The City of Edinburgh Council Year 2009/2010

Committee Minutes

Meeting 9 – Thursday, 17 December 2009

Edinburgh, 17 December 2009 - At a meeting of The City of Edinburgh Council.

Present:-

LORD PROVOST

The Right Honourable George Grubb

COUNCILLORS

Elaine Aitken Alison Johnstone Ewan Aitken Colin Keir Robert C Aldridge Louise Lang Jeremy R Balfour Jim Lowrie Eric Barry Gordon Mackenzie David Beckett Kate MacKenzie Angela Blacklock Marilyne A MacLaren Mike Bridgman Mark McInnes Deidre Brock Stuart Roy McIvor Gordon Buchan Tim McKay Tom Buchanan Eric Milligan Steve Burgess Elaine Morris Andrew Burns Joanna Mowat Ronald Cairns Rob Munn Steve Cardownie Gordon J Munro Maggie Chapman Ian Murray Maureen M Child Alastair Paisley Joanna Coleman Gary Peacock Jennifer A Dawe Ian Perry Charles Dundas Cameron Rose Cammy Day Jason G Rust Paul G Edie Conor Snowden Nick Elliott-Cannon Marjorie Thomas Paul Godzik Stefan Tymkewycz Norma Hart Phil Wheeler Stephen Hawkins Iain Whyte Ricky Henderson Donald Wilson Lesley Hinds Norrie Work Allan G Jackson 2

The City of Edinburgh Council 17 December 2009

1 Deputations

(a) School Estate Review and Outcome of Consultation Exercise (see item 2 below)

Consultation had taken place on proposals for the closure of four primary schools in Edinburgh, namely Burdiehouse, Drumbrae, Fort and Royston Primary Schools. Deputation requests had been received for each of the schools and from UNISON, City of Edinburgh Branch, as follows:

(i) Drumbrae Primary School (see item 2(b) below)

A deputation from East Craigs, Clermiston and Drumbrae Primary School Parent Councils opposed the proposal to close Drumbrae Primary School. They were of the view that:

• the loss of teachers and classrooms would take away the opportunity to lower class sizes. • the basis the Council had used for measuring occupancy and capacity and for calculating future population growth was flawed. • the information provided by the Council on attainment levels was contradictory. • there would be an adverse effect and educational impact on surrounding schools. • neighbouring schools would be unable to provide the same level of learning support. • nursery waiting lists would be made worse. • the loss to the community would be immense as many local clubs used the school facilities.

The deputation therefore asked the Council to keep Drumbrae Primary School open and to use the school for a range of community activities.

(References – e-mails (3) dated 20 and 22 November 2009, submitted.)

(ii) Fort Primary School (see item 2(c) below)

A deputation from Fort and Trinity Primary School Parent Councils opposed the proposal to close Fort Primary School. They were of the view that:

• the closure and consequent increase in class sizes would be detrimental to the education of their children. 3

The City of Edinburgh Council 17 December 2009

• even if transitional funding was found it would not be enough to give the children the support they needed. • very little consultation had taken place with the local schools and 170 objections had been received to the closure. • the Council had not listened to their objections and the proposed savings were not enough to justify the closure.

The deputation proposed that the Council should create an Early Years Centre on the site to work alongside the school to support and protect vulnerable children.

(Reference – e-mails dated 21 November and 7 December 2009, submitted.)

(iii) Burdiehouse Primary School (see item 2 below)

A deputation from Burdiehouse Primary School Parent Council opposed the proposal to close Burdiehouse Primary School. They were of the view that:

• the small class sizes at Burdiehouse Primary allowed teachers to pitch teaching at the level required for the pupils within their area. • there was a purpose built nursery within the school which offered full-time places and a fully funded breakfast club for all children who attended the school. These would not be offered at any of the alternative schools. • lunches were cooked and served in-house and provided for two neighbouring schools. • there were concerns over the safety of children attending alternative schools because of the routes they would have to take to reach these schools.

The deputation said that closure of the school would be traumatic for the community and therefore asked the Council not to treat them as second class citizens and to keep the school open.

(Reference – e-mail dated 10 December 2009, submitted.)

(iv) Royston Primary School (see item 2(d) below)

A deputation from Royston Primary School Parent Council opposed the proposal to close Royston Primary Scool. They were of the view that:

The City of Edinburgh Council 17 December 2009

• the consultation period and public meetings which had taken place had not been adequate and their views had not been taken into consideration. • the school building was in a good condition, indeed a better condition than one of the alternative schools. • attainment levels at the school were increasing. • there was rivalry in the receiving schools and potential for bullying.

The Parent Council was fully supportive of bringing the school up to the standard required and felt that there would be a major loss to the community should the facilities be removed. They therefore asked the Council to keep Royston Primary School open.

(Reference – e-mail dated 15 December 2009, submitted.)

(v) School Estate Review – UNISON, City of Edinburgh Branch (see item 2 below)

A deputation from UNISON City of Edinburgh Branch referred to the proposal to close four primary schools in Edinburgh. They asked the Council to confirm its commitment that learning support would continue for those pupils affected by the proposed closures and to enter into meaningful dialogue with UNISON to ensure this.

(Reference – e-mail dated 15 December 2009, submitted.)

(b) Alternative Business Models Programme (see item 11 below)

A deputation from the City of Edinburgh Branches of UNITE the Union and UNISON urged the Council to reject the proposals for alternative business models and market testing as they were unnecessary, shortsighted and did not demonstrate best value for money. They recognised the Council had a funding shortfall for future years but stressed that the answer to this lay with the Unions and the Council working together to provide better services and retaining skills and jobs local and in-house. They asked the Council to lobby the Scottish Government and to regain the ability to raise finance through the Council Tax.

(Reference – e-mails dated 15 December 2009, submitted.)

A deputation from Edinburgh Parents for Crèche Retention referred to their campaign to retain crèche facilities in Edinburgh Leisure sports centres which was supported by a petition of over 800 signatures from Edinburgh citizens. The deputation’s concerns included: 5

The City of Edinburgh Council 17 December 2009

• the loss of the many benefits from providing crèche facilities, including the clear physical and mental health benefits to parents and the early introduction of children to exercise; this was vital for future attitudes towards exercise and a healthy lifestyle. • all political parties had recognised these benefits in their commitment to the health and wellbeing of Scottish people; keeping crèches open would give the Council the opportunity to put these policies into practical effect. • Edinburgh Leisure’s decision was based on the level of subsidy for these facilities which they claimed was over £12 per visit but they had failed to explain how they had arrived at this figure. • Edinburgh Leisure had put forward an ill thought out proposal that mothers themselves could undertake each other’s crèche requirements.

The deputation asked the Council to commission an independent assessment of the benefits and costs of the service which should include alternatives to the current provision and consultation with those affected.

(Reference – e-mail dated 15 December 2009, submitted.)

(d) Home Care Modernisation Phase 2 – Provision of Long Term Home Care Service for People with Complex Needs – UNISON, City of Edinburgh Branch (see item 10 below)

A deputation from UNISON City of Edinburgh Branch expressed concern at the proposals for Phase 2 of the modernisation of the internal homecare and support service which proposed to increase the level of care for people with complex needs provided by the independent sector. UNISON were opposed to this on the grounds that:

• they had conducted a 2 year campaign against privatisation of and cuts to this service and had compelling evidence that the level of care decreased when provided by outside agencies. The deputation listed a number of examples to support their case. • they were not concerned about the staff employed by outside agencies but rather about the processes used by these agencies. • outside agencies did not have a good record when it came to treatment of staff.

The deputation therefore asked the Council not to approve the proposals and to keep the current level of in-house care.

(Reference – e-mail dated 15 December 2009, submitted.) 6

The City of Edinburgh Council 17 December 2009

2 School Estate Review

The overall context for the proposals to close four primary schools, namely Burdiehouse, Drumbrae, Fort and Royston Primary Schools, was set out and a summary of the financial implications was provided.

The Council had heard deputations on the matter (see item 1 above).

Motion

To note the content of the report by the Director of Children and Families and the critical importance of ensuring that maximum value for money was obtained from the school estate to ensure that resources were prioritised to deliver the best educational outcomes.

- moved by Councillor MacLaren, seconded by Councillor Beckett (on behalf of the Administration).

Amendment 1

1) To acknowledge the critical importance of ensuring maximum value for money was obtained from the school estate to ensure that resources were prioritised to deliver the best educational outcomes.

2) To consider that rationalisation was a crude response to the over-capacity currently within the school estate, deeply upsetting for parents and pupils alike and resulting in wider negative impacts in the proposed schools’ local communities.

3i) To consider that the assessment of the financial benefits of the current proposals was over-optimistic particularly in terms of capital receipts.

4) To explore instead ways of retaining these schools but under direct parental control and with funding from non-public sector sources.

- moved by Councillor Balfour, seconded by Councillor Whyte (on behalf of the Conservative Group).

Amendment 2

1) To recognise the critical importance of ensuring maximum value for money was obtained from the school estate to ensure that resources were prioritised to deliver the best educational outcomes.

2) To consider that demolishing some schools while building extensions on others did not constitute a sustainable long term approach.

The City of Edinburgh Council 17 December 2009

3) To agree that, instead of a piecemeal reactive process, any closure proposals should form part of a city wide strategic review of all school catchments, including a re-assessment of school capacity and accounting for demographic changes.

- moved by Councillor Johnstone, seconded by Councillor Chapman (on behalf of the Green Group).

Voting

The voting was as follows:

For the motion - 29 votes For amendment 1 - 11 votes For amendment 2 - 3 votes

Decision

To approve the motion by Councillor MacLaren.

(References – Education, Children and Families Committee 16 June 2009 (item 3); report no CEC/86/09-10/C&F by the Director of Children and Families, submitted.)

(a) Outcome of the Consultation Process for the Proposal to Close Burdiehouse Primary School

The outcome of the consultation process on the proposal to close Burdiehouse Primary School and to undertake associated primary and secondary school catchment changes was detailed. A response to the main issues raised during the consultation was provided and recommendations were made on how to proceed.

The Council had heard a deputation on the matter from Burdiehouse Primary School Parent Council (see item 1(a)(iii) above).

Motion

1) To close Burdiehouse Primary School and its associated nursery class in July 2010.

2) To offer pupils attending Burdiehouse Primary School a place at Gracemount Primary School.

The City of Edinburgh Council 17 December 2009

3) To split the Burdiehouse Primary School catchment area between Gracemount and Gilmerton Primary Schools and to transfer part of the Gracemount Primary School catchment to Gilmerton Primary School and to base future pupil placements on these new boundaries.

4) To agree that the proposed primary school catchment changes would take effect for the 2010-11 school year.

5) To build a replacement nursery at Gracemount Primary School and to return the existing nursery to classrooms.

