthony Hemmings (both ISA)

Points raised:

Glencairn has previously built McDonald Rd colonies and a Salamander St development.
The Ashley Place site is in the Bonnington area. Its surroundings are a mixture of light industrial and new housing, and hence a mixture of scales and massing.
- The site is 0·24 hectares, and was previously an office, which has now been demolished.
- There are 2 previous housing planning permissions. The later, given to Glencairn, was for 65 housing units on 5 floors.
- This would have been an L-shaped block with internal space, a set-back top floor and parking.
Glencairn now proposes to build purpose-built student accommodation (PBSA) on the site.
- It has good access to transport links and is well placed for active travel.
- The buildings would be of high quality and managed.
- The buildings would have very similar massing, scale and aesthetics to those in the previous ‘residential’ plans, but the brickwork would be lighter. There would be an additional wing. However, there would be no impact from this on nearby residential properties.
The PAN was submitted in August 2022, and consulted on in October. The full proposal should be submitted within 3 weeks.

5.b Q&A led by LCCC Planning Convenor with questions from LCCC members, followed by members of the public

P Forissier: how many student rooms would there be?
- 220 to 230 student beds, of which around 80% would be in clusters. The rest would be ‘studios’.
P Forissier: could there be some residential housing on the site. Leith is losing such housing.
- This would not work, partly due to the size of the site, although we are aware of the lack of housing and that a mixture is needed. Glencairn also develops residential schemes. There is much student housing in other areas but this area is mostly residential, so student housing is a ‘missing ingredient’.
C Encombe: what is the ‘correct’ density of student population?
- Edinburgh Council’s limit for acceptability is 50%. This development would not push the area anywhere near this.
Z Curry: was the previous residential plan granted planning permission?
- Yes, in October 2021
I Mowat: is the courtyard from the previous residential plan still in this plan?
- Yes, but it would be smaller. There would be both indoors and outdoors amenity space.
I Mowat: this site is not near Edinburgh’s educational institutions. Only the 11 and 36 buses go to from here to relevant areas. Will there be cycle-storage?
- Yes: 1 cycle-space per student. Student accommodation is not just concentrated around institutions but can be near to the other benefits Edinburgh offers. For example, Edinburgh University has a 600-bed development in Baltic St.
H Tobermann: please explain the differences between the two footprints shown on the website.
- The main difference is the extra wing, so the new plans would have a bigger footprint. (See the red outline.)
H Tobermann: LCCC prefers ordinary housing to student housing, so why is Glencairn now going for the latter?
- We considered building costs, including affordable housing to be managed by a registered social landlord (RSL), but it then backed out of the relevant agreement. (That plan had included a section 75 contribution.) Building costs then shot up, and there are no alternative RSLs in this area.
S Kennedy: so is this new plan due to market uncertainty? There is a need for social housing. When I was at university, I wanted to live near fellow students. What student amenities are nearby?
- Building costs for residential are very high and the market is falling. The Scottish Government has capped rents.
A resident: what is the long-term plan in the Local Development Plan for the warehouses in this area?
- We don’t know. A lot of the area is owned by a pension fund. We do need to consider how this development would relate to other plans that may come forward. This is done in our design statement. A main electrical cable prevents some forms of development.
J Wilkinson: would there be any commercial features, e.g. gyms?
- Gyms etc on the site would be solely for student tenants.
J Wilkinson: how would waste be handled? What about parking?
- There would be a bin store, like the one in the original proposal. Waste would be collected by a contractor, not CEC.
- The car-park in the original plans would become public parking.
P Forissier: if the site was 0·25 ha or larger, residential housing would be required. It would be a good gesture to include some in the current plans.
C Encombe: could the student housing later be converted into family homes easily?
- Yes: the clustering would facilitate this.
C Encombe: there are very few shops nearby, and those are of poor quality.
- The presence of students tends to increase quality of shopping.
I Mowat: tenants/residents would often want to cross Pilrig Park, but its paths run north-south (i.e. not along such desire lines). Hence another good gesture would be a contribution to relevant improvement of the park.
H Tobermann: would the clusters be concentrated together or spread throughout the development. Conversion of some of these to social housing would be very well received by LCCC.
- Conversion would depend on the material using in construction.
- H Tobermann: we mean including some social housing in the initial build.
C Tobermann: please provide written answers to LCCC’s questions.
- Action: B Ryan to provide draft minutes asap to facilitate this.

6 Planning

6.a to agree: LCCC response to 22/01563/FUL (Land to East of 139 Leith Walk) Demolition of the existing warehouse building and construction of Sui Generis flatted dwellings including mainstream, affordable and student accommodation with a ground floor commercial unit and associated infrastructure, landscaping, and a reconfiguration of the existing car park.

