+EDINBVRGH+ THE CITY OF EDINBURGH COUNCIL
Com mittee Minutes
The City of Edinburgh Council Year 200712008 Meeting 12 - Thursday 13 March 2008 Edinburgh, 13 March 2008 - At a meeting of The City of Edinburgh Council
Present: - LORD PROVOST The Right Honourable George Grubb COUNCILLORS Elaine Aitken Colin Keir Ewan Aitken Louise Lang Robert C Aldridge Jim Lowrie Jeremy R Balfour Gordon Mackenzie Eric Barry Kate MacKenzie David Beckett Marilyne A MacLaren Angela Blacklock Elizabeth Maginnis Mike Bridgman Mark Mclnnes Deidre Brock Stuart Roy Mclvor 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 Paul G Edie Jason G Rust Nick Elliott-Cannon Conor Snowden Paul Godzik Marjorie Thomas Norma Hart Stefan Tymkewycz Stephen Hawkins Phil Wheeler Ricky Henderson lain Whyte Lesley Hinds Donald Wilson Allan G Jackson Norrie Work Alison Johnstone 2
The City of Edinburgh Council 13 March 2008
1 Youngedinburgh
Youngedinburgh, the Council’s Youth Services Strategy, aimed to improve the quality of life of the city’s young people aged 1 1-21 years. The strategy was developed and delivered by all Council departments and partner agencies and formed a key strand of the Council’s community planning process.
(a) Youngedinburgh Viewfinder 3 Study
Representatives of lpsos MOR1 Scotland presented the findings of the Viewfinder 3 survey conducted in 2007. The survey was conducted every three years to gather the opinions of young people; over 18,000 young people had participated in the 2007 survey. The findings had a major impact on decision-making in relation to services for young people and helped to shape Youngedinburgh.
(Reference - Viewfinder 3 - summary research findings of the views of young people living in Edinburgh.)
(b) Young People’s Involvement in Youngedinburgh
Twelve young people, who had an active involvement in Youngedinburgh, described particular aspects of the strategy, including the Youth Services Advisory Committee, Student Councils, Edinburgh Young Scot, the Fairdeal Steering Group, the Pedals not Petrol Initiative, skateboarding, climate change, community safety, Youngedinburgh Communications Group and the launch of the WOW website (What’s on Where).
A question and answer session was then held with elected members. Topics covered included Fairtrade, work experience, young people’s rights at work, young people’s emotional well being, skateboarding, voting age and youth cafes.
2 Deputations
The Council agreed to hear the following deputations:
(a) Council Funding to Third Parties (see item 10 below)
(i) The Community Against Creche Closures
Beverley Klein and Karina Mcfall referred to proposals by Edinburgh Leisure to close creche facilities in six sports centres in response to a reduction in its grant. The deputation pointed out that closure of these facilities directly contradicted the Council’s policies on health and wellbeing. 1400 signatures had been collected on a petition in 3
The City of Edinburgh Council 13 March 2008
the three days since hearing about the closures. The deputation was extremely concerned at the lack of consultation with users on the closures and at the way staff had been informed. They asked the Council to ring-fence €300,000 to keep the facilities open and to consider expanding access to them and installing creches in other ven ues .
(Reference - e-mail dated 11 March 2008, submitted)
(ii) Bingham & District 50+ Project
The deputation described the services provided by the project which was at the heart of the community and provided a lifeline to its users. The project was prudent and resourceful and met all its targets. Although the project received money from other sources, the grant from the Council covered staff and running costs and went some way towards classes and transport. The deputation asked the Council to continue its current level of funding to the project.
(Reference - e-mail dated 4 March 2008, submitted.)
(i i i) Gorg ie/Dalry Partnership
Kirsten Cook referred to the proposal to reduce grant aid to the Gorgie Dalry Partnership. The Partnership existed to promote the economic development of the area and its people. She presented a petition with 500 signatures against this proposal together with letters of support for the Partnership from local businesses. She read a statement from the Partnership Board which described its work and the impact of the proposed cut in Council funding. She pointed out that the justification given in the report before the Council was vague and conflicted with the Council’s stated objectives. She therefore asked the Council to reconsider the proposal and to continue with the current level of funding for the project.
(Reference - e-mail dated 5 March 2008, submitted.)
(iv) Edinburgh Community Newspaper Trust (ECNT)
Mary Burnside said that ECNT was disappointed that they had only received three days’ notice of the proposed 85% reduction in funding. This cut would result in the closure of a large number of community businesses and the loss of jobs. Edinburgh Community Newspaper Trust represented excellent value for money; it provided 70,000 newspapers to one third of the city and provided training to local people, all for f 10,500 per month. Compared to the cost of the Council’s publication “Outlook’, this represented excellent value for 4
The City of Edinburgh Council 13 March 2008
money. She asked the Council to reconsider the proposal to reduce grant funding.
John Loughton asked the Council not to underestimate the value of community newspapers; they were vital and were particularly effective at communicating with young people. He also asked the Council to reconsider the proposal to reduce funding to ECNT.
(Reference - e-mail dated 7 March 2008, submitted.)
(v) Edinburgh Community Food Initiative (ECFI)
Cara Gillespie and Anita Aggarwal said that the proposed reduction in funding to ECFl would affect eight members of staff, 60 volunteers and over 6,000 service users. ECFl was a food and health project which serviced 13 community co-operatives in areas of deprivation and ran a range of other projects. There would be effects on over 40 groups if funding was reduced. The deputation pointed out that the report before the Council described the ECFl application as a new application; this was not the case as the project had been funded since 1996. The deputation asked the Council not to cut the grant to ECFI.
(Reference - e-mail dated 9 March 2008, submitted.)
(vi) Edinburgh TUC
Des Loughney said that the report before the Council was misleading and did not contain enough information for the Council to make a decision to discontinue its funding to Lothian Trades Union Council. The deputation was disappointed that they had not heard of the proposed cut to the project until a few days ago. This was a unique pathfinding partnership which ought to be supported. They therefore asked the Council to continue its grant of €15,000 in order to meet the objectives of those disadvantaged in the labour market.
(Reference - e-mail dated 11 March 2008, submitted)
(vii) Scottish BalletKcottish Opera
Cindy Sughrue, Chief Executive and Producer at Scottish Ballet, said that whilst she understood the significant financial challenges faced by the Council, she queried the rationale for discontinuing revenue funding to Scottish Ballet. The company had only heard six days ago that the Council intended to a cut their revenue support of €40,000. The Ballet was an award winning company of international standard which regularly exceeded its targets. She therefore asked the Council to reconsider this proposal. 5
The City of Edinburgh Council 13 March 2008
Andrew Reedijk, General Director of Scottish Opera, supported the comments from Scottish Ballet. Scottish Opera had also received short notice of the withdrawal of revenue funding and was shocked at its complete withdrawal. This withdrawal would affect the company’s education and outreach work. He asked the Council to reconsider this proposal and help Scottish Opera to continue doing what it did best.
(Reference - e-mails dated 11 &12 March 2008, submitted)
(viii) Broomhouse Centre
Marie Anderson described the services provided by the Broomhouse Centre and the impact on the local community of a reduction in grant funding. She appealed to the Council to make adequate investment in the Centre to allow them to continue with their current work
(Reference - e-mail dated 12 March 2008, submitted)
(b) Number 18 Bus Campaign Group (see item 28 below)
Irene Paterson and Peggy Wright asked the Council to reinstate the subsidy for the Number 18 Sunday bus service. They explained the impact of its withdrawal on the elderly population and young families who relied on this service.
(Reference - e-mail dated 10 March 2008, submitted)
(c) National and Regional Sports Facilities (see item 12 below)
(i) Save Meadowbank Campaign
Bill Walker expressed the Campaign’s disappointment with the proposals before the Council in relation to Meadowbank Sports Centre. He asked the Council to listen to its constituents and the people who used the centre who wanted Meadowbank maintained as a sports centre in its entirety. Once land was sold there was no way back and no possibility of future expansion.
Allister Watson referred to the lack of a cycling velodrome in the plans for the new centre and asked the Council not to make this decision and to uphold the cycling tradition in the city.
(Reference - e-mail dated 11 March 2008, submitted) 6
The City of Edinburgh Council 13 March 2008
(ii) Trinity Community Council
Alyson Cameron said that there would be no lack of money to refurbish Meadowbank if the Council held the Scottish Government to its commitment, contained in Glasgow’s bid document for the Commonwealth Games, that they would fund the refurbishment of the Royal Commonwealth Pool. She asked the Council to hold the Scottish Government to this commitment and thereby give the city the sports facilities it deserved.
(Reference - e-mail dated 11 March 2008, submitted)
(i i i) Craigenti nny Com mu nity Cou nci I
Phyllis Herriot asked the Council to stop their plans to demolish Meadowbank Stadium. Selling off recreation land for housing had happened on too many occasions in the city and she therefore asked the Council not to take this decision.
(Reference - letter of 12 March 2008, submitted)
(d) Craigleith Road Parking Action Group (see item below)
Gordon Stewart explained that Craigleith Road was just outside the extended Controlled Parking Zone and as such was experiencing severe problems because of commuter parking. He referred to the report to be considered later on the agenda which reviewed the extended zone; the recommendation to reduce the hourly rate for parking in the existing pay and display parking places on the north side of Craigleith Road to 30p would not achieve the objective of making spaces available for residents as commuters would continue to seek out free parking. He proposed an alternative whereby 50% of the metered area on the north side of Craigleith Road between Craigleith Hill Crescent and Crewe Road South was restored as a free parking area and asked the Council to reject the Director’s recommendation and reconsider the matter.
(Reference - letter dated 11 March 2008, submitted)
(e) The following deputation requests were withdrawn:
Grants to Third Parties: Water of Leith Conservation Trust - e-mail dated 22 January 2008 Workers’ Educational Association - e-mail dated 26 February 2008 Edinburgh World Justice Festival - e-mail dated 9 March 2008 7
The City of Edinburgh Council 13 March 2008
3 Andrew Holmes - Valedictory
The Lord Provost advised the Council that Andrew Holmes, Director of City Development, would retire from the Council on 1 April 2008. The Lord Provost thanked him for his service to the Council and the city and wished him a long and happy retirement.
Councillors Wheeler, Ewan Aitken, Jackson, Burgess and Cardownie paid tribute to the Director’s integrity, professionalism and dedication to the city throughout his long years of service with the Council.
Andrew Holmes thanked the members of the Council for their best wishes and for having had the opportunity to work in such a marvellous city. He wished the Council well in its future endeavours.
4 Council Funding to Third Parties: Performance and Outcomes 2006/07 and Grant Aid to Third Parties 2008/09
The Council considered the following:
performance outcomes for 2006/07 of third party organisations receiving grant aid from the Council; proposals for the further development of quality assurance arrangements with the third sector; recommendations for the disbursement of the Council’s grant aid to third party organisations in 2008/09.
Reference was made also to the Council’s role in the Compact Partnership with the third sector and the implications of the advent of the Single Outcome Agreement with the Scottish Government
Two questions had been put on this issue in terms of Standing Order 25(2) (see item 6 below) and the Council had heard a number of deputations on the matter (see item 2(a) above).
Motion
1) To welcome the range of reports from the Director of Corporate Services and agree an annual reporting pattern on the topics covered.