6) To authorise the Director of City Development, in consultation with the Director of Corporate Services, to accept a tender for the new nursery at Gracemount on the basis that the contract sum was within the budget allowance for the project.

7) To instruct that a further report be submitted to the Education, Children and Families Committee early in 2010 seeking approval to consult on catchment area options for Gracemount and Liberton High Schools.

8) To delegate authority to the Director of City Development to enter into a 25 year lease to Liberton United Boys Club of the former Burdiehouse Community Centre and adjoining grounds at a rent of £1 per annum, subject to the consent of the Scottish Government, if required under section 74 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, and on such other terms and conditions as might be agreed in consultation with the Head of Legal and Administrative Services and the Directors of Children and Families, Services for Communities and Finance.

9) To assign a full time probationer teacher to Gracemount Primary School for one year to aid transition and to mitigate the impact of the loss of Positive Action status at Burdiehouse.

10) To instruct the Director of Children and Families to reassess the support needs of pupils during the transition period and to ensure that the appropriate support for individual pupils was provided on an ongoing basis, where appropriate. An additional supplement would be made to the school budget at Gracemount Primary for up to two years after closure to facilitate the implementation of support measures as might be deemed beneficial by the Head Teacher in consultation with the Children and Families Neighbourhood Manager.

11) To relocate The Place2Be facility at Burdiehouse Primary School at Gracemount Primary School.

The City of Edinburgh Council 17 December 2009

12) To install a pedestrian crossing on Lasswade Road.

13) To demolish Burdiehouse Primary School as soon as possible following closure and to take action to dispose of the site at the appropriate time.

14) Subject to transfer arrangements being agreed with Services for Communities, to use the grassed play space at Burdiehouse Primary for public open space.

15) To ring-fence the receipt from the sale of the Burdiehouse site to cover the cost of proposed works to the receiving school (supplemented by prudential borrowing as necessary).

- moved by Councillor MacLaren, seconded by Councillor Becket (on behalf of the Administration).

Amendment

1) To note the contents of the report by the Director of Children and Families and the consultation exercise.

2) To agree not to close Burdiehouse Primary on the grounds that class sizes would increase and attainment would decline should the closure proceed.

- moved by Councillor Henderson, seconded by Councillor Hart (on behalf of the Labour Group).

Voting

The requisite number of members having so required in terms of Standing Order 31(1), the vote was taken by calling the roll.

The voting was as follows:

For the motion by Councillor MacLaren:

Lord Provost Grubb, Councillors Aldridge, Beckett, Bridgman, Brock, Buchanan, Cairns, Cardownie, Coleman, Dawe, Dundas, Edie, Elliott-Cannon, Hawkins, Keir, Lang, Lowrie, Gordon Mackenzie, MacLaren, McIvor, McKay, Morris, Munn, Peacock, Snowden, Thomas, Tymkewycz, Wheeler and Work – 29.

The City of Edinburgh Council 17 December 2009

For the amendment by Councillor Henderson:

Councillors Elaine Aitken, Ewan Aitken, Balfour, Barry, Blacklock, Buchan, Burgess, Burns, Chapman, Child, Day, Godzik, Hart, Henderson, Hinds, Jackson, Johnstone, Kate MacKenzie, McInnes, Milligan, Mowat, Munro, Murray, Paisley, Perry, Rose, Rust, Whyte and Wilson – 29.

There being an equal number of votes for the motion and the amendment, the Lord Provost used his casting vote in favour of the motion.

Decision

To approve the motion by Councillor MacLaren.

(References – Education, Children and Families Committee 16 June 2009 (item 3); report no CEC/87/09-10/C&F by the Director of Children and Families, submitted.)

(b) Outcome of the Consultation Process for the Proposal to Close Drumbrae Primary School

The outcome of the consultation process on the proposal to close Drumbrae Primary School and to undertake associated primary and secondary school catchment changes was detailed. A response to the main issues raised during the consultation was provided and recommendations were made on how to proceed.

The Council had heard a deputation on the matter from East Craigs, Clermiston and Drumbrae Primary School Parent Councils (see item 1(a)(i) above).

Motion

1) To close Drumbrae Primary School and associated nursery class in July 2010.

2) To offer places to pupils attending Drumbrae Primary School at Clermiston Primary School and East Craigs Primary School.

3) To make primary school catchment changes as proposed to take effect for the 2010-11 school year, subject to securing Scottish Ministers’ consent where necessary.

4) To approve secondary school catchment changes as proposed with Scottish Ministers’ consent being sought prior to implementation.

The City of Edinburgh Council 17 December 2009

5) To instruct the Director of Children and Families to reassess the support needs of pupils during the transition period and to ensure that the appropriate support for individual pupils was provided on an ongoing basis where appropriate. An additional supplement would be made to the school budget at Clermiston and East Craigs Primaries for up to two years after closure to facilitate the implementation of support measures as might be deemed beneficial by the Head Teacher in consultation with the Children and Families Neighbourhood Manager.

6) To build a replacement nursery at Clermiston Primary School and to return the existing nursery to classrooms.

7) To authorise the Director of City Development, in consultation with the Director of Corporate Services, to accept a tender for the new nursery at Clermiston on the basis that the contract sum was within the budget allowance for the project.

8) To provide additional nursery provision at Fox Covert.

9) To relocate and upgrade a pedestrian crossing on Drumbrae Drive.

10) To declare Drumbrae Primary School surplus from the end of the 2009/10 school session and to demolish the building as soon as possible following closure with action being taken to dispose of the site at the appropriate time.

11) Subject to transfer arrangements being agreed with Services for Communities, to use the school playing fields at Drumbrae Primary for open space or related purposes.

12) To ring-fence the receipt from the sale of the Drumbrae site to cover the cost of proposed works to the receiving school with the remaining balance being ring-fenced for reinvestment into the Children and Families estate.

- moved by Councillor MacLaren, seconded by Councillor Beckett (on behalf of the Administration).

Amendment

1) To note the contents of the report by the Director of Children and Families and the consultation exercise.

2) To agree not to close Drumbrae Primary on the grounds that class sizes would increase and attainment would decline should the closure proceed.

The City of Edinburgh Council 17 December 2009

3) To instruct the Director of Children and Families to produce a report on the alternative proposals submitted by Drumbrae Parent Council with a view to establishing a community hub for a range of services and activities to co-exist with the current school at the current site.

- moved by Councillor Johnstone (on behalf of the Green Group), seconded by Councillor Day (on behalf of the Labour Group).

Voting

The requisite number of members having so required in terms of Standing Order 31(1), the vote was taken by calling the roll.

The voting was as follows:

For the motion by Councillor MacLaren:

For the amendment by Councillor Johnstone:

There being an equal number of votes for the motion and the amendment, the Lord Provost used his casting vote in favour of the motion.

Decision

To approve the motion by Councillor MacLaren.

(References – Education, Children and Families Committee 16 June 2009 (item 3); report no CEC/88/09-10/C&F by the Director of Children and Families, submitted.)

The outcome of the consultation process on the proposals to close Fort Primary School and to undertake associated primary and secondary school catchment changes was detailed. A response to the main issues 13

The City of Edinburgh Council 17 December 2009

raised during the consultation was provided and recommendations were made on how to proceed.

The Council had heard a deputation on the matter from Fort and Trinity Primary School Parent Councils (see item 1(a)(ii) above).

Motion

1) To close Fort Primary School in July 2010.

2) To offer Fort pupils places at Trinity Primary School.

3) To extend the Trinity Primary School catchment area to incorporate the current Fort catchment area.

4) To retain the Fort Primary School building to function as an Integrated Early Years Centre, Community Centre and office location.

5) To relocate Victoria Park Child and Family Centre to the Fort building after July 2010 and to declare the existing building surplus.

6) To undertake adaptations to the Fort Primary School building to accommodate the relocation of the Victoria Park Child and Family centre.

7) To undertake adaptations to the Trinity Primary School building to increase the capacity to 15 classes and to extend the school grounds to incorporate the walled garden.

8) To maintain Breakfast Club provision and After School Care provision in the area as described in the report by the Director of Children and Families.

9) To allocate a fully funded probationer teacher to Trinity Primary School for a period of one year.

10) To instruct the Director of Children and Families to reassess the support needs of pupils during the transition period and to ensure that the appropriate support for individual pupils was provided on an ongoing basis where appropriate. An additional supplement would be made to the school budget at Trinity Primary for up to two years after closure to facilitate the implementation of support measures as might be deemed beneficial by the Head Teacher in consultation with the Children and Families Neighbourhood Manager.

11) To relocate office staff into the Fort building.

The City of Edinburgh Council 17 December 2009

12) To ring-fence the receipt from the sale of the Victoria Park Child and Family Centre to cover the cost of proposed works to the receiving school and to the Fort Building to accommodate its relocation, with the remaining balance being ring-fenced for reinvestment into the Children and Families estate.

- moved by Councillor MacLaren, seconded by Councillor Beckett (on behalf of the Administration).

Amendment

1) To note the contents of the report by the Director of Children and Families and the consultation exercise.

2) To agree not to close Fort Primary on the grounds that there was insufficient capacity at Trinity Primary to accommodate the children from Fort.

3) To instruct the Director of Children and Families to produce a report on the alternative proposals submitted by “Fighting for Fort Campaign” to create an Early Years Centre that would complement and work with the existing Fort Primary School at the current site.

- moved by Councillor Munro (on behalf of the Labour Group), seconded by Councillor Jackson (on behalf of the Conservative Group).

Voting

The requisite number of members having so required in terms of Standing Order 31(1), the vote was taken by calling the roll. The voting was as follows:

For the motion by Councillor MacLaren:

For the amendment by Councillor Munro:

The City of Edinburgh Council 17 December 2009

There being an equal number of votes for the motion and the amendment, the Lord Provost used his casting vote in favour of the motion.

Decision

To approve the motion by Councillor MacLaren.

(References – Education, Children and Families Committee 16 June 2009 (item 3); report no CEC/89/09-10/C&F by the Director of Children and Families, submitted.)

(d) Outcome of the Consultation Process for the Proposal to Close Royston Primary School

The outcome of the consultation process on the proposal to close Royston Primary School and to undertake associated primary and secondary school catchment changes was detailed. A response to the main issues raised during the consultation was provided and recommendations were made on how to proceed.

The Council had heard a deputation on the matter from Royston Primary School Parent Council (see item 1(a)(iv) above).

Motion

1) To close Royston Primary School and associated nursery class in July 2010.

2) To offer Royston pupils places at Granton and Forthview Primary School.

3) To extend Granton and Forthview Primary School catchment areas to incorporate the current Royston catchment area.

4) To instruct the Director of Children and Families to reassess the support needs of pupils during the transition period and to ensure that the appropriate support for individual pupils was provided on an ongoing basis where appropriate. An additional supplement would be made to the school budget at Granton and Forthview Primaries for up to two years after closure to facilitate the implementation of support measures as might be deemed beneficial by the Head Teacher in consultation with the Children and Families Neighbourhood Manager.