P Forissier: this area is across Leith Walk from Steads Place, in the area of the Halmyre Place brief. LCCC objected to the original plans for this area. The new plans have a different footprint but the numbers would be similar.
- For example the original plans had 275 student beds and 18 affordable flats; the new plans have 230 and 27
- The original plans did not respect the CEC-mandated and place-brief’s desired proportion of student accommodation. In the new plans, the proportion has dropped from 55% to 45%. The developers claim that a development next to this one would suitably ‘dilute’ the proportion of student housing in this area.
- The development would be higher than anything nearby except the bingo hall. However, other LCCC concerns have had some attention, although the plans do not meet the place brief.
H Tobermann: the new plans are very different to the previous ones, so the developers have made two submissions for the price of one, and hence doubled LCCC’s workload. Changes and negotiations should occur in the pre-application stage.
- P Forissier: such things have been happening for a number of years.
A resident: there are some changes in the new plans, but there are high noise levels emanating from Leith Arches. The pevious plans had a stepped building but the new plans involve a 5-story building that would box in my home.
- P Forissier: it was unusual that Leith Arches got permission to become a music venue.
A resident: the bingo hall’s lease has now been extended for a further 3 years.

6.b to note: enforcement request at 11 Pilrig Street: unauthorised subdivision of listed terraced house with nine key safes, unlicensed operation as short-term let

See also declarations of interest above.

C Encombe/H Tobermann: neighbours have all written to CEC about this. CEC was refused access to the property (which has been subdivided into small rooms) and so needs to go through a legal process to obtain access.
- Cllr Dalgleish is due to follow this up but is currently ill.

6.c to note: status of current planning applications in LCCC area (November 2022)

This was noted. Grey rows on the status document = closed items, yellow = awaiting CEC’s decision, orange rows are live (LCCC is assessing them)

6.d to note: update on short-term let policies and guidance

P Forissier: LCCC should review CEC’s position before agreeing its own.
J Wilkinson: at a relevant CEC meeting, it was reported that there could up to 12,000 STL properties. CEC is now consulting about the forthcoming STL licensing scheme, each license costing £600. Many people are unhappy about STLs taking housing out of circulation. Ideas included banning STLs in communal stairs, and that the licensing fee is too small. (It was set by the Scottish Government.) I believe there will be vigorous opposition to any controls on STLs.
- I also attended the Cockburn Association lecture on the Common Good fund. This idea goes back to the 1400s. There is a register of common good land and monuments.
- Action: JW to forward his report to LCCC.
P Forissier: Edinburgh is an STL control area, so STL landlords must obtain both planning permission and a license.
- B Ryan: NB planning permission stays with the property, licenses with individual landlords (according to a CEC cllr).
- P Forissier: LCCC should take notice of the CEC consultation. It asks for responses on giving permission according to

1. The character of the area of the would-be STL (Would-be STLs in fully commercial areas would be more likely to get permission; residential and quiet areas would have presumptions against granting permission.)
2. The property’s size (Larger numbers and sizes of rooms would mean increase potential for noise and disturbance.)
3. Pattern of activity (Access to the would-be STL via a shared stair would mean presumption against permission; properties with their own main doors would have other considerations. However, CEC cannot control how. Property is used after permission is granted, even if the property is sold to another owner.)
4. Nature and character of services provided (Access to a communal garden from the would-be STL would mean presumption against permission; parking will be considered within the context of other relevant CEC policies.)

I was reassured by CEC’s position in this consultation. LCCC should see where it differs from this position, the type(s) of application that CEC will automatically reject, and then be ready to deal with anything falling through the cracks.

- I Mowat: landlords of existing STLs need to (re)apply for planning permission. Is there a different policy in such cases?
- There was inconclusive discussion of the numbers of retrospective permissions for STLs that are being granted.
- Action: H Tobermann to ask CEC for relevant data.
- H Tobermann: CEC policies need implementation and enforcement.
- J Wilkinson: CEC has an STL planning team.
- I Mowat: LCCC should concentrate on this key planning stage. (There is a subsequent licensing stage.)

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

no matters raised

7 Transport and clean streets

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

H Tobermann: work is progressing and pavements are becoming clearer. All of Leith Walk should be finished by the end of 2022. Cables are due to be energised early in 2023. Then there will be slow-running tram-tests, followed by full-speed tram-tests. (The developers must deliver a certain travel time.) Overall completion should be in June, after which a 2-year period starts in which the contractors must fix defects.
- CCTT is asking for a ‘commitment period where CEC will be asked to deal with matters that have been built according to the designs (and hence are not defects) but are not working well in practice. TT would provide a cost for each potential ‘fix’, then CCTT would lobby CEC to undertake them. CCTT prefers an orderly process based on generally agreed principles such as prioritising pedestrians and removing over-complex designs (e.g. Elm Row).
- Action: Cllr Caldwell to continue searching for relevant Easter Rd traffic-change data.
- A Dudley: there are many dangerous junctions

7.a.i to note: initial report on ‘walk and talk’ with Tram Project Team along Leith Walk

C Encombe: during this exercise, we found that junctions, including Dalmeny St/Leith Walk, are very dangerous for blind people. An education campaign and enforcement around prioritising pedestrians are needed, with appropriate signage.
- P Foressier: dangerous driving should be a police matter. Absence of bollards makes the design very dangerous.
- B Ryan: police have been taking action. (Info at https://twitter.com/EdinPolNE/status/1595016792405065747)
- A Dudley: the multiple types of tactile pavement are confusing to guide-dogs.
C Encombe/H Tobermann: when all ‘walks and talks’ are complete, TT will write and share a combined report.
- I Mowat: please share this as soon as it’s available.