2) To note the performance data identified in Appendix 1 to the Director’s report no CEC/I 85/07-08/CS and:
(a) To welcome the development of a single quality assurance scheme, congratulating the efforts of partners. 8
The City of Edinburgh Council 13 March 2008
(b) To approve the proposals in the Director’s report for the further development of performance reporting and quality assurance.
3) To note the significant work that had been undertaken to protect grants to third party organisations in the light of the challenging financial position inherited by the Administration.
4) To recognise that grant funding decisions had been taken using clear criteria to assess and minimise any impact on service delivery.
5) To utilise any potential savings identified through the Comprehensive Review of Funding to Third Parties, which was scheduled to report in September 2008, to fund voluntary sector organisations and initiatives.
To ask the Director of Services for Communities to report back on how Edinburgh Community Newspapers Trust (ECNT) would receive sufficient funding to provide for any compulsory redundancies (should these prove necessary).
7) To approve the grant recommendations detailed in Appendices 1, 2, 3 and 4 to report no CEC/I 86/07-08 by the Director of Corporate Services subject to the provision of an additional f 17,000 to Edinburgh Community Food Initiative (ECFI).
To assist ECFI in working with the Capital City Partnership to develop a more sustainable forward programme.
9) To note the influencing factors in the area of grant aid to third parties and the ongoing Compact action in regard to the concerns expressed by third sector interests.
To approve the proposed actions for improved communication and engagement with the third sector as detailed in the Director’s report no CEC/I 86/07-08/CS.
- moved by Councillor Gordon Mackenzie, seconded by Councillor Elliott- Cannon.
Amendment 1
1) To note that the Labour Group budget protected the funding to all third parties previously supported by this Council.
2) To express regret at the lack of consultation there had been on Council funding to third parties with the voluntary sector, in blatant breach of the Edinburgh Compact. 9
The City of Edinburgh Council 13 March 2008
To note that under both the previous Committee system and the Executive system, voluntary sector grants went to at least one Committee and often more before they were ratified at the full Council meeting.
To regard the submission of these reports direct to the full Council as an unacceptable method of avoiding any opportunity to scrutinise the proposals.
To pay the first quarter grants as recommended.
To refer the reports by the Director of Corporate Services to the Policy and Strategy Committee for determination.
- moved by Councillor Ewan Aitken, seconded by Councillor Child (on behalf of the Labour Group).
Amendment 2
To express regret that the Administration budget approved on 21 February 2008 had effectively included a requirement to find savings in grants totalling approximately f600k in addition to saving circa f200k by failing to apply an inflationary increase.
To note that the Conservative alternative budget would have sought a wider restructuring of all Council funding to third parties to provide f800k to be redistributed in addition to the inflationary uplift of €200k, together with a further f500k for growth in support to the third sector.
To instruct the Director of Corporate Services to ensure that the Council Review of Funding to Third Parties (as noted in paragraphs 3.15 and 3.16 of his report no CEC/l86/07-08/CS) was underpinned by the following strategic objectives:
(a) providing value for money; (b) removing duplication; (c) moving emphasis where possible away from reliance by projects on public support towards charting a route to self-reliance and sustainability; and (d) in relation to projects dealing with alcohol and drug issues, changing the emphasis from dependency towards genuine rehabilitation.
To call on Edinburgh Leisure to review its decision on creches and to consult with appropriate groups before any final decision was taken. 10
The City of Edinburgh Council 13 March 2008
Given the short notice to the Edinburgh Community Newspapers Trust of the proposed cut in grant, and the need for Neighbourhood Partnerships to improve their communications with their communities, to continue a decision on this specific proposal for two cycles, pending a report on the Council’s future communications strategy, that report to include supported newspapers and to consider how grants to third parties might help Neighbourhood Partnerships improve their communications.
To agree that, otherwise, the decisions made in the Liberal DemocraVSNP budget require the Council to accept with regret the recommendations as set out in paragraph 5.1 of the Director’s report no CEC/186/07-08/CS as the least worst option given the overall cut in funding available for grants to third parties.
- moved by Councillor Balfour, seconded by Councillor Rose (on behalf of the Conservative Group) .
Amendment 3
To note the range of reports by the Director of Corporate Services and the performance data presented.
To note the almost 1:lO ratio of Council grant aid to income and benefit of this aid.
To agree that performance reporting and quality assurance were crucially important but that more needed to be done to ensure proper scrutiny of these processes.
To note the concerns expressed by the third sector with regard to consultation and communication and to ensure that the terms and conditions of the Edinburgh Compact were met and that communication and engagement with this sector would be improved.
To approve the grant recommendations detailed in appendices 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Director’s report no CEC/I 86/07-08/CS, with the exception of those resulting in any loss of services that made a difference to vulnerable or marginalised members of society, where the full grants requested should be awarded.
To fund the exceptions from a re-allocation of non-service provision budgets (such as the revenue previously allocated to the Inspiring Capital Brand, etc) in full consultation with representatives from all political parties and the Directors of Finance and Corporate Services.
- moved by Councillor Chapman, seconded by Councillor Burgess. 11
The City of Edinburgh Council 13 March 2008
Voting
The voting was as follows:
For the motion - 29 votes For amendment 1 - 13 votes For amendment 2 - 10 votes For amendment 3 - 3 votes
Decision
To approve the motion by Councillor Gordon Mackenzie.
(References - Executive of the Council 13 March 2007 (item 2); report nos CEC/l84/07-08/CS, CEC/I 85/07-08/CS and CEC/I 86/07-08/CS by the Director of Corporate Services; e-mail dated 11 March 2008 on Creche Closures, submitted.)
Declaration of Interests
Financial Interests
The following members declared a financial interest in the above item and left the Chamber during the debate on the matter:
Counci I lor Elaine Ait ken Employed by voluntary sector organisation Councillor Maginnis Employed by voluntary sector organisation Councillor Wilson Partner employed by voluntary sector organisation
Non-financial Interests
Councillors Ewan Aitken, Buchanan, Chapman, Coleman, Dawe, Edie, Elliott- Cannon, Godzik, Lang, Lowrie, Kate MacKenzie, Mclnnes, Munn, Snowden and Whyte
5 National and Regional Sports Facilities
Progress on the Royal Commonwealth Pool (RCP) refurbishment project and a further assessment of the options for facilities at Meadowbank were detailed. Information was also provided on an approach to sportscotland on the location of its proposed ‘hub’ and the headquarters of those national bodies based in Edinburgh.
The Council had heard a number of deputations on the matter (see item 2(c) above). 12
The City of Edinburgh Council 13 March 2008
Motion
To proceed with the submission of the sportscotland Stage 2 application for funding for the RCP.
To continue the design process for the RCP from RlBA stage E through to completion.
3) To confirm the sports facilities brief, as outlined in paragraph 3.17 of the report by the Director of Corporate Services.
4) To ensure that this brief met the future operational requirements of Edinburgh Leisure and, as far as resources allowed, met the requirements of the National and Regional Facilities brief.
5) To note that the planned development would be designed to enable extending the facilities in future.
To approve a new build at Meadowbank as the best option and to commission an appraisal for this new facility.
7) To undertake to consult, as part of the appraisal study for this new facility, with key stakeholders regarding the mix and nature of sporting facilities that would be accommodated in the future on the Meadowbank site.
To ask that approximately 3.5 hectares of the Meadowbank site was considered for sale, with all capital funds released as a result being ring- fenced for investment in future Meadowbank sporting facilities.
9) To note the ongoing dialogue with sportscotland on the co-ordination and co-location of the proposed sportscotland ‘hub’ in Edinburgh and that a report on this would be submitted in due course.
To undertake consultation with Scottish Cycling, the East of Scotland Cycling Association, sportscotland and other stakeholders on the identification of an affordable cycling training facility for Edinburgh.
To note the progress being made on the consultation in the west of the city and that a report on this would be submitted to the Council in the autumn.
12) To discharge the motion by Councillor Godzik.
- moved by Councillor Brock, seconded by Councillor Thomas. 13
The City of Edinburgh Council 13 March 2008
Amendment 1
To approve paragraphs 1 and 2 of the motion.
To regret the great delay in the publication of the Director’s report.
To note that the proposals put forward by the Administration could reduce overall sports facilities in the city.
4) To agree that a piecemeal approach to the provision of sporting facilities would not assist in meeting the aims of the city’s Sport and Physical Recreation Strategy to make Edinburgh the most physically active city in Europe by 2020.
5) To call on the Administration to bring forward an holistic plan outlining how it intended to meet the National and Regional Facilities brief, which would increase and improve sporting provision in Edinburgh, with full and comprehensive details of the facilities it intended to provide at Meadowbank, in the west of the city and for the cycling fraternity, also including details of discussions with sportscotland on the proposed Edinburgh ‘hub’.
- moved by Councillor Godzik, seconded by Councillor Hart (on behalf of the Labour G roup).
Amendment 2
To recognise that officers in the Corporate Services Department had prepared the new proposals contained in this report at short notice and to thank them for that work.
To express regret that the preparatory works at Sighthill had cost the Council Tax payer over €1 m and that neither the previous nor the current Administration had delivered any improvement to sports provision.
3) To note that construction inflation was running at over 8% and would only increase in the short term, adding further costs.
4) To note that the Conservative Group would have selected the Sighthill option, as there was no viable financial way to proceed with the Meadowbank site which would have satisfied all of the sports bodies, including sportscotland, but to accept with regret that some other solution must now be found, however imperfect.
5) To note the funding shortfall for Option B of approximately €5m identified in the report and to request the Director of Corporate Services to prepare a report on attracting private sector funds for the project. 14
The City of Edinburgh Council 13 March 2008
To note that the outline brief described in paragraph 3.17 of the Director’s report did not provide all of the facilities that would be desirable as a replacement for Meadowbank and was particularly deficient in its provision of outdoor all weather sports pitches and facilities for martial arts and gymnastics.
Nevertheless, to accept that Option B was the best available solution suggested by officers in this report and to request that the appraisal detailed how this proposal could be enhanced in order to meet the requirements of the National and Regional Facilities brief.
Should the Council proceed with a new build at Meadowbank, to call for a fully costed plan to be reported to Council by October; the plan to examine all the costs including land remediation, which might be excessive due to the history of this site.
To accept the recommendations in paragraph 6 in the Director’s report.
- moved by Councillor Buchan, seconded by Councillor Whyte (on behalf of the Conservative Group) .
Amendment 3
To reject the sale of part of the Meadowbank site to fund a new build as such a sale would result in a reduction of public recreational facilities in the city.
To express the belief that such a reduction was contrary to the Council’s stated aim of becoming the most active city in Europe by 2020.
To note the low level of funding per head of population in Scotland for sport and to continue to lobby the Scottish Government for funding.
To support a phased refurbishment of all facilities at Meadowbank sports centre.
To consult throughout the process with local stakeholders and interested parties.
- moved by Councillor Johnstone, seconded by Councillor Chapman.
The mover of the motion, with the consent of the seconder and the mover and seconder of amendment 2, accepted paragraphs 5, 6,7 and 8 of amendment 2 as an addendum to the motion. The remaining paragraphs of amendment 2 were withdrawn. 15
The City of Edinburgh Council 13 March 2008
Voting
The voting was as follows:
For the motion (as adjusted) - 39 votes For amendment 1 - 15 votes For amendment 3 4 votes
Decision
To approve the motion (as adjusted) by Councillor Brock.