5) To amend secondary school catchment areas for Broughton and Craigroyston High Schools to follow primary school boundaries.

The City of Edinburgh Council 17 December 2009

6) To undertake adaptations to the Granton Primary School building to increase the capacity to 13 classes, and to extend nursery provision to 60:60 places.

7) To declare Royston Primary School surplus from the end of the 2009/10 school session and to demolish the building as soon as possible following closure with action being taken to dispose of the site at the appropriate time.

8) To ring-fence the receipt from the sale of the Royston site to cover the cost of proposed works to the receiving school, with the remaining balance being ring-fenced for reinvestment into the Children and Families estate.

- moved by Councillor MacLaren, seconded by Councillor Beckett (on behalf of the Administration).

Amendment

1) To note the contents of the report by the Director of Children and Families and the consultation exercise.

2) To note the good condition of the Royston Primary facilities and consider that the school's closure would be a loss to both the school estate and the local community.

3) To agree not to close Royston Primary on the grounds that:

(a) the proposal took insufficient account of further residential development in this part of the city;

(b) recent significant capital investment in Royston and projected requirements meant that its retention would be better value for the Council; and

4) To instruct the Director of Children and Families to produce a report on the alternative proposals to co-locate existing local community projects on the Royston Primary campus.

- moved by Councillor Day (on behalf of the Labour Group), seconded by Councillor Balfour (on behalf of the Conservative Group).

The City of Edinburgh Council 17 December 2009

Voting

The requisite number of members having so required in terms of Standing Order 31(1), the vote was taken by calling the roll.

The voting was as follows:

For the motion by Councillor MacLaren:

Lord Provost Grubb, Councillors Aldridge, Beckett, Bridgman, Brock, Buchanan, Cardownie, Coleman, Dawe, Dundas, Edie, Elliott-Cannon, Hawkins, Keir, Lang, Lowrie, Gordon Mackenzie, MacLaren, McIvor, McKay, Morris, Munn, Peacock, Snowden, Thomas, Tymkewycz, Wheeler and Work – 28.

For the amendment by Councillor Day:

Councillors Elaine Aitken, Ewan Aitken, Balfour, Barry, Buchan, Burgess, Burns, Chapman, Child, Day, Godzik, Hart, Henderson, Hinds, Jackson, Johnstone, Kate MacKenzie, McInnes, Milligan, Mowat, Munro, Murray, Paisley, Perry, Rose, Rust, Whyte and Wilson – 28.

There being an equal number of votes for the motion and the amendment, the Lord Provost used his casting vote in favour of the motion.

Decision

To approve the motion by Councillor MacLaren.

(References – Education, Children and Families Committee 16 June 2009 (item 3); report no CEC/90/09-10/C&F by the Director of Children and Families, submitted.)

(e) Condition of Receiving Schools

Details were given of the condition of the receiving schools and any investment implications as a result of the closure of Burdiehouse, Drumbrae, Fort and Royston Primary Schools. Recommendations were made for improvement works to the receiving schools and for £1.3m of investment funding.

Decision

1) To note the condition of the receiving schools and the intention to invest £1.3m on improvement works when the funding became available.

The City of Edinburgh Council 17 December 2009

2) To approve the property improvement works as detailed in paragraphs 3.14 and 3.16 of the joint report by the Directors of City Development and Children and Families, subject to review of the destinations of pupils from the receiving schools.

(References – Education, Children and Families Committee 16 June 2009 (item 3); joint report no CEC/91/09-10/CD+C&F by the Directors of City Development and Children and Families, submitted.)

3 Questions

Questions put by members to this meeting, written answers and supplementary questions and answers are contained in the Appendix to this minute.

4 Minutes

Decision

To approve the minute of meeting of the Council of 19 November 2009, as submitted, as a correct record.

5 Leader’s Report

The Leader presented her report to the Council. The Leader advised that the Ministry of Defence had released the names of the two Edinburgh soldiers from 3rd Battalion, The Rifles who had been killed in Afghanistan on 15 December 2009 and expressed her condolences to their families.

The Leader also announced that the issue of the potential closure of the French Institute had been resolved and the Institute would continue in Edinburgh with a new Director (see Act of Council No 18 of 17 September 2009).

The following questions were raised:

Councillor Burns - Death of soldiers in Afghanistan – condolences - Sir John Crofton, Michael Shea – condolences - Pilmar Smith – Lothian Buses – recognition - Single Outcome Agreement – letter from COSLA - Care and Support tender

The City of Edinburgh Council 17 December 2009

Councillor Chapman - Care and Support tender - Sustainable cities index – air quality standards

Councillor Ewan Aitken - Care and Support tender

Councillor Godzik - Council’s scrutiny process

(Reference – report no CEC/100/09-10/L by the Leader, submitted.)

6 Review of Edinburgh International Climbing Arena, Ratho

The Policy and Strategy Committee had referred recommendations, in terms of Standing Order 53, following consideration of the outcome of an independent review of the Edinburgh International Climbing Arena (EICA), Ratho.

Motion

1) To note the findings of the independent review of the EICA.

2) To acknowledge the world class nature of the centre and that its performance was gradually improving.

3) To note that Edinburgh Leisure was absorbing the costs of the EICA within the context of its leisure portfolio.

4) To request a report in 2011 on the findings of a further review of the EICA to be carried out after March 2011.

5) To postpone a replacement of the roof until the findings of the above review had been considered.

- moved by Councillor Brock, seconded by Councillor Dawe (on behalf of the Administration).

Amendment

1) To note that the EICA would require substantial amounts of subsidy for future years and that this expenditure did not guarantee the future viability of the centre.

2) To instruct the Director of Corporate Services to identify private sector partners, experienced in operating similar facilities, to form a Joint Venture vehicle with the City of Edinburgh Council and Edinburgh Leisure to operate, maintain and develop the EICA and ensure its long-term future. 20

The City of Edinburgh Council 17 December 2009

3) To commence this process immediately.

- moved by Councillor Buchan, seconded by Councillor Kate MacKenzie (on behalf of the Conservative Group).

Voting

The voting was as follows:

For the motion - 31 votes For the amendment - 25 votes

Decision

To approve the motion by Councillor Brock.

(References – Policy and Strategy Committee 1 December 2009 (item 16); report no CEC/82/09-10/P&S by the Head of Legal and Administrative Services, submitted).

Declaration of Interests

Councillors Brock, Cairns, Godzik, Thomas and Whyte declared a non-financial interest in the above item as Directors of Edinburgh Leisure.

7 Integration of Public Transport – Governance Issues/Company Structures

An update and overview were provided of progress made in the development of the governance structures required to facilitate the integration of bus and tram services across Edinburgh and the Lothians and of the key tasks involved in moving towards final arrangements. Proposals were made on:

• a revised membership for the Board of Transport Edinburgh Limited (TEL) and the Tram Project Board; • the associated roles of some of the individuals involved; • the transfer of Edinburgh Trams Limited, a subsidiary of Lothian Buses, to TEL; and • changes to TEL’s Articles of Association.

Decision

1) To note that over the last year substantial progress had been made in designing the company governance arrangements needed to facilitate the development of an integrated high-quality public transport service in the city. 21

The City of Edinburgh Council 17 December 2009

2) To note that the procedures used by the Boards of TEL/Lothian Buses in making senior management appointments would be similar to those followed by the Council.

3) To note that, where appropriate, further reports would be submitted to Council and/or Committee in the run-up to the submission of a comprehensive report in the autumn of 2010.

4) To agree that the Articles of Association for TEL Limited be altered to allow up to 16 Directors to be appointed to the Board.

5) To instruct the Director of Corporate Services to enact the necessary changes in the composition of the Board of TEL and also the Tram Project Board (detailed in paragraphs 4-8 of report no CEC/84/09-10/P&S by the Policy and Strategy Committee).

6) To transfer the ownership of Edinburgh Trams Limited from Lothian Buses to TEL and to note that Edinburgh Trams Limited would undertake certain aspects of operational planning work in relation to the Trams Project under the guidance and oversight of TEL.

7) To delegate authority to the Director of Corporate Services to agree appropriate terms and conditions with TEL and Edinburgh Trams Limited in relation to the preparations for integrated operations and to instruct the Director to report back to Council on the implementation of such transfer and the terms of the agreement in Spring 2010. To note that such terms would be similar to those recently agreed by the Council in relation to TEL and tie Ltd.

8) To agree that the report referred to in paragraph 2.20 of report no CEC/83/09-10/CE by the Chief Executive (on the remuneration matters for TEL and all arms length Council owned companies) be submitted to the Policy and Strategy Committee before any of these matters were agreed by the TEL Board

9) To note the assurance by the Convener of the Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee on behalf of the Administration, that the Chief Executive would advise TEL/Lothian Buses of the Council’s commitment to keeping Lothian Buses in public ownership.

(References – Act of Council No 13 of 20 August 2009; Policy and Strategy Committee 1 December 2009 (item 15); reports no CEC/83/09-10/CE by the Chief Executive; no CEC/84/09-10/P&S by the Head of Legal and Administrative Services and no CEC/85/09-10/CS by the Director of Corporate Services, submitted.)

The City of Edinburgh Council 17 December 2009

Declaration of Interests

Councillors Jackson, Gordon Mackenzie, Perry and Wheeler declared a non- financial interest in the above item as non-Executive Directors of tie Ltd and TEL.

Councillors Buchanan and Chapman declared a non-financial interest in the item as non-Executive Directors of TEL.

Councillor Buchan declared a financial interest in the item as an employee of a firm acting as a technical adviser to organisations referred to in the reports and left the Chamber during their consideration.

8 Craigmillar – Parc Shared Equity Scheme

The Health, Social Care and Housing Committee recommended approval of the implementation of a shared equity scheme for Parc and commitment of capital funding to help home buyers purchase homes from Parc and support regeneration in Craigmillar.

Decision

To approve the implementation of the shared equity scheme for Parc and commitment of capital funding of £500,000.

(References – Health, Social Care and Housing Committee 8 December 2009 (item 9); report no CEC/98/09-10/HSC&H by the Head of Legal and Administrative Services, submitted.)

Declaration of Interests

Councillors Bridgman and Edie declared a non-financial interest in the above item as Directors of Parc.

Councillors Buchanan, Cairns, Child, Hinds, Keir, Gordon Mackenzie and Rust declared a non-financial interest in the item as Directors of EDI.

Councillor Buchan declared a financial interest in the item as an employee of a firm acting as a technical adviser to Parc and left the Chamber during its consideration.

The City of Edinburgh Council 17 December 2009

9 Health, Social Care and Housing Performance Report 2009 – August/September 2009

The Health, Social Care and Housing Committee had referred recommendations, in terms of Standing Order 53, on the performance of the Departments of Health and Social Care and Services for Communities (Housing Services) during August/September 2009.