7.a.ii to agree: joint community council letter to local MSPs regarding overdue prohibition of pavement parking

Decision: agreed nem con

7.a.iii to note: Tram route business overview November 2022

H Tobermann: unwelcome changes to the area’s shopping mix are happening. We want a missed economy.
- Action: LCCC members to read this overview, then send comments to H Tobermann.

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

A resident: buses travelling south (uphill) on Leith Walk to go to London Rd have to go via Picardy Place, and hence are delayed by congestion at PP. Why can’t they simply turn left onto Montgomery St [and thence get to London Rd]?
- C Encombe: during the ‘walk and talk’ (item 7.a.i), it was agreed that a left turn would re-open, but traffic-lights need to be re-sequenced appropriately first (timescale unknown). There was discussion of which turn(s) would re-open.
- H Tobermann: the point of the tram is to reduce private car use, so there will be fewer such left turns.
- There was discussion of prioritising pedestrians, and dangerous driving, contrary to signage, in this context.
A resident: Trams team has not answered my two urgent questions. CCTT should insist on answers.

1. What types of noise/vibration will be monitored: ground borne (this type is most harmful) and/or airborne? (I was told this question has been escalated but this will take a long time.)
2. Edinburgh Trams will not necessarily measure (post-construction) at the same places as the trams team (during construction). Why is this? (To avoid liability?) The usual UK limit is 30dB but this tram scheme is allowed up to 40dB.

- H Tobermann: I sympathise with these concerns. Getting data and avoidance of goalpost-shifting are good things.
- P Forissier: CEC has not been responsive to the resident’s concerns. Ground-borne noise is not contractually limited.
- Another resident: noise and vibration caused damage to buildings on Haddington Place.
- Action: CCTT to take up these questions with TT.

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

no matters raised

7.a.vi to note: upcoming mini-audit of bus stops/shelters on Leith Walk by Edinburgh Bus Users Group

H Tobermann: the link is to the bus-stops and shelters along the route. EBUG will undertake a mini-audit of these. Suitable shelters in appropriate places are needed.
- Floating bus-stops will be part of this audit, as will provision of bins.

7.a.vii to note: outstanding cycling issues recorded by SPOKES

C Encombe: this document seems to agree with LCCC’s observations from the ‘walk and talk’.
- A resident: the tone of this document was ‘arrogant in the extreme’. There is no concern for other road-users.
- C Encombe: LCCC is committed to prioritising pedestrians. (See LCCC’s hierarchy.)

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

no other matters raised.

8 Parks and green spaces

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

9 Licensing

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

S Kennedy: CEC is still considering whether to permit a food van on Pilrig Park.

10 LCCC governance

Action: C Encombe to check with N Gardner about his non-attendance of LCCC meetings

10.a to agree: LCCC co-option of Zoe Curry

Z Curry was co-opted nem con.
- Actions: S Kennedy to inform CEC as appropriate, B Ryan to update website and mailing list.

10.b to agree: appointment of new or stand-in Engagement Officer

10.c to note: progress on LCCC’s IT governance, usability, costs

B Ryan: I have not been able to progress this due to work and personal commitments.
- Action: B Ryan to provide IT recommendations for discussion/approval asap

11 Open Forum (local residents)^[1]

A resident: will there be any discussion of solar panels on roofs in our area (or wider Edinburgh)?
- P Forissier: this has been discussed at Edinburgh’s Civic Forum. CEC doesn’t have a blanket policy but It’s not in the Local Development Plan.
- S Kennedy: The Scottish Government has given Changeworks funding to insulate homes. Some of this is being done for free. Consideration should be given to needs, e.g. prevention of damage.
- Action: if the resident contacts B Ryan, he will send her relevant links/information.

12 AOCB (LCCC members)^[2]

J Wilkinson: The National Galleries of Scotland have run out of funds, so the Playfair steps may not reopen.

13 Bulletin^[3]

14 Future Ordinary Meetings (usually 3rd Monday of the month) and meeting topics/presentations

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

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

^[1] This point allows members of the public to raise issues of public interest. During online meetings, please raise your virtual hand.

^[2] This point allows LCCC members to raise issues not covered by the agenda.

^[3] This is for information only; any discussion to be brought to a future meeting.