(References - Acts of Council No 4 of 20 December 2007 and No 18 of 7 February 2008; report no CEC/191/07-08/CS by the Director of Corporate Services, submitted.)
Declaration of Interests
Councillors Brock, Cairns, Godzik, and Thomas declared a non-financial interest in the above item as Directors of Edinburgh Leisure.
6 Questions
Questions put by members to this meeting, written answers and supplementary questions and answers are contained in Appendix 1 to this minute.
7 Minutes
Decision
To approve the minutes of the meetings of the Council of 7 and 21 February 2008, as submitted, as correct records.
8 Appointments to Committees, Joint Committees and Outside Bodies
The Lord Provost ruled that the appointment of members to Scotland Excel (report no CEC/l90/07-08/CS), 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. 16
The City of Edinburgh Council 13 March 2008
Decision
1) To appoint members to Committees as follows:
(a) Councillor Child to the Planning Committee/Development Management Sub-committee in place of Councillor Hart.
(b) Councillor Hart to the Personnel Appeals Committee in place of Councillor Child.
2) To nominate Councillors Milligan and Rust to the Board of Edinburgh International Jazz and Blues Festival.
3) To appoint Councillors Elliot-Cannon and Munro to the Joint Committee for Scotland Excel.
(References - Acts of Council No 8 of 17 May 2007, Nos 2 and 3 of 24 May 2007 and No 2 of 21 February 2008; reports nos CEC/I70/07-08/07-08/CS, CEC/l71/07-08/CS and CEC/l90/07-08/CS by the Director of Corporate Services, submitted.)
9 Leader’s Report
The Leader presented her report to the Council. The following issues were raised on the report:
Councillor Ewan Aitken Administration budget priorities Financial settlement from the Scottish Government
Councillor Burns Council Tax freeze Single Outcome Agreement - timescale for signing
Councillor Rose Investment in roads and pavements
Councillor Buchan Children and Families review - Water of Leith Trust - education worker
Councillor Maginnis Single Outcome Agreement - opportunity for consideration by members
Counci I lor Murray Neighbourhood Partnerships - localisation agenda 17
The City of Edinburgh Council 13 March 2008
Councillor Work - Fair Trade fortnight events - South Queensferry - Royal Burgh status
Councillor Balfour - Children and Families review - consultation
Councillor Cardownie Meadowbank Sports Centre
Decision
To note the Leader’s report.
(Reference - report no CEC/I 82/07-08/L by the Leader, submitted).
10 Public Transport and Cycling Issues on Bank Street, North Bank Street and the Mound
The Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee had referred recommendations to the Council, in terms of Standing Order 53, on public transport and cycling issues on Bank Street, North Bank Street and The Mound.
Decision
1) To change the existing single yellow line waiting restrictions on the east side of Bank Street, the north side of North Bank Street and all of The Mound to double yellow lines and to initiate the statutory procedures necessary to vary the Traffic Regulation Order.
2) To note that any objections to these proposals would be reported to the Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee.
3) To instruct the Director of City Development to report on arterial routes in the city centre that experienced congestion on a Sunday. 18
The City of Edinburgh Council 13 March 2008
4) To instruct the Director of City Development to meet with SPOKES to discuss the survey that SPOKES had undertaken on cars parked on The Mound on a Sunday.
(Reference - report no CEC/I 72/07-08/TIE by the Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee, submitted.)
Declaration of Interests
Councillors Keir and Mclvor declared a financial interest in the above item and took no part in its consideration.
Councillor Munro declared a non-financial interest in the item as a member of SPOKES.
11 Edinburgh Biodiversity Action Plan: Progress Report 2007
Decision
To note the progress made during the third year of the Edinburgh Biodiversity Action Plan 2004-2009.
(Reference - report no CEC/I 73/07-08/PC by the Planning Committee, submitted.)
12 Review of Home Care and Support and Care at Home Services
The Health, Social Care and Housing Committee had referred recommendations to the Council, in terms of Standing Order 53, on modernising the Home Care and Support and Care at Home Services.
Motion
To note the progress achieved to date by the Home Care Modernisation Board.
To note that the Council, at its meeting on 21 February 2008, had endorsed the re-ablement model and agreed the six year timetable, thereby avoiding compulsory redundancy and an adverse impact on clients.
To instruct the Director of Health and Social Care to provide regular updates on the implementation plan, including a review of progress so that any opportunities to accelerate the change programme could be considered in a timely manner. 19
The City of Edinburgh Council 13 March 2008
4) To change the criteria for Home Care and Care at Home services to “substantial and critical” from 1 April 2008.
5) To make any future changes at either the Health, Social Care and Housing Committee or, should the need arise, full Council:
6) To take cognisance of the disability equality duties and any other relevant equalities public duties in any further changes in the eligibility criteria.
- moved by Councillor Edie, seconded by Councillor Work.
Amendment
To welcome the report by the Director of Health and Social Care on the partnership working with Lothian Health and the establishment of the Long Term Teams.
To note with concern that, although the Home Care Modernisation Board had been meeting for over a year, there had been no briefing to councillors on the Health, Social Care and Housing Committee.
To note with concern that, following a two page report to the Council budget meeting, the Council was now committed to savings from the Health and Social Care budget.
To reject a cut from 50% to 25% to the internal provision until there was a comprehensive review and scrutiny of the proposals.
- moved by Councillor Hinds, seconded by Councillor Munro (on behalf of the Labour Group).
Voting
For the motion - 40 votes For the amendment 18 votes
Decision
To approve the motion by Councillor Edie.
(Reference - Act of Council No of 21 February 2008; report no CEC/I 88/07- 08/HSC by the Health, Social Care and Housing Committee, submitted.) 20
The City of Edinburgh Council 13 March 2008
13 Fairer Scotland Fund: Further Guidance and Community Planning Partnership Relationships
The Lord Provost ruled that this item, 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 Economic Development Committee had referred recommendations to the Council, in terms of Standing Order 53, on the Fairer Scotland Fund.
It was intended to submit recommendations on the allocation of the Fund to the Edinburgh Partnership meeting on 27 March 2008.
Motion
To endorse the decision made at the Policy and Strategy Committee on 26 February 2008 to allocate 6 month initial funding of the Fairer Scotland Fund with the subsequent progression to a programme of activities meeting the new fund outcome criteria and to recommend this approach to the Edinburgh Partnership.
To note the additional guidance provided by the Scottish Government on the Fairer Scotland Fund.
3) To request the Edinburgh Partnership to nominate the Council as the accountable body for the Fairer Scotland Fund.
4) To extend the remit of the Neighbourhood Partnership Review Group to include the Fairer Scotland Fund to enable elected members to keep fully informed and involved in the transition process.
5) To recommend to the Edinburgh Partnership that it initiated a review of the relationship and reporting links with Neighbourhood Partnerships, in the light of the new Single Outcome Agreement and outcome-based approach to the Fairer Scotland Fund.
- moved by Councillor Buchanan, seconded by Councillor McKay.
Amendment
To approve the motion subject to the allocation of 12 month initial funding of the Fairer Scotland Fund.
- moved by Councillor Murray, seconded by Councillor Ewan Aitken (on behalf of the Labour Group). 21
The City of Edinburgh Council 13 March 2008
Voting
The voting was as follows:
For the motion - 40 votes For the amendment - 18 votes
Decision
To approve the motion by Councillor Buchanan
(Reference - report no CEC/I 92/07-08/EDC by the Economic Development Committee, submitted.)
14 First Review of Scottish Parliamentary Constituencies
The Boundary Commission for Scotland’s proposals for the First Periodical Review of Scottish Parliamentary Constituencies were detailed. The Council was invited to consider submitting representations to the Commission.
Motion
To submit amendments to the Boundary Commission proposals as set out in the report by the Chief Executive, with the exception of Amendment 11 (Map 11 - North Edinburgh and Leith Constituency).
To note that adhering to strict ‘constituency electoral quotas’ could lead to the sub-division of local communities and existing local government boundaries and to accept that individual political parties represented on the Council might still make such objection/s to the Boundary Commission for Scotland proposals.
To note further, with some concern, the very short time-scales that had been provided for initial feedback from all interested parties to the Boundary Commission for Scotland proposals.
- moved by Councillor Dundas, seconded by Councillor Munn.
Amendment 1
To reject the recommendations in the Chief Executive’s report and to agree that the Council should not submit a corporate response to the Boundary Commission as this should be a matter for individual members, communities and political parties.
- moved by Councillor Mclnnes, seconded by Councillor Balfour (on behalf of the Conservative Group). 22
The City of Edinburgh Council 13 March 2008
Amendment 2
To submit the suggested amendments set out in the report by the Chief Executive to the Boundary Commission.
- moved by Councillor Chapman, seconded by Councillor Burgess.
Voting
The voting was as follows:
For the motion - 44 votes For amendment 1 - 11 votes For amendment 2 - 3 votes
Decision
To approve the motion by Councillor Dundas.
(Reference - report no CEC/I 83/07-08/CE by the Chief Executive, submitted.)
15 Revenue Budget 2008-2009: HRNNon HRA - Increase in Charges
Decision
To approve the price increases to be applied to Housing Revenue Account charges from 1 April 2008 as detailed in Appendix 2 to this minute.
(References - Act of Council No 2 of 21 February 2008; report no CEC/174/07- 08/F by the Director of Finance, submitted.)
16 Scottish Futures Trust Public Consultation - Response on Behalf of The City of Edinburgh Council
Approval was sought for the Council’s response to the Scottish Government consultation on proposals for the introduction of the Scottish Futures Trust (SFT) as a preferred alternative to PPP/PFI.
Motion
1) To note the content of the proposed response as detailed in the appendix to the report by the Director of Finance, particularly with regard to the need for supplementary borrowing support. 23
The City of Edinburgh Council 13 March 2008
2) To submit the response to the Scottish Government.
- moved by Councillor Gordon Mackenzie, seconded by Councillor Elliott- Cannon.
Amendment
To approve the motion and:
3) To note in particular the response to Question No 3 in the Council’s proposed submission which highlighted that “the capability of SFT to undertake the work required across Scotland is, by definition, as yet untested . . . and . . . with regard to overall affordability (of SFT) there is only likely to be modest benefit unless an element of support for additional borrowing is provided to local authorities”.
4) To note further the SNP were (pre-May 2007):
0 committed to the Scottish Futures Trust being progressed within the first 100 days of government (that period ended many months ago) 0 committed to matching the scale of the previous school building programmes brick for brick and to offering an alternative funding mechanism through a Scottish Futures Trust.
5) To agree that both of these commitments had failed to be matched by reality and that:
nearly one full year after the May 2007 election there was no early prospect of the Scottish Futures Trust being delivered for nearly one full year since May 2007 there had been no ‘brick for brick’ matching of previous school building programmes.
- moved by Councillor Burns, seconded by Councillor Ewan Aitken (on behalf of the Labour Group).
Voting
The voting was as follows:
For the motion - 32 votes For the amendment - 26 votes
Decision
To approve the motion by Councillor Gordon Mackenzie.