Decision

To note:

1) The performance reported for the period August/September 2009.

2) The actions taken and planed to improve performance.

(References – Health, Social Care and Housing Committee (item 13); report no CEC/97/09-10/HSC&H by the Head of Legal and Administrative Services, submitted.)

10 Home Care Modernisation Phase 2 – Provision of Long Term Home Care Service for People with Complex Needs

The Health, Social Care and Housing Committee had referred recommendations, in terms of Standing Order 53, on Phase 2 of the plans to modernise the internal Home Care and Support Service.

The Council had heard a deputation on the matter from UNISON, City of Edinburgh Branch (see item 1(d) above).

Motion

1) To note the progress made by the Home Care Modernisation Board and continue the provision of Phase 1 of Home Care Re-ablement by the in- house service.

2) To endorse the arrangements for Phase 2 of the modernisation and development over the next 5 to 6 years of a mixed economy of social care by:

• 100% of straightforward and predictable care being provided by the independent sector; and • the more fluctuating requirements of people with complex needs being provided one third in-house and two thirds by the independent sector.

The City of Edinburgh Council 17 December 2009

3) To note that the added value of providing one third of complex care in- house would allow:

• targeting of gaps in complex care; • utilisation of the Council’s highly trained staff; • coordination of an integrated approach with community nursing • improvement of the flexibility and responsiveness of the workforce.

4) To ask the Director of Health and Social Care to provide a detailed financial framework to be presented to the Committee by March 2010.

5) To ask the Director to provide regular updates on progress made with the implementation plan.

- moved by Councillor Edie, seconded by Councillor Work (on behalf of the Administration).

Amendment

1) To note the progress made by the Home Care Modernisation Board and continue the provision of Phase 1 of Home Care Re-ablement by the in- house service.

2) To ask the Director to bring forward a report which kept the balance of in- house and independent sector care at 45% in-house and 55% by the independent sector.

3) To ask the Director of Health and Social Care to provide a detailed financial framework to be presented to the Committee by March 2010.

4) To ask the Director of Health and Social Care to provide regular updates on progress made with the implementation plan.

- moved by Councillor Hinds, seconded by Councillor Munro (on behalf of the Labour Group).

Voting

For the motion - 38 votes For the amendment - 17 votes

The City of Edinburgh Council 17 December 2009

Decision

To approve the motion by Councillor Edie.

(References – Health, Social Care and Housing Committee (item 14); report no CEC/99/09-10/HSC&H by the Head of Legal and Administrative Services, submitted.)

11 Alternative Business Models Programme

An update was provided on the Alternative Business Models Review and recommendations were made on the future direction of the programme.

The Council had heard a deputation on the matter from the City of Edinburgh Branches of UNITE, the Union and UNISON (see item 1(b) above).

Motion

1) To explore through the Competitive Dialogue process the potential to create three Strategic Partnerships or Joint Ventures for Corporate & Transactional Services, Integrated Facilities Management and Environment Services.

2) To note that further reports would be presented to the Policy and Strategy Committee at each gateway of the Dialogue process.

3) To agree to a series of further reports to the Policy and Strategy Committee from the Alternative Business Models programme during 2010 on:

• a review of the potential application of alternative models of delivery for Legal Services.

• a feasibility study for use of Local Asset-Backed Vehicles to release capital for investment and regeneration.

• a review and option appraisal of the Corporate Transport Unit functions based on assessment of future service needs.

• a review of the potential application of alternative models of delivery for Cultural Facilities.

- moved by Councillor Dawe, seconded by Councillor Tymkewycz (on behalf of the Administration).

The City of Edinburgh Council 17 December 2009

Amendment

1) To note that these proposals had initially been agreed at the 9 June 2009 meeting of the Policy and Strategy Committee on a division.

2) To note that, despite reference at paragraph 2.3 of the report by the Chief Executive of a significant body of research on the application of alternative business models in other local authorities, his report did not mention the 9 June 2009 instruction to identify: “possible benefits from retaining services in-house and disadvantages to adopting alternative business models”. This work was reported on 29 September 2009 and indicated clear benefits of in-house retention:

• Council retains control over service delivery and can better react to changing needs and circumstances. • Skills, experience and benefits retained within Council. • Minimal impact on related services that are part of the Council’s core activity. • Some improvement plans already in place, potentially lower project costs and faster timescales.

3) To note the powerful body of evidence, including awards sponsored by the local government press and best practice case studies by the IDeA and APSE, of the quality and cost effectiveness of providing in-house services to citizens.

4) To note that both today’s report and earlier work on Alternative Business Models contained no detailed analysis of how staff ‘terms and conditions’ could be affected by the ‘competitive dialogue process’.

5) To note that the Chief Executive’s report failed to identify internal programmes that could deliver savings and improved services, despite reference to such models in paragraph 2.4 of his report and the previous Policy and Strategy Committee decision to explore these.

6) To note the deep concern about the appropriate implementation of TUPE arrangements shared by many employees and to agree that the Council was obliged to take such concerns into account.

7) To agree that high-quality public services were integral to the well-being and long term sustainability of the city and so should not be seen as money-saving resources in tight financial times but should remain in public ownership or under the control of not-for-profit third sector organisations.

8) Therefore, not to accept paragraphs 1 and 2 of the motion and to reject the Competitive Dialogue processes for the services detailed in the Chief Executive’s report.

The City of Edinburgh Council 17 December 2009

9) Instead, to instruct that a thorough report be prepared that provided a full analysis of the points raised in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 above, to be brought back to the Policy and Strategy Committee in early 2010. This report should include a more detailed comparison of the financial costs associated with any ‘competitive dialogue process’ as opposed to the retention of services in-house.

10) To receive the range of reports (to Policy and Strategy Committee throughout 2010) outlined in the four bullet-points at paragraph 3 of the motion, as part of the work-programme requested in paragraph 9 above.

11) To instruct that all further reviews of service provision (including those in paragraph 3 of the motion) must focus on internal or third sector solutions, ensuring secured pay and conditions of employees in addition to achieving savings and improving services.

- moved by Councillor Burns (on behalf of the Labour Group), seconded by Councillor Chapman (on behalf of the Green Group).

Voting

The voting was as follows:

For the motion - 38 votes For the amendment - 17 votes

Decision

To approve the motion by Councillor Dawe.

(References – Policy and Strategy Committee 29 September 2009 (item 2); report no CEC/92/09-10/CE by the Chief Executive, submitted.)

12 Review of Council Owned Arms Length Companies and Future Physical Development Plan

Progress was provided on the restructuring of the Council’s arms length companies and on the preparation of a Physical Development Plan to set out the principles on which the future development of the city would be delivered. The timescales for the resolution of outstanding issues in both EDI and Parc Craigmillar were also detailed.

Decision

1) To note the continuing progress towards the stabilisation and restructuring of the Council’s arms length development companies. 28

The City of Edinburgh Council 17 December 2009

2) To approve the short-term funding strategy for Waterfront Edinburgh Limited (WEL).

3) To note the purchase of EDI’s investment portfolio.

4) To note the proposed business plan strategy for both EDI and Parc.

5) To note that the proposed Physical Development Plan would be presented to Council in January 2010 with workshops to establish the best future structuring with a target date for implementation on 1 April 2010.

(References – Act of Council No 9 of 19 November 2009; report no CEC/93/09- 10/CD by the Director of City Development, submitted.)

Declaration of Interests

Councillors Bridgman, Buchanan, Child, Dawe, Edie, Hinds, Jackson, Keir, Lowrie, Gordon Mackenzie, McKay, Morris, Murray, Rose and Rust declared a non-financial interest in the above item as Board members of Council owned arms length companies.

Councillor Buchan declared a financial interest in the item as an employee of a firm acting as a technical adviser to organisations referred to in the report and left the Chamber during its consideration.

13 Council Companies – Resignation of Directors

Procedures for the resignation of elected members from positions within Council Companies were proposed.

Decision

1) To agree that Directors of Council Companies who wished to resign should intimate their resignation in writing to the Company Secretary, clearly indicating the effective date of the resignation.

2) To agree that the appointment of individuals who were to replace Directors should only be made after a written notice of resignation had been received by the Company Secretary from the Director who was resigning.

(References – Act of Council No 15 of 20 August 2009; report no CEC/94/09- 10/CE by the Chief Executive, submitted.)

The City of Edinburgh Council 17 December 2009

Declaration of Interests

Councillor Gordon Mackenzie declared a non-financial interest in the above item as a Director of Council owned companies.

14 Pre-Determination Hearings for National and Major Developments – Process

Approval was sought for a procedure for pre-determination hearings for national and certain major planning applications. Consequential alterations to the Council’s Standing Orders and additions to the Scheme of Delegation to Officers were outlined.

Decision

1) To approve the process for dealing with applications coming before the Council as outlined in Section 4 of the report by the Director of Corporate Services.

2) To approve the general procedure for pre-determination hearings by the Development Management Sub-Committee as detailed in Appendix 1 to the Director’s report.

3) To authorise the Head of Legal and Administrative Services to make adjustments to Standing Orders as outlined in paragraphs 8.1 and 8.2 of the Director’s report and as may be necessary as a consequence of the introduction of the pre-determination hearings.

4) To note that the Head of Planning would consider the arrangements for the provision of information and advice to members to allow them to carry out their new responsibilities.

5) To approve the arrangements for, and review of, non statutory hearings held by the Development Management Sub-Committee as outlined in paragraph 5.1 of the Director’s report.

6) To delegate to the Head of Planning the decisions detailed in paragraphs 3.7 and 5.1 of the report (assessment of applications against criteria for pre-determination hearing and other hearings) and that these powers be added to the Scheme of Delegation to Officers.

The City of Edinburgh Council 17 December 2009

7) To delegate to the Head of Legal and Administrative Services the decisions detailed in paragraph 4.2 of the report (detailed arrangements for pre-determination hearings) and that these powers be added to the Scheme of Delegation to Officers.

8) To undertake a review of the operation of the pre-determination hearing arrangements after the Council had considered six applications or after a year, whichever was sooner.

(Reference – report no CEC/101/09-10/CS by the Director of Corporate Services, submitted.)

15 Improving the Environmental Performance of the Festivals: Update on Progress

An update was provided on progress towards improving the environmental performance of Edinburgh’s festivals since June 2009.

Decision

1) To note the contents of the report by the Director Corporate Services.

2) To note that the next progress report on work by the 12 major festivals to improve their environmental performance would be presented to Council in December 2010.

(References – Act of Council No 11 of 25 June 2009; report no CEC/95/09- 10/CS by the Director of Corporate Services, submitted.)

Declaration of Interests

The following members declared non-financial interests in the above item:

• Councillor Dawe – as a member of the Board of the Edinburgh International Festival Council and Executive • Councillors Chapman, Godzik, Mowat and Thomas – as members of the Board of the Edinburgh International Festival Council • Councillor Edie – as a member of the Board of Edinburgh International Film Festival

The City of Edinburgh Council 17 December 2009

16 Authorised Signatories

Decision

To agree that:

1) in respect of Section 92 and 95 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, the Director of Finance remain the appointed proper officer and that the undernoted revised list of officers of the Finance Department be authorised to sign cheques (including foreign drafts), borrowing instruments, other financial and leasing agreements on behalf of the Council and Trusts and other funds administered by the Council:

Director of Finance Head of Financial Services Head of Revenues and Benefits Head of Payments & Procurement Services Business Support Manager Head of Investment and Pensions Corporate Finance Manager Revenue Services Manager Investment Manager Pensions Manager Principal Finance Manager - Operations Manager Council Tax Treasury Benefits Fund Accounting Manager

2) the financial limits that apply to the signing of cheques (including foreign drafts), borrowing instruments and other financial and leasing agreements on behalf of the Council and Trusts and other funds administered by the Council remain unchanged as at present namely:

• any one of the officers noted above where the sum involved is less than £60,000

• any two of the officers noted above where the sum involved is £60,000 or more

(Reference – report no CEC/96/09-10/F by the Director of Finance, submitted.)

17 Death of Two Soldiers from 3rd Battalion The Rifles – Motion by the Lord Provost

The Lord Provost ruled that the following motion, notice of which had been given at the start of the meeting, be considered as a matter of urgency in order that it be considered timeously.

The City of Edinburgh Council 17 December 2009

The following motion by the Lord Provost had been submitted in terms of Standing Order 27:

"Council expresses its sympathy to the families of two soldiers serving with the 3rd Battalion The Rifles, based in Edinburgh, Lance Corporal David Leslie Kirkness and Rifleman James Stephen Brown, who died in Afghanistan on 15 December 2009.

Council also expresses its sympathy to the 3rd Battalion The Rifles as they mourn the loss of two dedicated and brave soldiers."

Decision

To approve the motion by the Lord Provost.

18 Death of Sir John Crofton – Motion by Councillor Rust

The following motion by Councillor Rust was submitted in terms of Standing Order 28:

“Council notes with sadness the death of the eminent health pioneer Sir John Crofton. The benefits of Sir John’s achievements in the field of respiratory disease, most notably in relation to tuberculosis and smoking related lung cancer, have been felt locally, nationally and internationally.

Council agrees to celebrate his life and achievements in an appropriate manner.”

Decision

To approve the motion by Councillor Rust.

19 An Index of Wellbeing for Edinburgh – Motion by Councillor Chapman

The following motion by Councillor Chapman was submitted in terms of Standing Order 28:

“Council

a) Notes the move to an outcomes approach in the implementation and monitoring of Local Government activities.

The City of Edinburgh Council 17 December 2009

b) Notes the failure of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to adequately capture the full range of factors contributing to progress and success of Council activities.

c) Believes that the work of organisations such as the New Economics Foundation in developing indicators such as the Measure of Domestic Progress (MDP) and the Wellbeing index reflects important additional elements of monitoring outcomes.

d) Instructs officers in Finance and Economic Development to develop, in consultation with colleagues in the Edinburgh Compact, an index that measures wellbeing for the city, and report this index as part of the Budget process so that the Council can measure wellbeing from the next financial year.”

Decision

To remit the motion to the Economic Development Committee in terms of Standing Order 28(3), subject to competency.

20 Edinburgh Leisure Crèches – Motion by Councillor Buchan

The following motion by Councillor Buchan was submitted in terms of Standing Order 28:

“Council:

i) notes the budget pressures on Edinburgh Leisure with respect to retaining crèche facilities at its sports centres;

ii) notes that the Council Administration's Single Outcome Agreement requires sports facilities to be provided for all users, including parents of young children;

iii) agrees to work with Edinburgh Leisure, private organisations, not for profit groups and voluntary organisations to identify models to allow crèche facilities to remain available.”

Decision

1) To note:

(a) the budget pressures on Edinburgh Leisure with respect to retaining crèche facilities at its sports centres.

The City of Edinburgh Council 17 December 2009

(b) that the Council Administration's Single Outcome Agreement required sports facilities to be provided for all users, including parents of young children.

(c) Edinburgh Leisure’s commitment to provision for under 5s and growing their programme of physical activity sessions so they can have fun and stay active independently of their parents.

(d) Edinburgh Leisure’s public commitment (press release 24th November 2009) to “ensuring that as many people as possible in Edinburgh get started and stay active" and to exploring alternative delivery options for the current crèche service. Exploration of those alternative delivery options had already commenced.

(d) that information had been provided to crèche users together with an invitation to engage with Edinburgh Leisure should they be interested in providing the crèche service by alternative means. Edinburgh Leisure intended meeting user groups in January to discuss progress.

2) To work with Edinburgh Leisure, private organisations, not for profit groups and voluntary organisations to identify models to allow crèche facilities to remain available.

3) To note also that dialogue between Edinburgh Leisure and the Council was continuing on this and other matters.

Declaration of Interests

Councillors Brock, Cairns, Godzik, Thomas and Whyte declared a non-financial interest in the above item as Directors of Edinburgh Leisure.

21 British Geological Survey Facility in Gilmerton – Motion by Councillor Murray

The following motion by Councillor Murray was submitted in terms of Standing Order 28:

“Council:

Notes with concern the sudden and unexpected decision by the British Geological Survey (BGS) to close the world-leading off shore and onshore hydrocarbon core repositories and sample store in Gilmerton.

The City of Edinburgh Council 17 December 2009

Instructs the Director of City Development to meet with senior officers of the BGS to see what actions this Council can take to support the ongoing activities of this facility in Gilmerton, with a view to retaining the facility.

Asks for a report to this Council on the conclusion of these discussions and recommendations as to what this Council can do, if anything, to stop the closure of this facility.”

Decision

To approve the motion by Councillor Murray.

22 Communication with People with Disabilities – Motion by Councillor Blacklock

The following motion by Councillor Blacklock was submitted in terms of Standing Order 28:

“Council notes that, at its meeting on 19 November, deputations expressed their disappointment that the Council had communicated plans for significant changes to their care packages in a format which they were unable to understand.

Council recognises that it has failed in its duty to Edinburgh citizens under the Disability Discrimination Act.

Council therefore agrees that in future when communicating with people with disabilities, this communication will be made in formats which are appropriate to the person’s disability.”

Decision

To remit the motion to the Health, Social Care and Housing Committee in terms of Standing Order 28(3), subject to competency.

23 Low Emission Electric Vehicles – Motion by Councillor Burgess

The following motion by Councillor Burgess was submitted in terms of Standing Order 28:

“That the Council:

Notes that areas of Edinburgh are currently failing EU standards for air quality caused by pollution from vehicles.

The City of Edinburgh Council 17 December 2009

Notes that the use of low emission electric vehicles could reduce pollution and improve air quality.

Notes that if the electricity used to charge electric vehicles is from renewable energy sources, electric vehicles can also contribute to reducing climate changing pollution.

Notes that Glasgow City Council is introducing electric vehicles into its fleet.

Recognises that there may be potential for local authorities to use prudential borrowing to fund the purchase of low emission electric vehicles for their fleets.

Recognises that this Council could pioneer the use of low emission electric vehicles in Edinburgh and encouraging interest by private vehicle owners.

Therefore calls for a report to Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee on the potential for low emission electric vehicles in Edinburgh and specifically the use of prudential borrowing to fund the use of such vehicles in the Council fleet.”

Decision

1) To note:

(a) that areas of Edinburgh were currently failing EU standards for air quality caused by pollution from vehicles.

(b) that the use of low emission electric vehicles could reduce pollution and improve air quality.

(c) that if the electricity used to charge electric vehicles was from renewable energy sources, electric vehicles could also contribute to reducing climate changing pollution.

(d) that Glasgow City Council was introducing electric vehicles into its fleet; Glasgow City Council had relied upon financial support from the UK Government to achieve this.

3) To recognise that there may be potential for local authorities to use prudential borrowing to fund the purchase of low emission electric vehicles for their fleets.

4) To note that a very substantial amount of work had been carried out into the introduction of electric vehicles into the council fleet. Based upon this, and within the budget constraints currently faced by the Council, the introduction of electric vehicles into the fleet was not financially sustainable.

The City of Edinburgh Council 17 December 2009

5) To keep the option of prudential borrowing under review and bring forward a report when the gap between prudential borrowing costs and fuel savings had significantly reduced.

24 Globespan Travel Group – Motions by Councillors Buchanan and Henderson

The Lord Provost ruled that the following motions, notice of which had been given at the start of the meeting, be considered as matters of urgency in order that they be considered timeously.

The following motions had been submitted in terms of Standing Order 27:

Motion by Councillor Buchanan:

“Council notes with regret the collapse of Edinburgh based Globespan Group and the effect this will have on the residents of Edinburgh as employees or as customers.

Council instructs the Chief Executive and Director of City Development to ensure that all appropriate steps are taken through the Edinburgh Action and Resilience Network to mitigate the effects that Globespan’s administration will have on staff and ensure their return to employment as soon as possible.

Council also requires the Chief Executive to meet with the Managing Director of Edinburgh Airport to see what further actions can be taken to ensure that Globespan customers overseas can return home with the minimum of inconvenience.”

Motion by Councillor Henderson:

“Council notes the news that Globespan went into receivership yesterday.

Council expresses sympathy for those who will have their travel plans disrupted as a result.

Council agrees to support any initiatives towards finding alternative employment for Edinburgh citizens who are Globespan employees and who may lose their jobs as a result of the company's collapse.”

Decision

To approve the motions by Councillors Buchanan and Henderson.

The City of Edinburgh Council 17 December 2009

Appendix (As referred to in Act of Council No 3 of 17 December 2009)

QUESTION NO 1 By Councillor Whyte answered by the Leader of the Council

Question Will you publish a breakdown of the suggestions you have received for the Council budget from members of the public for consideration by all political groups before they develop their 2010/11 budget proposals?

Answer Yes.

Supplementary I’d like to ask when? Question

Supplementary It will be before Christmas. We are compiling the data Answer now.

The City of Edinburgh Council 17 December 2009

QUESTION NO 2 By Councillor Whyte answered by the Leader of the Council

Question (1) A recent communication reveals that currently, there are six distinct staff payroll groupings relating to factors such as frequency of payment (eg weekly, fortnightly, monthly etc) and status (eg teachers, non-teachers).

What is the cost to the Council of having these different payroll groupings and how much could be saved if they were rationalised?