(Reference - report no CEC/I 75/07-08/F by the Director of Finance, submitted.) 24
The City of Edinburgh Council 13 March 2008
17 Schools PPP2: Contract Negotiations
The Council’s current negotiations with Axiom on proposed changes to the PPP contract agreement aimed at reducing the financial impact associated with the handover of the Tynecastle and Craigroyston sites were detailed. An update on progress of the developments at these sites and a review of action taken by the Director of City Development to review the contractual risks for the project were also provided.
Decision
1) To note the joint partnership working that had been carried out by the Council, Axiom and their Design and Construction contractor, Lang O’Rouke, leading to an agreement in outline terms. The agreement had the potential to significantly reduce the Council’s financial liability at Craigroyston and Tynecastle.
2) To delegate authority to the Director of City Development, in consultation with the Director of Children and Families, the Director of Finance and the Council Solicitor, to conclude negotiations on the basis of the proposal in section four of the report by the Director of City Development; the delegated authority to include authorising the Council Solicitor to sign all financing agreements, contractual documents and schedules on behalf of the Council.
3) To note that the Chief Executive would report to the Council on 1 May 2008 on the findings of the Chief Internal Auditor’s report and the review of the PPP project undertaken by City Development.
4) To note the revised handover dates set out in paragraph 4.6 of the Director’s report.
(Reference - Act of Council 21 of 20 December 2007; report no CEC/178/07- 08/CD by the Director of City Development 6 March 2008, submitted.)
18 Edinburgh International Conference Centre Limited (EICC) - Requirement for Additional Function Space (AFS)
Approval was sought for the main terms of a funding package for the provision of additional function space at the EICC, provisionally agreed with Scottish Enterprise Edinburgh & Lothian (SEE&L), and for the cost of essential service diversion works to be met from the Lothian Road Income Trust. 25
The City of Edinburgh Council 13 March 2008
Decision
1) To note:
(a) The progress made with the selection process for the appointment of the professional team.
(b) The completion of the initial investigative works prior to the commencement of the diversion of utility services.
(c) That SEE&L would meet the cost of the investigative works amounting to approximately €25,000.
(d) The cost risks in the project and that further reports at key stages would be brought to the Council to update on progress, confirm the financial position and to seek approval to proceed to the next stage.
2) To approve a funding package with SEE&L comprising the sale of Conference House, capital contribution and amendments to the Enhancement Agreement on the terms set out in paragraph 2.5 of the joint report by the Directors of City Development and Finance and on the other terms to be agreed by the Directors of City Development and Finance and the Council Solicitor.
3) To meet expenditure on project team professional fees and service diversion works of €6.5 million for the period to January 201 0 from the Lothian Road Income Trust.
(Reference - Act of Council No 14 of 25 October 2007; joint report no CEC/I 79/07-08/CD+F by the Directors of City Development and Finance, submitted.)
Declaration of Interests
Councillor Aldridge as Chair of ElCC and Councillors Buchanan, Dawe, Wheeler and Whyte as Directors of ElCC declared a non-financial interest in the above item.
Councillor Wheeler declared a non-financial interest in the item as a non- Executive Director of tie.
19 Affordable Home Ownership Trust
The background to Affordable Home Ownership Trusts, which supported potential home owners, and the potential for establishing such a trust in the city was set out. Information on other initiatives to support home buyers by the UK and Scottish Governments and the Council was also provided. 26
The City of Edinburgh Council 13 March 2008
Decision
To welcome the report by the Director of Services for Communities and to express appreciation to Council officials for the quick response to the Council’s request in December 2007 for a report on the city’s most pressing issue.
To note the difficulties people faced buying a home in the city
To note the range of current initiatives supporting home buyers.
To commission a feasibility study on the viability of an Affordable Home Ownership Trust for the city which included:
(a) an exploration of the Community Land Trust model applicability for Edinburgh; and
(b) a review and recommendations on the potential of the CDS (Co- operative Development Society) co-operatives/Greater London Authority Mutual Home Ownership model in London for Edinburgh.
(Reference - Act of Council No 35 of 20 December 2007; report no CEC/I 76/07-08/SFC by the Director of Services for Communities, submitted.)
20 Controlled Parking Zones - Proposed Timescales/Priorities for Future Possible Extensions
A review of the Controlled Parking Zone extensions after 12 months of operation had identified further parking pressures in additional areas around the periphery of nine of the new zones. Preparatory works which would culminate in public consultation in the areas adjacent to the nine zones was now proposed.
The Council had heard a deputation on this issue from the Craigleith Road Parking Action Group (see item 2(e) above).
Decision
1) To note the content of the report by the Director of City Development.
2) To note the revised timescales for bringing forward and consulting on the introduction of parking controls to the nine areas detailed in Appendix 1 to the Director’s report. 27
The City of Edinburgh Council 13 March 2008
3) To approve the commencement of the investigative and consultative phase of works required to bring forward proposals for these nine areas
4) To instruct the Director of City Development to ensure that the consultation included areas immediately outwith the proposed extensions.
5) To note that further reports on the results of the consultation stages of each of the nine areas would be submitted to future meetings of the Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee.
6) To instruct the Director of City Development to present to the Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee a report detailing a timetable for conducting an initial consultation in the four areas which were listed as “to be monitored” in Appendix 1 to his report.
7) To approve the reduction of the hourly rate for parking in the existing pay and display parking places on the north side of Craigleith Road to 30p per hour.
(References - Act of Council No 4 of 22 November 2007; report no CEC/180/07-08/CD by the Director of City Development, submitted.)
21 Road Safety, Bus and Pedestrian Priority Scheme, Seafield Roundabout
Decision
To accept the tender of f 1,734,752.00 submitted by Barr Ltd for the Bus Priority Scheme works at Seafield Roundabout.
(References - Executive of the Council 25 October 2005 (item 19); report no CEC/181/07-08/CD by the Director of City Development, submitted.)
22 Annual Treasury Strategy 2008-2009
The Treasury Management Strategy for 2008/09 was presented. It included estimates of funding requirements, sources of funds, economic forecast, borrowing and investment strategies, debt rescheduling and other Treasury issues.
Decision
1) To approve the Treasury Management Strategy for 2008/09. 28
The City of Edinburgh Council 13 March 2008
2) To refer the report by the Director of Finance to the Finance and Resources Committee for its interest.
(References - Act of Council No 5 of 20 September 2007; report no CEC/l77/07-08/F by the Director of Finance, submitted.)
23 Archery World Cup Final 201 0/2011
The Council had been invited to bid to host the Archery World Cup Final in 2010 or 201 1. Approval was sought for the bidding process to proceed.
Decision
1) To note the responsibilities associated with hosting the Archery World Cup Final.
2) To submit a bid to host the event in 2010 or 201 1, subject to receipt of formal support from EventScotland, UK Sport and the National Governing Body.
(Reference - report no CEC/I 87/07-08/CS by the Director of Corporate Services, submitted.)
24 Improving the Cleanliness of the City
The Leith Neighbourhood Partnership had referred to the Council recommendations on improving cleanliness in the city.
Decision
1) To note and share the concerns expressed by the Leith Neighbourhood Partnership in relation to the low street cleanliness scores for Leith and Leith Walk, as detailed in the most recent Cleanliness Index Monitoring System (CIMS) report, covering the 3 month period to December 2007.
2) To note that the December scores for these two wards showed a significant improvement on the figures for the previous quarter.
3) To note the additional €240,000 approved in the Administration’s budget on 21 February 2008 for street cleansing in the city. 29
The City of Edinburgh Council 13 March 2008
4) To instruct the Director of Services for Communities to address the concerns raised by the Leith Neighbourhood Partnership in a report to the next meeting of the Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee.
(References - Act of Council No 2 of 21 February 2008; report no CEC/189/07- 08/LNP by the Leith Neighbourhood Partnership, submitted.)
25 Portobello Community Centre and Library - Motion by Councillor Child
The following motion by Councillor Child was submitted in terms of Standing Order 28:
“Council calls for a report, within one cycle, from the Chief Executive on the feasibility - in principle - of re-provisioning Portobello Community Centre and Portobello Library together on their current sites, in conjunction with affordable rented housing for elderly people, as suggested to Council officers by the management committee of Portobello Community Centre and its agents.”
Decision
To approve the motion by Councillor Child, subject to a full and comprehensive report being submitted within 3 cycles and consultation on the report with the three ward members.
26 2008 Edinburgh World Justice Festival - Motion by Councillor Chapman
The following motion by Councillor Chapman was submitted in terms of Standing Order 28:
“This Council:
1) Notes that the 2008 Edinburgh World Justice Festival (EWJF) is the third annual festival that aims to raise awareness amongst Edinburgh citizens of the global problems associated with poverty, disease and war;
2) Notes that EWJF seeks to continue the legacy of the Make Poverty History campaign, supported by all parties on the Council, by exploring potential solutions to these problems in which individuals and communities can be involved, and bringing together groups and individuals to promote joint working on these issues; 30
The City of Edinburgh Council 13 March 2008
3) Notes that participants in the EWJF are required to meet criteria set by EWJF, and that no events in the festival can promote specific religious or political ideologies or advocate the use of violence;
4) Agrees that the two week programme organised by EWJF contributes to the life of the city, and facilitates positive education and debate about global justice issues;
5) Supports the aims and objectives of the EWJF;
6) Agrees to work with EWJF where possible, and instructs the Director of Corporate Services to prepare a report, within two cycles, providing information on how best to support it, including consideration of employing a similar model to the Fair Trade City model.”
Decision
1) To approve paragraphs 1-4 of the motion.
2) To instruct the Director of Corporate Services to prepare a report, within two cycles or less, for the appropriate Committee, providing information about the EWJF and describing how the Council could work with and support the festival and its aims and objectives, including consideration of employing a similar model to the Fair Trade City model.
27 Social Justice Conservative Policies Including Pioneer and Specialism Schools - Motion by Councillor Balfour
The following motion by Councillor Balfour was submitted in terms of Standing Order 28:
“Council:
1) notes the excellent work undertaken by the Rt Hon lain Duncan Smith MP and the Centre for Social Justice in their Breakthrough Britain (July 2007) and Breakthrough Glasgow (February 2008) reports;
2) notes that these reports describe remedial actions which have proved useful elsewhere in tackling deprivation, crime, drug abuse, poor attainment levels in schools and social breakdown and further notes that some of these actions might help to address similar issues in Edinburgh;
3) in particular, notes the proposal for pioneer schools, which is described in Breakthrough Britain as follows: 31
The City of Edinburgh Council 13 March 2008
“Pioneer schools.. would be established by groups of parents and alternative providers within the state system and have charitable status allowing them to attract donations from individuals and companies with a commitment to tackling educational disadvantage. Pioneer Schools would offer free education on a non-selective basis within the state system but would not be subject to local authority sanction or control.” (~329);
notes that while pioneer schools would be set up in areas of particular disadvantage, specialism schools could also be set up to focus on particular academic subjects or on vocational training;
calls on the Director of the Children and Families Department to report to the Council meeting of 21 August on the possibility of using third party funding from individuals or companies to set up pioneer and specialism schools. The report to cover:
a) the statutory background; b) the logistics which would be involved in encouraging third parties to set up such schools; c) the overall feasibility and possible timing of such a scheme in Edinburgh.
further, calls upon the Chief Executive to review both of the Breakthrough documents and report to Council on whether any other remedial measures described in these might be relevant to Edinburgh and if so, to outline a process to implement them to the benefit of residents.”
Motion
To approve the motion by Councillor Balfour.
- moved by Councillor Balfour, seconded by Councillor Buchan (on behalf of the Conservative G roup) .
Amendment
To take no action on the matter.
- moved by Councillor MacLaren, seconded by Councillor Beckett.
Voting
The voting was as follows:
For the motion 11 votes For the amendment - 47 votes 32
The City of Edinburgh Council 13 March 2008
Decision
To approve the amendment by Councillor MacLaren.
28 Review of Community and Specialist Transport Schemes - Motion by Councillor Whyte
The following motion by Councillor Whyte was submitted in terms of Standing Order 28:
“Council:
1) notes that some Edinburgh residents in social need live in areas which are not currently covered by public transport, and which cannot efficiently be covered by supported bus services currently or in the future;
2) instructs the Chief Executive to undertake a review of all of the Council- run and Council-subsidised community and specialist transport schemes, to ensure that any duplication is removed, best value is achieved and the criteria are revised to provide transport to those in social need without current access to public transport, as described above;
3) asks the Chief Executive to report on his review to the Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee (as the lead Committee) and the Health, Social Care and Housing Committee.”
Decision
To remit the motion to the Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee.
29 Review of Council Budget Process - Motions by Councillor Johnstone and Godzik
The following motion by Councillor Johnstone was submitted in terms of Standing Order 28:
“That this Council:
Agrees to review the City of Edinburgh Council’s budget process and calls upon the Chief Executive to bring forward a consultation with all political parties, leading to a report, in order to ensure that the process optimises the potential for political and community participation and is efficient in terms of Council resources, taking into account practice from other local authorities.” 33
The City of Edinburgh Council 13 March 2008
The following motion by Councillor Godzik was submitted in terms of Standing Order 29:
“That this Council believes that the budget process should be modernised to increase openness and transparency, provide better scrutiny of the budget by all Councillors, and promote wider community input into the decision making process. Requests that the Chief Executive, in consultation with Group Leaders, prepare a report on this matter.”
Decision
1) To note that, following the comments of members at the budget meeting on 21 February 2008, the Director of Finance had begun a review of the budget process.
2) To agree that the Director’s review should take into account the motions by Councillors Johnstone and Godzik and should report to the Finance and Resources Committee for scrutiny.
3) To agree that, following scrutiny, a finalised report and recommendations be brought to Council for consideration in June 2008.
30 Subsidised Bus Routes - Motion by Councillor Hinds
The following motion by Councillor Hinds was submitted in terms of Standing Order 29:
“Now the budget has been agreed for 2008/9, this Council asks for a report on the effect on the subsidised bus routes which received funding in the 2007/8 budget. This report should consider options to ensure these services are retained. This would include the number 13 route.”
Decision
To remit the motion to the Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee. 34
The City of Edinburgh Council 13 March 2008
31 Bus Service to Granton Waterfront - Motion by Councillor Hinds
The following motion by Councillor Hinds was submitted in terms of Standing Order 29:
“Due to the increasing employment at the Granton Waterfront and the desire to enable employees to regularly use public transport, the Committee asks for a report on the feasibility of providing a bus service from the Park and Ride at lngliston directly to and from the Waterfront area.”
Decision
To remit the motion to the Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee. 35
The City of Edinburgh Council 13 March 2008
Appendix 1 (As referred to in Act of Council No 6 of 13 March 2008)
QUESTION NO 1 By Councillor Whyte answered by the Convener of the Finance and Resources Committee
Question Please complete the following table:
Number of Number of Number of Total value No of Number of Section 75 agreements outstanding outstanding agreements agreements agreements where the developer where where works consent has contributions works have are been been outstanding activated completed but and contributions payment is have been now due paid Agreed in 1996197 Agreed in 1997198 Agreed in 1998199 Agreed in 1999100 Agreed in 2000101 Agreed in 2001 102 Agreed in 2002103 Agreed in 2003104 Agreed in 2004105 36
The City of Edinburgh Council 13 March 2008
Number of Number of Number of Total value No of Number of Section 75 agreements outstanding outstanding agreements agreements agreements where the developer where where works consent has contributions works have are been been outstanding activated completed but and contributions payment is have been now due paid Agreed in 2005/06 Agreed in 2006/07 Totals I
Answer It has not been possible to complete the table attached to the above question as the information is not centrally available in this format. While this arrangement is unsatisfactory, it is important to note that a new team was established in October 2007 to co-ordinate the Council’s overall management of developer contributions. As a result compliance with agreements concluded since the establishment of the team is now being comprehensively monitored. It should, however, be noted that developments do not always proceed and therefore S75 agreements are not invoked.
Information in response to the question can be provided as follows. I will however endeavour to provide Councillor Whyte with a more detailed answer to the specific issues in his question as soon as possible.
TRAM
Contributions towards the tram have been monitored since the introduction of the policy.
Phase la
I Number of concluded agreements I 53 Number of agreements where consent has been activated and payment is now due ,contributionsNumber of outstanding developer 37
The City of Edinburgh Council 13 March 2008
Total value outstanding €3,174,000 Total value collected €2,391,000 Number of agreements where works 0 have been completed Number of agreements where works are outstanding but contributions have 24 been Daid
Phase Ib
Number of concluded agreements 5 Number of agreements where consent has been activated and payment is 0 now due Number of outstanding developer 5 contributions Total value outstanding €3,000 Total value collected fO Number of agreements where works 0 have been completed Number of agreements where works are outstanding but contributions have 0 been paid
Note: The works will remain as outstanding until the completion of the tram system.
AGREEMENTS BEING MONITORED (since Oct 2007)
This covers the legal agreements concluded since Octobe r 2007.
Number of concluded agreements I 21 Number of agreements where consent 1 (payment has been activated and payment is has been now due requested) Number of outstanding developer 9 contributions Total value outstanding €793,205 Total value collected I €492,700 38
The City of Edinburgh Council 13 March 2008
Number of agreements where works 0 (recent have been completed paymen ts) Number of agreements where works (recent are outstanding but contributions have , paymen ts) been Daid
Supplementary I thank the Convener for the response although, as Question he rightly points out, it is a rather unsatisfactory response given that I did submit this question some six weeks ago in order to give officers time to draw something together and I am very disappointed that I have been given indications of Section 75 agreements in relation to Tram when what I was looking for was historical information regarding Section 75 agreements.
This came about because I found out there was an agreement in my ward where the money had never been collected by the Council and I think it remains a matter of considerable concern that we do not know how much money is outstanding. I wonder if the Convener could tell us precisely what action he now intends to take to deal with this historic issue and whether he can elicit any better answer than I have so far as to what monies are outstanding.
Supplementary I have spoken to Councillor Whyte already about this Answer answer. I am very disappointed with it and I can only apologise. I was not able to catch it before it went to print. I will go back to the Department to get a full answer to the question. As Councillor Whyte has pointed out and we all know, there was clearly a problem with a contribution that was not taken in and we need to have evidence that contributions have been properly attended to going back a number of years now.
I know that part of the answer says that a new team was set up to do this from October 2007 and no, I’m not going to have a go at the Labour Group. It is really important that we find out what has happened and it is not good enough in my opinion to say that just because we do not have the information centrally we cannot get that information together when this kind of request is made. So, as I have said, I have already started the process of finding 39
The City of Edinburgh Council 13 March 2008
that information and I will keep Councillor Whyte updated because it might be that I cannot get certain information but I will come back to him in the course of the next few weeks and report back to full Council in writing. 40
The City of Edinburgh Council 13 March 2008
QUESTION NO 2 By Councillor Whyte answered by the Convener of the Finance and Resources Committee
Question (1) Please provide information on statutory repair payments in table form.
Financial Year Answer (1) Total no of Total commencing Total value st at uto ry number of with the year of outstanding notice bills bills the oldest f issued outstanding outstanding bill 2001/02 15.082 19 29.565 2002/03 17,490 65 101,589
2003/04 20.145 149 231,839 2004/0 5 15,137 174 21 8,277 2005/06 15.024 398 553,763 2006/07 13,069 733 1,052,041 2007/0 8 24,143 9.235 6.1 37.517
Question (2) What action is the Council taking to recover any outstanding statutory repair payments?
Answer (2) In the event an owner fails to pay for relevant statutory repairs then:
1) A Final Notice to pay is issued 28 days after the issue of the invoice.
2) If the invoice is still unpaid after a further period of 14 days a communication is issued under the signature of the Council Solicitor advising legal proceedings may be taken to recover any sums due. 41
The City of Edinburgh Council 13 March 2008
3) If no response is received to this letter, Finance staff will attempt to contact the owner to negotiate settlement or enter into an instalment arrangement.
4) Depending on the value of the debt, the Council Solicitor will be instructed to commence legal proceedings in the Sheriff court.
The Director of Finance takes every possible step to recover monies due. In exceptional cases where the owner refuses to pay and the Council has been successful in the Court process, the owner can be legally inhibited from disposing of the property. Alternatively a charge can be recorded on the title deeds. In both situations any additional legal expenses incurred are also recoverable as well as interest accruing until eventual settlement. 42
The City of Edinburgh Council 13 March 2008
QUESTION NO 3 By Cou nciI lor Henderson answered by the Convener of the Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee
At the Council of 22 November 2007 I moved a motion requesting that representations be made to the Scottish Government requesting that tolls on the Forth Bridge should not be abolished until congestion mitigation measures are developed, in line with the report produced by the Parliament’s all party Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee.
The Administration’s amendment, which was carried by 29 votes to 28 moved “no action” on the basis that written representations had already been made to the Minister by the Convener on this matter.
Question For the benefit and interest of all members of Council and the wider Edinburgh public, please can these written representations be published?
Answer I am happy to publish the two letters I have sent to the Minister on this matter, and attach copies to this answer (see appendices).
Supplementary I am grateful for the answer and in particular the Question letter dated 21 December which is information I have been seeking for 3% months now.
My supplementary question is that the Convener and Councillor Buchanan moved no action on 22 November on this matter on the basis that written representations had already been made. We now know that in fact was not the case. Why did the Convener mislead the Council on this matter?
Supplementary I was not aware that I had misled the Council in the Answer fact that I had written the earlier letter to the Minister but if I am viewed as having misled the Council, I do apologise. 43
The City of Edinburgh Council 13 March 2008
Appendix 1
Stewart Stevenson MSP 21 December 2007 Minister for Transport & Climate Change Date The Scottish Government Victoria Quay Our Ref PW/Tpt/FRB.07 EDINBURGH EH6 6QQ Your Ref
Dear
Forth Replacement Crossing
You will recall that I wrote to you on 13 November on behalf of the Council’s Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee with a request that Transport Scotland should carry out rigorous traffic modelling on the south side of the Firth on the possible impact of the proposed replacement crossing.
Now that the Government has decided to proceed with a cable-stayed bridge, I would like to repeat the previous invitation to Transport Scotland to give the Committee a presentation on the proposed scheme. I hope this can be arranged before too long.