Answer (1) £32,000 per annum was identified as part of the E-HR Business Case covering reduced printing, borrowing costs and bank charges associated with reducing the number of payroll groups. In addition, staff efficiencies have been identified which incorporate savings from the rationalisation of CEC payroll groups and this is included in the overall E-HR programme benefits. These savings will be separately identified in the next quarter.

Question (2) What plans does the Council have for such a rationalisation (eg under Modernising Pay proposals) and when does the Leader think these might be implemented?

Answer (2) The introduction of monthly pay for all Council staff is part of the Modernising Pay proposal. This will be effected as soon as is practicable after the main implementation date.

Question (3) How many distinct staff groupings would remain following implementation of any rationalisation proposals?

Answer (3) Rationalisation proposals require to be load tested in terms of IT processing. It is anticipated that there will be 3 distinct staff groupings.

The City of Edinburgh Council 17 December 2009

Supplementary What are the costs of continuing with three distinct staffing Question groups on payroll after Modernising Pay is implemented and what will be done to reduce those costs in the long term if anything?

Supplementary I am not in a position to answer that question. Answer

The City of Edinburgh Council 17 December 2009

QUESTION NO 3 By Councillor Chapman answered by the Convener of the Health, Social Care and Housing Committee

Question Please would you outline the procedures that you consider appropriate for a consultation process with Council service users who face a change to their service?

Answer This Administration has worked hard to make the Council more open, accountable and responsive. Consultations should open up decision-making to as wide a range of people and organisations as possible. To achieve this, the Council utilises best practice, procedures and approaches for tailoring consultations to the specific needs and requirements of service users including customer surveys, focus groups and direct engagement with user representatives.

Supplementary Could I ask the Convener what he means by opening up Question decision making?

Supplementary It is as written down in the written answer. Answer

The City of Edinburgh Council 17 December 2009

QUESTION NO 4 By Councillor Chapman answered by the Convener of the Finance and Resources Committee

Question In the interests of openness and transparency, please provide the Council with full details of the independent review process currently underway concerning the tendering of Care and Support Services, including the selection process for the independent reviewer and scope and timescale of the review.

Answer Members will be aware that to reassure Council of the robustness of the tender process in respect of the tendering of care and support services, an independent evaluation is being undertaken. Details were provided in Members’ Briefing 147. It is intended that the conclusions be reported to the Finance and Resources Committee on 21 January.

The City of Edinburgh Council 17 December 2009

QUESTION NO 5 By Councillor Burns answered by the Leader of the Council

Question (1) In relation to the recent tendering process for Care and Support Services, Councillor Paul Edie was quoted in the Evening News of Wednesday 2 December 2009 thus:

"I have said all along that we have a good robust tendering process that has been cleared by the lawyers at every stage."

Do you agree that the Care and Support Services tendering process was robust - yes or no?

Was the process cleared by lawyers at every stage – yes or no?

Answer (1) As the report to the adjourned meeting of the Finance and Resources Committee on 3rd December made clear, officers believed, until 2nd December, that the procurement process was robust. When information came to light that there may be concerns the matter was suspended pending further consideration. It is therefore to be expected that the Convener also believed that process to be robust until advised otherwise by officers.

The independent evaluation of the tender process that I have instructed will determine the robustness of the process undertaken.

Lawyers were involved when legal advice was requested. Experienced procurement specialists were involved in the process, supported by officers from the departments of Health and Social Care and Services for Communities.

The City of Edinburgh Council 17 December 2009

Question (2) The recent tendering process for Care and Support Services (which is now on hold and under investigation) would have been formally approved on 27 October 2009 at a meeting of the Finance and Resources Committee, if it hadn’t been referred on to the November 2009 full Council.

Do you thus accept that under the current weak scrutiny procedures of the City of Edinburgh Council, that Standing Order 53(1) plays a vital democratic role or do you see it as merely a “weird 25% rule” and its use as a “student stunt”?

Answer (2) Scrutiny is important in monitoring the performance of the Administration and the Council. Scrutiny procedures are regularly reviewed and a scrutiny paper will be considered by the Cross Party Working Group in the New Year.

The system of governance introduced by this Administration allows for cross-party participation. Debate and decision-making that was not provided for under the previous one-Party Executive system.

Question (3) When will Councillors Hinds and Chapman, whose amendment on the issue of the Care and Support Services tender was carried by a majority of the Council on 19 November 2009, be afforded the courtesy of being informed of the scope and detail of the independent investigation now announced for these tender processes?

Answer (3) As you know, I have instructed an independent evaluation. Further details were provided in Members’ Briefing 147. I have asked the Chief Executive to keep Council regularly updated.

The City of Edinburgh Council 17 December 2009

QUESTION NO 6 By Councillor Henderson answered by the Convener of the Education, Children and Families Committee

Question On Thursday 19 November, The Scotsman newspaper published a story exploring a claim from the Scottish Government that they had been responsible for building six schools in Edinburgh since they came to power in May 2007.

Could the Convener please provide the names of these six schools?

Answer This is a matter for The Scotsman newspaper. The Department of Children and Families was not asked for their input to this story.

Supplementary It is indeed unfortunate that the Scotsman didn’t consult Question the Leader before publishing their story in reaction to the Scottish Government announcement that they had built six new schools in Edinburgh. If she is not able to tell us the names of these schools, because I am worried there might be six new schools out there and we don’t know about them, I wonder if her Vice-Convener, had he been here, might have been able to answer the question because he seemed to be taking the credit for some of them earlier this afternoon. Perhaps I should refer the next question to Councillor Beckett.

Supplementary I am just going to keep to the answer here. If you want to Answer take this up with the Scotsman be my guest.

The City of Edinburgh Council 17 December 2009

QUESTION NO 7 By Councillor Burns answered by the Leader of the Council

Question Can you please provide a complete up-to-date list of all support staff for each of the 5 Political Groups on the City of Edinburgh Council?

Can the lists please include all staff: Councillors’ Assistants, Group Business Managers, Personal Assistants, Departmental Advisors, Secretaries, Business Assistants, Support Assistants, Administrative Assistants – broken down by each Political Group, and by individual Councillor?

Can the lists also please provide the full time equivalent status of every post, broken down by individual Councillor?

Answer See attached appendix.

The City of Edinburgh Council 17 December 2009

Appendix Political Group Staff

Lib Dem Group

Position/Councillors Staff Group Support Acting Group Business Manager (2 days per week)

Vice Convener of Transport, Infrastructure Departmental Adviser and Environment

Convener of Health, Social Care & 2 x 0.5 Departmental Adviser Housing 1 x 0.5 Business Assistant

Convener of Planning Departmental Adviser

Convener of Transport, Infrastructure & 1 x 0.6 Departmental Adviser Environment 1 x 0.4 Departmental Adviser PA 2 days per week

Convener of Education, Children & Departmental Adviser Families Personal Assistant Support Assistant (2½ days)

Convener of Finance & Resources Departmental Adviser

Convener of the Licensing Board, Cllr Shared Councillors’ Assistant (3 days) Aldridge and Cllr Lang

Vice Convener of Economic Development, Shared Councillors’ Assistant Cllr Coleman and Cllr Mackenzie

Cllr Dundas, Cllr Morris and Cllr Peacock Shared Councillors’ Assistant

Cllr Lowrie, Cllr Hawkins and Cllr Snowden Shared Councillors’ Assistant

Cllr Edie and Cllr Wheeler Shared Councillors’ Assistant

SNP Group

Councillors Staff

Group Support Business Manager Assistant Business Manager (3 days)

The City of Edinburgh Council 17 December 2009

SNP Group

Councillors Staff

Deputy Leader of the Council Personal Assistant

Convener of Culture & Leisure Personal Assistant Departmental Adviser

Convener of Economic Development Personal Assistant Departmental Adviser

Vice Convener of Health, Social Care & 2 x 0.5 Departmental Adviser Housing 1 x 0.5 Business Assistant

Convener of the Fire & Rescue Board, Councillors’ Assistant Vice Convener of Education, Children & Families and Vice Convener of Culture & Leisure

Convener of the Regulatory Committee, Councillors’ Assistant Vice Convener of the Fire & Rescue Board and Stefan Tymkewycz

Deputy Lord Provost, Convener of the Councillors’ Assistant Lothian Valuation Board and Cllr Work

Labour Group

Councillors Staff

Group Support Business Manager

Councillors Ewan Aitken, Eric Barry, Ricky Councillors’ Assistant Henderson and Cammy Day

Councillors Angela Blacklock, Eric Milligan Councillors’ Assistant and Gordon Munro

Councillors Andrew Burns, Maureen Child Councillors’ Assistant and Donald Wilson

Councillors Norma Hart, Lesley Hinds and Councillors’ Assistant Ian Murray Councillors Ian Perry and Paul Godzik Councillors’ Support Assistant

The City of Edinburgh Council 17 December 2009

Conservative Group

Councillors Staff

Group Support Business Manager

Convener of the Police Board, Kate Councillors’ Assistant MacKenzie and Joanna Mowat

Councillors Elaine Aitken, Allan Jackson Councillors’ Assistant and Cameron Rose

Councillors Gordon Buchan, Mark Councillors’ Assistant McInnes and Alastair Paisley

Councillors Jeremy Balfour and Jason Councillors’ Support Assistant Rust

Green Group

Councillors Staff

Councillors Steve Burgess, Alison Business Manager Johnstone and Maggie Chapman

The Offices of the Lord Provost and Council Leader fall outwith the precise information sought. However, both Offices employ three members of staff - the Lord Provost's Office is made up of 1 Personal Assistant, 1 Administrative Assistant and 1 Support Assistant, while the Leader's Office is made up of 1 Business Manager, 1 Assistant Business Manager and 1 Secretary. The latter represents a 25% staffing reduction on the position inherited in May 2007. During this time, the Leader's Office has assumed much of the substantive business previously undertaken by the Group Business Manager and Assistant Business Manager. The Leader's Office also now has the additional responsibility for coalition management.

In addition a proportion of the duties undertaken by the Lord Provost and Members’ Services Manager and staff, and the City Officer function, provides support directly to the Lord Provost.

The City of Edinburgh Council 17 December 2009

QUESTION NO 8 By Councillor Blacklock answered by the Convener of the Finance and Resources Committee

Question As a member of the Edinburgh Waterfront Development Partnership Board, when did this Board last meet and when will it next meet?

Answer The Waterfront Partnership Board last met on 17 June 2008. A further meeting had been planned for September 2008 but was postponed following the death of Councillor Maginnis.

The Administration is actively reviewing the impact and effectiveness of existing partnership arrangements in the City Centre and Waterfront. In December 2008, a report to the Economic Development Committee proposed that the city be split into four key development zones. A report will be presented to Council in January 2010 describing how Council-led physical development can ensure Edinburgh continues to flourish as a city of four distinct but interlinking quarters. The delivery and governance arrangements for these zones will be the subject of further work and, following consultation with all interested parties, including the Waterfront Partnership, reported to Committee.