Whilst writing, I would like to reiterate a few concerns about the present and future Forth crossings, as follows:
How does the Government propose to ensure that road traffic over the two crossings does not exceed 2006 levels, and to decrease C02 emissions after the removal of tolls? Will the Government provide adequate funding for all additional traffic measures that may be considered necessary as a direct result of the removal of tolls? Will the Government provide necessary funding for appropriate bus priority measures on both sides of the Firth, to support continued modal shift to public transport? What support will the Government give to the further development of sustainable transport initiatives around the Forth Road Bridge, in terms of bus, rail and cycle use?
I look forward to hearing from you on these points.
Yours sincerely
Councillor Phil Wheeler Convener, Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee 44
The City of Edinburgh Council 13 March 2008
Appendix 2
Stewart Stevenson MSP 13 November 2007 Minister of Transport and Climate Date Change Scottish Government Our Ref PW/Tpt/TIE.07 Victoria Quay Edinburgh Your Ref EH6 6QQ
Dear
New Forth Crossing Options
The Council’s Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee recently considered its response to Transport Scotland as part of the consultation on a possible new crossing.
The Committee instructed me to write to you to request that Transport Scotland should carry out rigorous traffic modelling on the south side of the Firth on the possible impact of a second Forth crossing. I shall be glad to have your assurances that this will happen.
In addition, the Committee would like to invite Transport Scotland to give a presentation to us on the proposed scheme once a decision has been reached about it.
Yours sincerely
Councillor Phil Wheeler Convener, Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee 45
The City of Edinburgh Council 13 March 2008
QUESTION NO 4 By Councillor Munro answered by the Convener of the Planning Committee
Question (1) What are the total education contributions gained through Planning relating to Western Harbour from 2000 to date?
Answer (1) €473,258 has been received to date.
Question (2) Can you provide a list with details of each application approved and amounts agreed for each to date?
Answer (2) 99/02642/FUL (Land at Newhaven Place) - 556 residential units @ €821 per unit = €456,476.
03/01 130/REM (Western Harbour) - 277 units @E821 per unit = €227,417.
04/01 022/REM (Plot 2B Western Harbour) - 275 units @€821 per unit = €225,775.
05/03668/REM (Plot Q Western Harbour) - 105 units @E821 per unit = €86,205.
06/05247/REM (Land off Newhaven Place) - 102 units @€821 per unit = €83,742.
07/02645/REM (Plot AI Western Harbour) -122 units @E821 per unit = €100,162.
07/00007/REM (Plots A2 B1 and B2 Western Harbour) - 258 units @€821 per unit = €21 1,818.
Total contributions: €1,391,595.
The amount per unit is subject to indexation and any payment is subject to the development proceeding. 46
The City of Edinburgh Council 13 March 2008
Supplementary When I spoke to the Convener earlier I said I had a Question supplementary on this to find out why nearly f 1 m has not been collected with regard to the planning consents for Western Harbour and he said that he would undertake to have a report given to Council in this particular instance. It is not unlinked to the earlier Question No 1. So, is he still willing to publicly give that commitment for a further report on this issue to find out why and when we will collect the outstanding amounts due?
Supplementary Yes. I will ask the Head of Planning to bring a report Answer forward to the April meeting of the Planning Committee on this matter. 47
The City of Edinburgh Council 13 March 2008
QUESTION NO 5 By Councillor Buchan answered by the Convener of the Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee
Question (1) In the last 12 months, how many abandoned cars have been reported to the Council? (Please exclude burnt out cars and cars abandoned on private land from your answer.)
Answer (1) 549.
Question (2) In the last 12 months, what was the average length of time taken to remove such a car once it had been reported to the Council?
Answer (2) 28 were required to be removed by the Council’s contractor. The average time taken to remove the cars from the date reported to the Council is 23 days.
Question (3) In the same time period, what was the longest time taken to remove a car from a public highway?
Answer (3) The longest time taken was 41 days. This includes the need to check the DVLA database, to which the Council has direct access, checks with the Police to ensure that the vehicle is not stolen or has been used for criminal purposes. It also includes a statutory requirement to attach notice to the vehicle giving the owner at least seven days to come forward and remove it.
Supplementary Does the Convener agree that the average time of Question 23 days to collect an abandoned vehicle is acceptable and is there anything that the Administration is planning to do to perhaps speed that up? 48
The City of Edinburgh Council 13 March 2008
Supplementary It is very difficult because certain checks have to be Answer by made to ensure that a vehicle is abandoned. I know Councillor that there was a particular case in your own ward Aldridge where there was a car which was registered in Ireland and it took additional time to establish whether it was abandoned. So it is difficult to get much quicker but, yes, we are always looking for means of trying to speed this up. 49
The City of Edinburgh Council 13 March 2008
QUESTION NO 6 By Councillor Buchan answered by the Convener of the Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee
The developers of the Meggetland site promised to provide a staggered pelican crossing on Colinton Road (condition 14 of planning permission 95/02329/FUL) but this has not yet happened.
In August 2007, Cllr Wheeler indicated in Council and in comments to the media that enforcement action would be taken in this case.
Question Why has it taken nearly six months for a report to be presented to the Development Management Sub- committee recommending enforcement action? (Item 23 on Development Management Sub- Committee agenda for 27 February 2008.)
Answer After planning approval was granted for this crossing in September 2007, there was a period of discussion between the developer and transport and property officials to finalise the details.
It is normal practice in enforcement proceedings to try to resolve matters by negotiation without recourse to statutory action.
However, in this case, agreement could not be reached. Planning therefore prepared the report to which reference has been made. This was considered by the Development Management Sub- Committee at its meeting on 27 February 2008, when authority to commence formal enforcement action was given.
Allowing for the negotiations, and taking the festive holiday period into account, it is not considered that the period from the granting of consent to the report to Committee was excessive. 50
The City of Edinburgh Council 13 March 2008
Supplementary The response is not actually altogether clear Question because in August 2007 Councillor Wheeler said in the Council that enforcement action was being taken yet according to his reply there was no planning approval. So I am not quite sure if perhaps there is a mistake in the reply but I would be quite grateful if the Convener could indicate if this is a failure of Transport or Planning that it has taken so long.
Supplementary I will check the dates issue that Councillor Buchan Answer has raised. In my opinion this seems to lie basically with Planning and I wrote yesterday to the Head of Planning to ask for a further explanation of why this matter took so long to get to this stage. I agree it is unacceptable that getting a Section 75 payment should need to go to enforcement. 51
The City of Edinburgh Council 13 March 2008
QUESTION NO 7 By Councillor Burns answered by the Convener of the Education, Children and Fam i I ies Com mittee
Question Can you please provide an update on the current status of two ‘improvement actions’ from the “Best Value Audit - Improvement Plan”:
BVlP 15ii - develop softer targets for measuring achievement BVlP 15iv - agree and submit second phase school targets
Please detail exactly when, and how, these actions will be achieved?
Answer In June 2006, attainment targets, including second phase Best Value Improvement Actions, were set with schools.
For June 2009, Learning and Teaching Scotland are working with Strathclyde University to identify achievement targets for possible use in all authorities. This work could form the basis of specific achievement targets for Schools in this Authority. 52
The City of Edinburgh Council 13 March 2008
QUESTION NO 8 By Councillor Burns answered by the Convener of the Education, Children and Families Committee
Question Can you please provide full details of the total financial sums spent on schools’ repairs and maintenance for the eight fiscal years from 1999/2000 through to 2006/2007?
Answer Expenditure on the repair and maintenance of school buildings for the eight financial years between 1999/2000 and 2006/07 is described below. The devolved budget is expended by individual Head Teachers, and the Landlord budget is now expended by City Development and was previously the responsibility of the former Education Department then Children and Families.
Landlord R & M budget € 1999/2000 F,885 ,494 2000/2001 2,248,177 2001/2002 2,526,631 2002/2003 2,362,478 2003/2004 2 ,267 , 726 2004/2 005 2,188,499 2005/2006 2,548,167 2006/2 007 2,960,769 19,987,941
Devolved R & M Budqet € 1999/2000 1,049,633 2000/2001 1,048,957 2001/2002 1,387,488 2002/2003 1,025,388 2003/2004 1,024,309 2004/2 005 1 ,I 04,069 2005/2 006 1 ,126,077 2006/2007 1,091 ,I 12 8,857,033
Total for the 8 year period 28,844,974 53
The City of Edinburgh Council 13 March 2008
Supplementary (1) Given this formal response, will the Convener now Question withdraw the entirely false assertion that for many years there has been no budget for such matters which she wrote in black and white to the Head Teacher of Liberton Primary School on 4 February 2008? Can I ask her now to withdraw that false assertion?
Supplementary (1) As Councillor Burns knows, we have deteriorating Answer school buildings and one of the reasons why we have deteriorating school buildings is that his Administration did not invest in any significant way in these buildings.
Supplementary (2) Can I assume that was a no? The Convener is not Question willing to retract a lie that she wrote to the Head Teacher.
Supplementary (2) I have given an explanation of my comment. Answer 54
The City of Edinburgh Council 13 March 2008
QUESTION NO 9 By Councillor Burns answered by the Convener of the Education, Children and Fam i I ies Com mittee
Question Can you please provide an update on the current timetable (and provide a full project programme) for the completion of the new Integrated Children's Centre, to replace the existing Tynecastle Nursery School, and indicate a full timeline of completion dates for all the buildings concerned in this large- scale redevelopment of the Tynecastle area?
Answer A report is to be submitted to the Education, Children and Families Committee on 15 April 2008 and to the Finance and Resources Committee on 22 April 2008. This will set out the revised timescales for the relocation of Tynecastle Nursery School and the construction of the Integrated Children's Centre which is the permanent replacement.
Supplementary (1) Given that this report is not now finally coming back Question to the Council until April 2008, can I just double check with the Convener that I am safe in making the bold assumption that Tynecastle Nursery School is not going to be asked to move in August 2008 and would she be able to at least now give me an indication of what the earliest possibility is of a potential move for Tynecastle Nursery School?
Supplementary (1) No, I cannot give you an indication. You will have to Answer wait for the report like everybody else which will come to the Education, Children and Families Committee in the next month.
Supplementary (2) So is it still possible it could move in August 2008? Question Supplementary (2) No, the nursery will not move in August 2008 but I Answer am not willing to go any further than that because negotiations are still ongoing. 55
The City of Edinburgh Council 13 March 2008
QUESTION NO 10 By Councillor Burns answered by the Convener of the Education, Children and Fam i I ies Com mittee
Question Can you please provide:
an update on current occupancy, and capacity, levels at Hillwood Primary School? an update on current occupancy, and capacity, levels at Craigmount High School? an update on any potential developments in the Hillwood Primary School catchment area and the impact these could subsequently have on both occupancy and capacity levels at Hillwood and Craigmount?
Answer Hillwood has a 2007 roll of 67, compared to a capacity of 125 places, resulting in an occupancy level of 54%.
Craigmount has a 2007 roll of 1364, compared to a capacity of 1400 places, resulting in an occupancy level of 97%.
The roll at Hillwood is forecast to increase slightly, taking account of 29 dwellings in the catchment area with planning approval.
The roll at Craigmount is forecast to rise to capacity in forthcoming years.
A further development in the Hillwood catchment of 490 dwellings at the Continental Tyre Factory is currently being considered. 56
The City of Edinburgh Council 13 March 2008
QUESTION NO 11 By Councillor Burns answered by the Convener of the Education, Children and Fam i I ies Com mittee
Question Can you please make clear what the exact timetable now is, including an update on the feasibility studies that were supposed to be reported to Council by January 2008, for delivery of newhefurbished buildings at the schools below:
Current School Site 1. Portobello High School 2. St. John’s Primary School 3. Boroughmuir High School 4. James Gillespie’s High School 5. St. Crispin’s Special School
Answer The feasibility studies will be completed by the end of March 2008 -the extended timescales have been agreed with stakeholders to ensure a detailed evaluation of the options is undertaken and that full consultation with the school communities takes place.
Once the finalised feasibility studies are available, it is intended to submit them to the Scottish Government. A Business Case will be presented to the Scottish Government in June 2008. A report to the Council on the content of the Business Case will come forward in due course.
Supplementary (1) Can I just press the Convener on the very last Question sentence in the response which says the Business Case will come forward in due course? Can the Convener confirm or deny that the feasibility studies are going to come to the Council in some form or another for approval and when? Can she also confirm or deny if the Business Case will be approved by this full Council or a body of this Council before it is submitted to the Scottish Government? 57
The City of Edinburgh Council 13 March 2008
Supplementary (1) The feasibility studies, as you are aware, are at the Answer moment being discussed with the schools and I think that that process is just being completed. They will then go to the Scottish Government. Following that, we have given an assurance to schools that the detailed Business Case will be ready by June and I would be quite relaxed if the Committee felt they wanted to have a look at those Business Cases before they went to the Scottish Government.
Supplementary (2) I very much welcome both the feasibility studies and Question the Business Case coming to the Education, Children and Families Committee. For entirely constructive reasons I think it would be helpful if the Committee could have a look at them before they go to the Scottish Government so I welcome that response.
Supplementary (2) Perhaps, for the sake of clarity, I should explain. I Answer am not saying that the feasibility studies will go to Committee. I mean you can certainly have a look at them. They are being passed around as we speak but the schools themselves are very, very keen that they go in quickly and I do not want to delay their presentation to the Scottish Government. That is the feasibility study not the Business Case. I am quite happy to factor in the Business Case going to Committee, provided we meet all the deadlines. 58
The City of Edinburgh Council 13 March 2008
QUESTION NO 12 By Councillor Burns answered by the Convener of the Education, Children and Fam i I ies Com mittee
Question The Administration’s budget narrative for 2008/09 stated that the following sum was being allocated for expenditure; “f5.8million per year for vulnerable children including those in foster and residential care.”
Can you please:
indicate how this total figure has been arrived at?
0 highlight any numerical differences with any of the opposition budgets in allocation of expenditure in the areas you’ve just identified?
Answer The additional €5.8 million annual investment for vulnerable children is allocated as follows:- * Fostering - €2.436 million; Out of Authority School Placements for Children with special education needs - €2.394 million; Children with special education needs home to school transport - €0.470 million; and Children’s (Scotland) Act 1996 - section payments €0.514 million
The Administration Group proposal included a savings target of 2% to front-line services and 5% to non-front-line services. The services subject to additional budget provision specified in response to the first question would be subject to the 2% reduction.
The Labour Group budget motion proposed a saving of 5% to all services, excluding schools. This savings target would be reduced by €1 million for further services excluded from the savings target, which remained unspecified. 59
The City of Edinburgh Council 13 March 2008
The Conservative Group budget motion proposed a saving of 5% to all services, excluding schools. The services subject to additional budget provision specified in response to the first question would be subject to the 5% reduction.
The Greens budget motion proposed a saving of 5% to all services, excluding schools. The services subject to additional budget provision specified in response to the first question would be subject to the 5% reduction.
Supplementary (1) Can the Convener confirm my understanding of the Question response she has given that all the Opposition Groups on this Council did have exactly the same top line budget figures of f5.8m allocated for services for vulnerable children?
Supplementary (1) Councillor Burns, you seem to be a little confused Answer about this because what you are forgetting conveniently is that you also made a 5% cut across all services, which also included services for vulnerable children. In fact this Administration put the most money into services for vulnerable children, fostering, out of authority placements, adoptions etc. You did not.
Supplementary (2) Can I press the Convener on that answer? Clearly, Question as she can see in the last paragraph on the first page of the answer, there was €1 m reduced from that Labour Group motion. Can I ask again if the Convener agrees the top line budget figure allocated by all the Opposition Groups was E5.8m for services for vulnerable children?
Supplementary (2) Councillor Burns, you cannot give with the one hand Answer and take away with the other. This f 1m that you talk about, which I believe was given as a sum which could reduce saving, was not actually put to any heading whatsoever. But even if you say “right this goes to vulnerable children” in your budget, that still means you took a cut of approximately f4m from vulnerable children and we took E2m. Still the Administration has got a far better record than you have. 60
The City of Edinburgh Council 13 March 2008
QUESTION NO 13 By Councillor Perry answered by the Convener of the Finance and Resources Committee
Question Now the Administration’s 2008/2011 Capital Budget is formally agreed, can you please provide a detailed timeline:
for the following four milestones:
design stage build stage construction stage completion date
for all of the following (new or refurbishment) projects:
Glenogle Baths Kings Theatre Tattoo Stands National Photographic Centre Royal Commonwealth Pool Meadowbank Stadium Drumbrae Library Granton Waterfront Nursery Royal Mile Primary School Portobello High School St. John’s Primary School Boroughmuir High School James Gillespie’s High School St. Crispin’s Special School
Answer The 2008/11 Capital Budget was approved on 21 February 2008. City Development is in discussion with the Service Departments and where appropriate external bodies to establish critical milestones for all projects. I shall share the information once this work has concluded. 61
The City of Edinburgh Council 13 March 2008
QUESTION NO 14 By Councillor Ewan Aitken answered by the Leader of the Council
Question (1) Please can you detail all meetings with the Scottish Government either at political and/or officer level on the issue of developing a Single Outcome Agreement (SOA) between the Scottish Government and the City of Edinburgh Council?
Answer (1) The Chief Executive met with Liz Hunter from the Scottish Government on qfhMarch. She is the appointed lead officer from the Scottish Government, responsible for liaising with the City of Edinburgh Council on the development of the SOA. Each appointed officer has responsibility for liaising with four Councils.
Question (2) Can you please publish all correspondence between the Council (politically or at officer level) with the Scottish Government on the issue of Service Level Agreements (SLAs)?
Answer (2) I think Councillor Aitken is confused. There is no relevant correspondence “on the issue of Service Level Agreement (SLA)”.
On the assumption that Councillor Aitken is actually seeking information about the Single Outcome Agreement (SOA), I have extended an invitation to Senior Councillors and Opposition Group Leaders to attend seminars organised by COSLA regarding SOAs. If Councillor Aitken would care to clarify his request I would be happy to consider it.
Question (3) Can you outline the timescales expected to reach such agreement? 62
The City of Edinburgh Council 13 March 2008
Answer (3) The Scottish Government requires all Councils to submit a draft Single Outcome Agreement by 31 st March. They have, however, indicated that they will accept an amended version approved by elected members at the end of April. SOAs will be finalised for all Councils by 30 June 2008.
Question (4) Can you indicate how and at what point in the process the following groups will be involved in the process both as contributors to the development of an SOA and be offered the opportunity to scrutinise any proposed SOA?
Can you also indicate the method by which the views of these organisations and groups will be engaged with and whether their views will be recorded in any subsequent proposals:
The Full Council meeting Council Committees Voluntary Groups in receipt of grants whose work will help deliver the outcomes agreed Organisations with SLAs with the Council whose work will help deliver the outcomes agreed EVOC Neighbourhood Partnerships Neighbouring councils where joint work would be involved in delivering outcomes in the agreement Trade Unions Community Councils The Business Community Opposition Groups on the Council The Edinburgh Partnership NHS Lothian Council Companies whose work would deliver some of the outcomes agreed
Answer (4) The development of the Single Outcome Agreement is being approached in two phases. Councils are required to submit an SOA by 31 March 2008 (subject to the variation in timescale described above) covering the agreed national outcomes and indicators. This first SOA submission requires to cover the Council’s responsibilities. The Scottish Government has indicated that they wish to see agreements in place for Councils and their 63
The City of Edinburgh Council 13 March 2008
community planning partners by March 2009. The Council will therefore be developing its joint SOA submission with its community planning partners against this timetable.
The first step in this will be taken with a report to the Edinburgh Partnership Board on the SOA approach on 27fhMarch 2008. Consideration will be given to how to engage with other stakeholders and reflect their views during the development of SOA during the rest of 2008.
Question (5) Can you indicate which strategic documents you intend to use as the basis of your negotiating position?
Answer (5) The Council will follow the joint guidance on Single Outcome A reements for Scottish Local Government issued on 5# February 2008 on behalf of Audit Scotland, COSLA, the Scottish Government, SOLACE and the Improvement Service. The Council will utilise all relevant information, such as the Corporate Plan, to inform our discussions with the Scottish Government.
Supplementary This is not an occasion when I think certainly the Question Leader's half of the Administration is trying to be secretive in its approach. In fact, I think you are being put under tremendous pressure for the Single Outcome Agreements. Single Outcome Agreements are seen as the bedrock of the so called new relationship between local and national government but would the Leader agree with me that it is a scandal that the pressure that she has been put under to get something in by the end of April means that this will not be seen by the full Council before it goes in, as the next Council meeting is on 1 May? Even if we do see it by 1 May, the Council will only have that chance to make any amendments should it wish to do so at that point.
Supplementary I agree the timescales are very tight and the Answer information from COSLA in order to guide us in the process which has just started came quite late in the day. We have been allocated, as you will see from the answer, the relevant officer who will be dealing 64
The City of Edinburgh Council 13 March 2008
with this Council but I can assure you I will do my best to make sure that other political groups are involved in this process.
Our first internal discussions take place very soon. I appreciate it is a very short timescale but I will be making sure that Group Leaders, at the very minimum, get an opportunity to have some input into what we come up with. 65
The City of Edinburgh Council 13 March 2008
QUESTION NO 15 By Councillor Ewan Aitken answered by the Convener of the Finance and Resources Committee
Question (1) Please can you give the Council the figures for the following reserve funds at 1/04/07 ie the end of the last financial year and give the sum total of these three figures:
General Reserve Capital Fund Renewal and Repairs Fund?
Answer (1) i) a) General Reserve - Earmarked E20.436m b) General Reserve - Unallocated f0.373m ii) Capital Fund - Earmarked €27.1 16m iii) Renewal and Repairs Fund - Earmarked €4.061m
Total of these funds €51.986m
Question (2) Can you confirm that these figures appear in several Council documents, including report CEC/I 57/07- 08/F which was presented to Council on 2lSt February?
Answer (2) Yes.
Question (3) Can you indicate the figure agreed in that same paper to be transferred from unutilised Revenue Support Grant to the unallocated General Reserve? 66
The City of Edinburgh Council 13 March 2008
Answer (3) The report stated that, in light of the latest monitoring projections for 2007-08 and the risks surrounding the budget going forward, the planned balance of f5m in the unallocated reserves by 31”‘ March 2009 may not be sufficient. Thus, the Director of Finance strongly recommended that f 1.598m of unutilised funds from revenue support grant be transferred to the unallocated general fund.