The City of Edinburgh Council 17 December 2009

QUESTION NO 9 By Councillor Burns answered by the Leader of the Council

Question (1) Can you please give an assurance that in all current Council work-streams, such as:

• Alternative Business Models • Shared Services Agenda • and any similar rationalisation programmes

... that where any City of Edinburgh Council jobs are potentially to be outsourced, privatised, or otherwise transferred, there will be a clear political instruction that these jobs are at least to be retained within Edinburgh?

Question (2) If this instruction is not currently being made, will you now so instruct Council Officers before any of these programmes come to conclusion?

Answer The City of Edinburgh Council faces unprecedented financial challenges over the coming years. This requires new ways of working. The Council must radically and strategically review its operations and develop innovative solutions which meet our core objectives of providing excellent frontline services, supporting and developing the city economy and also protecting the interests of employees who are critical to excellent service delivery.

The Chief Executive has committed in his report to Council today on Alternative Business Models that a range of policy and strategic parameters, including any impact on Council employees, will require to be considered by a future Policy and Strategy Committee early in 2010.

I recognise the importance of retaining jobs in Edinburgh but I do not believe it would be competent to stipulate this as a contract condition. I am seeking more definite legal advice on this point.

The City of Edinburgh Council 17 December 2009

QUESTION NO 10 By Councillor Day answered by the Convener of the Education, Children and Families Committee

Question When will the current re-design of Community Learning and Development (CLD) be complete and where and when will it be reported to Council?

Answer The CLD re-design will be the subject of stakeholder consultation during January and February 2010 with a view to reporting to the Education, Children and Families Committee in March 2010.

The City of Edinburgh Council 17 December 2009

QUESTION NO 11 By Councillor Day answered by the Convener of the Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee

Question What cover will the private cleansing contractors be asked to provide, if any, during the festive period, what will the cost be, and where will this funding come from?

Answer The private contractor will be providing general street cleansing within the city centre area up until 10 January. Information on the costs of the contingency arrangements will be provided at the conclusion of the dispute but are currently contained within existing departmental budgets.

The City of Edinburgh Council 17 December 2009

QUESTION NO 12 By Councillor Murray answered by the Convener of the Health, Social Care and Housing Committee

Question Please provide the following information with regard to Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBO):

How many applications has our legal department dealt with in each of the years 2007, 2008 and 2009 to date; how many have been processed to the Court stage; how many have been granted by the Court?

Answer Neighbourhood teams make between 40-50 potential ASBO referrals each year. Legal Services then consider whether an application to Court would be appropriate.

The following table describes the outcome of cases which have proceeded to Court:-

ORDER 2007 2008 2009 Refused 0 1 1 Interim ASBO 14 5 2 Full ASBO 14 6 8

Supplementary There have been several instances in my ward of anti- Question social behaviour orders that have been put up by the Local Office and the Local Office, the elected members and the police have been incredibly frustrated that the Sheriff has indeed thrown these anti-social behaviour orders out. I just wondered if there is anything that can be done in the procedure (a) to speed that up and (b) to make sure that the Sheriff has a more persuasive and robust case?

Supplementary I will ask officers to look into that and get back to you but I Answer am loathe to interfere with the Sheriff and I don’t think that the judicial processes should be politicised at all.

The City of Edinburgh Council 17 December 2009

QUESTION NO 13 By Councillor Murray answered by the Convener of the Health, Social Care and Housing Committee

Question How much to date has the Care and Support tender process cost this Council, including staff, legal and procurement costs?

Answer It has not been possible to assess these costs in the time available given that the staff affected are heavily involved in work associated with these tenders.

Supplementary The answer does say it has not been possible to assess Question these costs given the time available. I wonder if it will be possible to get them in time.

Supplementary As soon as we can get a figure for that. I don’t know how Answer difficult that is going to be but I will ask officers to try and get that figure for you when we can do that. We have not completed this process so we may not be able to do that until we are through that but as soon as we get information we will give it to you.

The City of Edinburgh Council 17 December 2009

QUESTION NO 14 By Councillor Hinds answered by the Convener of the Health, Social Care and Housing Committee

Question (1) What legal advice changed between the Stakeholders’ meeting of Monday 30 November 2009 to Wednesday 2 December 2009 that allowed the signing of the Care and Support tender documents to be delayed and led to the decision to investigate the process of re-tendering of Care and Support services?

Answer (1) I was advised by the Chief Executive and other senior officers on Wednesday 2 December that additional information had become available over 1/2 December which required to be considered further. This meant it was advisable to delay consideration of the matter the following day at the Finance and Resources Committee. Immediately upon receiving this advice from the Chief Executive, the Council Leader instructed an independent evaluation of the tenders.

Further information is given in Members’ Briefing 147.

Question (2) Previous tendering processes (specifically for Homelessness Services) conducted by this Administration were undertaken within similar frameworks to those used for the recent Care and Support Services tender. In the light of what has recently happened with the Care and Support Services tender, will you ensure that the investigation which is about to take place also looks at previous similar tender processes?

Answer (2) The organisation undertaking the independent evaluation of the tender process will review contracts being submitted to the Finance and Resources Committee as part of their remit.

The City of Edinburgh Council 17 December 2009

Question (3) A commitment was given that Direct Payments would be processed if they were applied for or "intimated" by the Finance and Resources Committee of Thursday 3 December. Will this commitment be fulfilled and what is the situation for service users who wish to make applications for Direct Payment after 3 December?

Answer (3) Yes. All Direct Payment applications received (not “intimated”) by 3 December will be excluded from any contracts which may be awarded. Further information is included in the Members’ Briefing.

Question (4) Can you please give full details of the communications plan to ensure that clients and carers are fully aware of these decisions?

Answer (4) Information on communications is provided in Members’ Briefing 147 together with copies of letters issued.

Supplementary Could I take the Convener to Answer 3 and the answer he Question has given regarding direct payments. He has put in brackets “not intimated”. Could I just get clarification of that, because at the meeting that he and I attended with the organisations who were involved with the Care and Support tender, they certainly were given an indication that if they applied by phone or by letter that was an intimation that they had actually applied for a direct payment? So I am just concerned about the bracket which says “not intimated”, which seems to be different to what has been said to the people involved with that tender process. So could he clarify what he means in Answer 3 please?

Supplementary I can’t clarify that at this moment in time but I will Answer endeavour to get that back to you. My understanding is that if people applied for direct payments by 3 December they will not be excluded and actually, as that contract is moved on, my understanding was that we will continue to process those.

The City of Edinburgh Council 17 December 2009

QUESTION NO 15 By Councillor Child answered by the Convener of the Culture and Leisure Committee

Question (1) What discussions has the Convener had with Edinburgh Leisure about the proposals to close the remaining crèches at sports centres, including Portobello Swim Centre, in order to save £130,000?

Answer (1) I met the Chair and Chief Executive of Edinburgh Leisure, along with the Director of Corporate Services and the Head of Sport and Physical Activity, in this connection. The Board of Edinburgh Leisure has considered various options for achieving the necessary savings. The final unanimous decision was taken at the Edinburgh Leisure Board meeting on 12 November 2009, at which I, Councillor Cairns and Councillor Godzik were present.

Question (2) How many crèche workers will lose their jobs if this proposal is implemented?

Answer (2) 10 part time crèche workers may potentially be affected. Should this proposal proceed, redeployment within Edinburgh Leisure will be considered as well as opportunities within the Council.

Question (3) What other ideas has the Convener asked Edinburgh Leisure to explore to ensure the continuation of this service?

Answer (3) Edinburgh Leisure is considering alternative service delivery options. An advert seeking expressions of interest to provide continuity of the service was placed in The Scotsman last week. Meetings with potential alternative providers are planned for January.

The City of Edinburgh Council 17 December 2009

Supplementary The answer to Question 1 I find a little ambiguous and I Question 1 wondered if the Convener would clarify that it is actually not a final decision about the crèches until the Council sets its budget until after that the Edinburgh Leisure Board meets on 30 March. I believe it is to consider the final funding arrangement with this Council? So the decision about the crèche closures has not yet been made. Am I not correct?

Supplementary That decision was taken by the Edinburgh Leisure Board. Answer 1 The operational matters are a matter for the Board. Obviously Councillor Godzik sits on the Board so you could perhaps seek clarification from him with regard to all of this and it is their response to the savings that are likely to be requested of them. But that is the decision that the Board took as part of its suggestions for making the savings that are likely to be requested of it.

Supplementary Could you clarify that that is still in the nature of a proposal Question 2 not a decision?

Supplementary Well unless Councillor Child would like to suggest which Answer 2 other Leisure Centre perhaps that they might like to offer instead of the crèche closures. It was quite a significant prioritisation exercise. Again you could check that with Councillor Godzik what they went through. Looking at all the facilities and services that Edinburgh Leisure offer, this was one of the services that I am afraid stood out as a particularly high subsidy. This was the choice made unanimously by the Edinburgh Leisure Board as one of the proposals that would enable it to deal with the savings that are likely to be asked of it.

Supplementary It is still therefore a proposal. I do talk to Councillor Paul Question 3 Godzik and can I just say that in an e-mail that Paul has got, Keith Jackson, Chief Executive of Edinburgh Leisure, recognises that this is still a proposal. There will always be a possibility that the Council may change decisions on funding. I expect it could be either up or down and will be reported back to the Board. Meantime it’s a proposal not a decision.

The City of Edinburgh Council 17 December 2009

QUESTION NO 16 By Councillor Ewan Aitken answered by the Convener of the Health, Social Care and Housing Committee

Question Councillor Norman Work claims in a letter to George Foulkes MSP that the Council is accommodating a greater number of homeless people. Can you explain why therefore there are more people than ever being accommodated by the churches’ winter service, especially given that there are fewer spaces for homeless people since your decision to close the Night Centre?

Answer The letter from Councillor Norman Work to George Foulkes MSP does not refer to the number of homeless people the Council is accommodating. It refers to the number of people presenting as homeless. It is encouraging that this figure has reduced by approximately 300 in the last year.

The Council works closely with Bethany Christian Trust to monitor who uses the winter service and what their needs are. Not everyone using the service is homeless. Many users do not sleep over but use the shelters for advice, company and food. The Council is currently working with providers to determine whether this number is increasing and to determine any actions which can be taken in response to this.

The Cowgate Centre was never designed or commissioned as accommodation. It provides a Crisis Service, managed by Rock Trust and Streetwork, where those attending can receive advice, food and washing and laundry facilities.

The City of Edinburgh Council 17 December 2009

Supplementary Is the Convener aware that, despite winning a tender to Question provide a seven day a week 365 day a year crisis service, a street worker is actually only providing four shifts a week which is why there are a number of people presenting because they have no place to go which is why I can tell you the numbers using church facilities at the moment have doubled? Is he aware of this and is he willing to try and do something about it?

Supplementary That is not the information that I have from Bethany. In Answer fact the figure has not doubled. I got statistics on that from Bethany yesterday. Can I also say that the reason why we are not housing more homeless people is because there are fewer homeless people in the city thanks to the Homeless Strategy that Councillor Work piloted through the Homelessness Forum. Homelessness in Edinburgh, against the national trend, has been down for the six months of this year and I think that is something to commend this Administration for.

The City of Edinburgh Council 17 December 2009

QUESTION NO 17 By Councillor Ewan Aitken answered by the Convener of the Health, Social Care and Housing Committee

Question (1) In what ways will any decisions on the levels of Direct Payment rates for care and support packages affect users of previously tendered services, particularly for homeless adults with multiple and complex needs?

Answer (1) There will be no change in respect of the current level of direct payments.

Question (2) What information was given to service users, who were consulted as part of the Equalities Impact Assessment of the Care and Support re-tendering, about the purpose of the Assessment?

Answer (2) All service users consulted were made aware that the purpose of the Equalities Impact assessment was to examine the equalities impact of tendering.

Supplementary I have a real problem with the answer to question 2 Question because it is not true. The estimate of 28 who were referred to in the first part of the Equalities Impact Assessment, not all of them were service users and those that were said that they were not absolutely clear that it was being used for the Equalities Impact Assessment. In fact six of them left because it was not made clear to them properly and the 159 that were referred to were doing a user survey and they were not in any way referred to the information being used for an Equalities Impact Assessment. I am asking you why you have let an answer which is actually untrue be presented to this Chamber?

Supplementary I will ask the officers to investigate that. As you can Answer understand I did not perform that Equalities Impact Assessment myself, officers carry that out. I shall investigate your concerns and respond to you in due course.

The City of Edinburgh Council 17 December 2009

Supplementary Does that mean you accept the first answer without Question 2 question?

The City of Edinburgh Council 17 December 2009

QUESTION NO 18 By Councillor Ewan Aitken answered by the Convener of the Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee

Question Can you provide details of all investment in traffic calming across the city for 2006/7, 2007/8, 2008/9 on a street by street basis. Please supply the information in the form of a table using the following headings:

• Name of street(s)

• Brief description of calming introduced in each street

• Cost

Answer This is a considerable piece of work which cannot be provided within the timescale for this Council meeting. I shall write to Councillor Ewan Aitken with the information as soon as it has been collated. It will be published in the papers for full Council in January 2010.

The City of Edinburgh Council 17 December 2009

QUESTION NO 19 By Councillor Johnstone answered by the Convener of the Culture and Leisure Committee

Question Will the closure of all crèche facilities at Edinburgh Leisure venues prove a barrier to achieving the Council's target of becoming the most active city in Europe by 2020?

Answer No. The crèche service is the most heavily subsidised (over £12 per visit) of all the facilities and programmes offered by Edinburgh Leisure. This proposal will enable Edinburgh Leisure to make more efficient use of its resource in promoting participation in sport and leisure activities in this difficult financial climate.

Edinburgh Leisure’s participation figures continue to increase year on year and make a valuable contribution towards Edinburgh’s aspiration to be the most physically active city in Europe by 2020.

The City of Edinburgh Council 17 December 2009

QUESTION NO 20 By Councillor Johnstone answered by the Convener of the Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee

Question Will the Convener ensure adequate lighting exists at the recycling facility at James Gillespie's High School to ensure ease of use for local residents?

Answer Existing lighting at the recycling facilities within the grounds of James Gillespie’s High School had been obscured by the temporary boiler casing in place during renovation work to the school. Works to rectify this have now been carried out and the lights have been fully reinstated.

The City of Edinburgh Council 17 December 2009

QUESTION NO 21 By Councillor Burgess answered by the Convener of the Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee

Question (1) Does the Administration recognise the huge demand for allotments with a waiting list of about 2000 and seven year waiting times and is the Administration therefore being proactive in seeking to expand the provision of allotments?

Answer (1) The Council is currently working on its second allotment strategy which will focus on the provision of allotments in Edinburgh and how future demand can be met.

Question (2) Are Section 75 planning agreements being routinely considered as a means to expand the provision of allotments?

Answer (2) The Head of Planning was consulted on the use of Section 75 agreements and has advised that these are used only where necessary to make a proposal acceptable in land use planning terms; for example, to expand the capacity of a school to allow it to accommodate the need arising from a new housing development. As such, planning agreements cannot routinely be used to meet a pre- existing general need, as is the case with allotments.

The forthcoming Open Space Strategy is an opportunity to identify potential new allotment sites. The draft strategy is due to be presented to the Policy and Strategy Committee and to the Planning Committee on 23 and 25 February 2010 respectively.

The City of Edinburgh Council 17 December 2009

Supplementary I have been made aware of the additional capacity for Question gardening in the city, firstly through the garden share scheme also through the NHS granting permission to community groups to garden on their land and also that there may be scope to even re-use gardens at former schools that have been closed. Given this huge demand for allotments and the fact that it will probably take time to bring forward and expand the allotment provision and that there are these possibilities for gardening, would the Convener be prepared to ask officers to take steps to tie this demand to this possible supply of gardening? Perhaps this could be part of the forthcoming Allotment Strategy even?

Supplementary I think almost all if not all of those are currently being Answer investigated and developed as part of the Allotment Strategy which is well under way and will come forth in the first half of next year.

The City of Edinburgh Council 17 December 2009

QUESTION NO 22 By Councillor Burgess answered by the Convener of the Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee

Question How does the Administration intend to inform developers of the recent decision that small to medium biomass should be considered ‘when it can be demonstrated that emissions are acceptable and when design shows that any effect on air quality is minimal’?

Answer On 24 November 2009, the Council’s Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee agreed that the current precautionary approach to biomass be continued and also recommended that the Council prepare appropriate interim planning guidance on the use of biomass in Edinburgh.

Officers are currently working on guidance which will be available on the Council website and supplied in response to enquiries from developers and the public in general.

In line with normal practice, new planning guidance will be subject to consultation before finalisation. Organisations representing the development industry will be included in this consultation. The Council will also inform developers of its approach to biomass during pre-application discussions on specific development proposals.

Supplementary I am slightly concerned about this answer being a bit Question partial. Can the Convener confirm that in an amendment in the Deputy Convener’s name agreed by the Transport Infrastructure and Environment Committee of 24 November, which was agreed, it stated that “when it can be demonstrated that emissions are acceptable and when design shows that any effect on air quality is minimal” biomass should be considered. Will the Administration be ensuring that from now on developers are made aware that biomass is a possibility for them?

The City of Edinburgh Council 17 December 2009

Supplementary I can read that and it is what you wrote down in your Answer question and my answer remains as the answer is written down if you can read that.

The City of Edinburgh Council 17 December 2009

QUESTION NO 23 By Councillor Burgess answered by the Leader of the Council

Question When does the Administration expect the report on comparing the environmental impact and costs between air and overland travel for Councillor and staff travel to meetings as agreed at Policy and Strategy Committee will be presented to Committee?

Answer It is intended to present a response at the next meeting of the Policy and Strategy Committee on 19 January 2010.

The City of Edinburgh Council 17 December 2009

QUESTION NO 24 By Councillor Burgess answered by the Convener of the Planning Committee

Question (1) Will the Administration allow the temporary rental or use of the Canongate Venture for office space and Council flats on the Canongate whilst the future of Caltongate development is being decided?

Answer (1) The Council recognises the importance of the regeneration of Caltongate and the contribution this could make to the economic well-being and quality of life in the city centre. Temporary rentals require the consent of the administrators. Whilst bids for progressing the whole Canongate project are being assessed, the administrators have indicated that they are reluctant to grant any lets. Options are, however, being explored to bring the Canongate flats back in to use without creating secure tenancies.

Question (2) What progress is being made on the use of the Caltongate bond to temporarily green the Caltongate site?

Answer (2) The use of the Caltongate Bond is complicated by the developer going into administration. The terms of the Bond Agreement are currently being considered by Legal Services, in discussion with the Head of Planning. I have asked that you be kept apprised of developments.

The City of Edinburgh Council 17 December 2009

QUESTION NO 25 By Councillor Burgess answered by the Convener of the Planning Committee

Question Will the Administration introduce an award for developers who best achieve the Edinburgh Standards for Sustainable Buildings as referred to in the standards document?

Answer The Edinburgh Standards for Sustainable Building includes a proposal for a Sustainable Building Award Scheme to publicise exemplary projects. However national planning policy on sustainable building and the Scottish Building Standards are currently being reviewed and the Edinburgh Standards will be reviewed to take account of these changes. The benefits of introducing such a scheme will be considered once this review is complete.

Supplementary When the Edinburgh Standards for Sustainable Building Question were approved in 2007 by the previous Administration, these standards were at the cutting edge and they led the way in Scotland in sustainable building. Sadly since the current Administration took over they have allowed the Edinburgh Standard for Sustainable Building to fall behind the guidance in National Scottish Planning Policy, both in 2008 and 2009, refusing to accept green amendments to try and update the standards. Would the Convener agree that the reason the Council cannot now introduce an award for these Edinburgh Standards, as originally envisaged in the original document for the standards, is because it would be an embarrassment for the administration to have an award for a scheme that doesn’t even meet minimum national standards?

Supplementary I refute that entirely. We are in the transition phase where Answer we are updating our standards to bring it in line with the national standards. In terms of making an award it is quite difficult to do that just with our own officials so there will be some third parties involved. We are investigating that and we are hoping to come forward with something fairly soon.

The City of Edinburgh Council 17 December 2009

QUESTION NO 26 By Councillor Buchan answered by the Convener of the Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee

Question (1) Will the Convener agree with many in the Chamber that the work of the Water of Leith Trust is exemplary and has transformed the river into a world class natural habitat running through the city?

Answer (1) Yes. I commend the excellent work of the Water of Leith Conservation Trust in conserving and enhancing the river and promoting education and recreation.

Question (2) Does he agree that any cut in budget given by the Council to the Trust would result in the City Council having to undertake duties on the river that the Trust currently provides?

Answer (2) In preparing its budget for 2010-11, the Council is considering a range of options to meet stringent savings targets. These options will, by implication, include grants to third parties such as the Water of Leith Conservation Trust. In considering grant reductions the Administration will take into account a number of factors including potential costs to other Council/Council funded services.

Question (3) Does he recognise that a reduction in grant would seriously impact upon the ability of the Trust to continue its work to the same high standards and would result in an adverse impact on the quality of the environment of the Water of Leith?

Answer (3) No decision has been taken on the future funding for the Water of Leith Trust. Any decision on this will be dealt with as part of the Council’s budget process. However, as indicated in answer (2) above, the impact of any proposed savings will be assessed together with the potential impact on environmental standards.

W2/CC/CEC171209/CE