Question (4) Can you confirm that that was an example of a transfer from an allocated reserve to the unallocated reserve?
Answer (4) Allocated reserves are earmarked for specific purposes. Only where the risks against which these funds were earmarked do not materialise, can transfers be made from an allocated reserve to the unallocated reserve, as in the case described.
Supplementary I have the paper I referred to in my question here Question and it shows reserves about f216 short of f52m. Paragraph 3.3 in the paper recommends moving money from allocated to unallocated balances and paragraph 3.7 moving Spend to Save climate change money to Scotland Excel; a process similar to the change of use of f3.3m to the Cities Growth Fund. So it would appear, according to this, that allocated monies can be spent on things other than that to which they have been allocated, or transferred to unallocated balances.
Since I have been able to find three examples in this paper, surely the same process of transfer, either between headings or to unallocated balances, can happen to more of the f52m of reserves. We could, in other words we can because we have done so, use that f52m of reserves in whatever way we choose. We can choose to leave them or we can choose to move them. If that is the case, can you explain to me why Councillor MacLaren accused us of lying in her Evening News interview when we said that we left f52m in reserves to be used as we chose? Is she telling the truth or is this document telling the truth? 67
The City of Edinburgh Council 13 March 2008
Supplementary I think Councillor Aitken misunderstands what is in Answer the document. In the answer here it makes it quite clear that there has to be a justification for the move of any funds. In the case that is detailed in the question the risk no longer arises; it is a windfall in a sense for the Council and so we have moved it into the unallocated reserve. The €52m that he refers to could cover our risks but on the other hand the cost of modernising pay may well be greater than you provided for. I think, in the spirit of the answer, we do not know if we have enough to cover our liabilities. What we do know is that unallocated reserve is at a level of €373,000 which is nowhere near enough. That is why we have tried to put more into the unallocated reserve for the future. 68
The City of Edinburgh Council 13 March 2008
QUESTION NO 16 By Councillor Ewan Aitken answered by the Convener of the Finance and Resources Committee
Question (1) Please can you indicate the percentage increase on Aggregate External Finance (AEF) in 08/09 from 07/08?
Answer (1) 5.21%.
Question (2) Please can you confirm that this is an increase of approximately f37.5m from the 07/08 total?
Answer (2) Yes.
Successfully freezing Council Tax for Edinburgh, for the first time in the history of the city, whilst protecting services and stabilising the Council’s finances necessitated record levels of efficiency savings. The Director of Finance has indicated that the Council could have been facing an overspend of €23.1 million by April 2008 had tough action not been taken. The retention of efficiency savings, removal of ring-fencing and €6.9 million funding from the Scottish Government in terms of their Concordat with COSLA contribute to the AEF headline figure together with changes in Edinburgh’s assessed spending need as a result of an above-average increase in general population and changing demographic profiles. These factors provided greater flexibility from which we could deliver a Council Tax freeze whilst providing for excellent public services in Edinburgh. 69
The City of Edinburgh Council 13 March 2008
QUESTION NO 17 By Councillor Johnstone answered by the Convener of the Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee
Question Can the Convener advise of progress in introducing easily accessible recycling facilities in all Council buildings for all recyclable materials?
Answer Easily accessible recycling facilities have been introduced to Waverley Court and Murrayburn Depot. A programme for rolling out these facilities throughout the corporate property portfolio has begun. A new Council Resource Use Efficiency Policy will be submitted to Committee in May setting out the strategic framework to establishing reuse and recycling infrastructures throughout Council properties. 70
The City of Edinburgh Council 13 March 2008
QUESTION NO 18 By Cou nciI lor Burgess answered by the Convener of the Planning Committee
Question Whether the Administration supports the aim of ensuring that major sites for development, such as at Leith Docks, are zero carbon developments?
Answer The Administration is committed to ensuring major develop ments a re zero carbon developments , where technically feasible.
Supplementary I am grateful for this positive answer. I asked this Question question because at the moment the Planning Committee is being asked to approve applications at major development sites which are adding to the climate pollution that Edinburgh generates. Where there is obviously potential to make new developments zero carbon, can I ask the Convener how the Administration will ensure that zero carbon developments are brought forward? Will the Administration ask the officials to bring forward a report on how zero carbon developments can be achieved?
Supplementary The Council has had a policy on standards for Answer sustainable buildings since May 2007 and all new developments have to conform to this. By coincidence the Scottish Government this week issued Planning Advice Note 84 on reducing carbon emissions from new developments and the Department will be applying that as well. What I will do is give an undertaking that when the year is up, ie in May 2008, I will ask the Director to report to the June Planning Committee on how we are applying these principles and what effect they are having. 71
The City of Edinburgh Council 13 March 2008
QUESTION NO 19 By Councillor Blacklock answered by the Convener of the Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee
Question (1) How many complaints regarding recycling bins has the Council received in the last 6 months?
Answer (1) There have been 26 complaints regarding recycling bins during the period from 1 September 2007 to 29 February 2008.
Question (2) What plans are in place to develop plastic recycling?
Answer (2) The Council currently offer the collection of plastic bottles through packaging banks sited at recycling points (such as supermarkets), and in high density housing areas through on-street recycling.
Investigations are underway to establish the cost and feasibility of adding the collection of plastic bottles through the kerbside multi-material (blue and red box) scheme. The current collection contract for the latter service is due to expire in March 2009. The collection of plastics along with existing materials will form part of the new tender.
Question (3) What examples are there of publicity provided by the Council to Edinburgh residents with limited mobility and the access available to them to recycling services?
Answer (3) When both the garden waste and kerbside box collections were introduced, those residents already receiving an assisted collection for general refuse were automatically offered an assisted collection for recyclables. Should new residents wish to request boxes or a garden waste bin and have limited mobility they can receive an assisted collection. This service can be requested by contacting the Council on 0131 529 3030. 72
The City of Edinburgh Council 13 March 2008
QUESTION NO 20 By Councillor Chapman answered by the Convener of the Health, Social Care and Housing Committee
Question What moves are in place to formalise the Service Level Agreement (SLA) with the Pilmeny Development Project?
Answer Pilmeny Development Project (PDP) is recommended to receive a grant of €85,945 in 2008/9, composed of €50,829 from the Health & Social Care Department and €35,116 from Children and Families. The total sum includes €4,374 which was agreed during 2007 for PDP’s additional pension contributions.
Once the Council has approved the organisation’s funding for 2008/9, any final adjustments necessary can be made to the SLA and this will be sent to PDP for signature. On its return, the SLA will be considered for final signature by the Director of Health and Social Care.
Supplementary (1) It seems that, according to the reply in front of me, Question the SLA is well under way with Pilmeny Development Project. This is good news, if indeed this is the case, but it is certainly not the impression that the Pilmeny Development Project have. They feel that they have been continually put on hold and staff changes in the Department of Health and Social Care have meant little if any continuity in the SLA process. They feel that they are constantly pushed back to square one. Can you comment on this or is this perhaps just another example of the poor communication between the Council and its partner organisations? 73
The City of Edinburgh Council 13 March 2008
Supplementary (1) My understanding is that Pilmeny have been Answer receiving a grant from us and that is now being formalised into an SLA. We have to agree today what that level is going to be and that is what is in the papers before us. I have nothing else to add to the answer I have given.
Supplementary (2) I know that they have been in receipt of a grant but I Question know that they have also been trying to work out an SLA with the Council for several years now and within the last 10 months have been knocked back time and time again. This is why I asked the question about the SLA and not the grant.
Supplementary (2) This is a question that has been put in unusual Answer circumstances and you have given me less than 24 hours notice. I have nothing to add to the answer. There is an SLA that will be approved after we have taken the decision today about the grant levels for all of the organisations. I am not sure there is anything else I can add to that I’m afraid. 74
The City of Edinburgh Council 13 March 2008
QUESTION NO 21 By Councillor Chapman answered by the Conveners of the Health, Social Care and Housing Committee and the Education, Children and Families Committee
Question What are the service delivery impacts of the proposed grant cuts as outlined in the report, in terms of job cuts and loss of services?
Answer Significant work has been undertaken to protect grants to third party organisations in the light of the challenging financial position inherited. All options for grant funding reductions have been selected using clear criteria in order to assess and minimise any impact on service delivery. The precise level of detail sought is an operational matter for the organ isat ions concerned.
Supplementary I appreciate the work that has gone into working out Question the grant funding although I am sure it will come as no surprise that I don’t agree with what is being done. Can the Convener tell us how we will, or actually if we can at all, measure the complex data required to properly assess the degree to which the Council meets or does not meet the Concordat agreement objectives signed up to with the Scottish Government? Surely, if we do not know the effects of the decisions that we take today to invest or not to invest in third sector organisations, we cannot begin to know how we meet or do not meet the Concordat objectives.
Supplementary With all due respect, I do not have a copy of the Answer by the Concordat to hand. Could I suggest respectfully that Convener of perhaps if you want this information, you pick up the the Health, phone and ask for a proper briefing from the Director Social Care on this subject. and Housing Committee 75
The City of Edinburgh Council 13 March 2008
Appendix 2 (As referred to in Act of Council No 15 of 13 March 2008)
Revenue Budget 2008-2009 HRNNon HRA Increase in Charges
Current Proposed Effective Price Price From HRA Communal Heatinq - Maidencraig Court: Gas fired heating - per Week €6.32 €6.57 1-Apr-08 Owner-Occupier's boiler maintenance - per Month €8.56 €8.90 1-Apr-08 - Westfield Court: Gas fired heating and hot water 1 Apartment - per Week €5.42 €5.64 1-Apr-08 2 Apartment - per Week €7.09 €7.37 1-Apr-08 3 Apartment - per Week €1 0.00 €1 0.40 1-Apr-08 Owner occupiers' boiler maintenance 1 Apartment - per Week €2.27 €2.36 1-Apr-08 2 Apartment - per Week €2.87 €2.99 1-Apr-08 3 Apartment - per Week €4.05 €4.21 1-Apr-08
- Ferniehill Drive (Sheltered) - per Week €5.43 €5.65 1-Apr-08
- Saughton Mains Terrace (Sheltered) - per Week €6.58 €6.84 1-Apr-08
Heat -with-Rent Scheme 1 Apartment - per Fortnight €7.78 €8.09 1-Apr-08 2 Apartment - per Fortnight €1 0.31 €1 0.73 1-Apr-08 3 Apartment - per Fortnight €1 3.52 €1 4.06 1-Apr-08
Furnished Tenancy - 2 Apt (single occupant) €73.39 €76.33 1-Apr-08 - 3 Apt (single occupant) €74.54 €77.52 1-Apr-08 - 3 Apt (Shared) €83.52 €86.96 1-Apr-08 - 4 Apt (Shared) €88.74 €92.29 1-Apr-08 - 6 Apt (Shared) €1 07.53 €1 11.83 1-Apr-08
Homeless Temporary Accommodation - Dispersed flats - per week €289.71 €301.30 1-Apr-08 - Oxgangs - per Week €272.48 €283.42 1-Apr-08 - Broomhouse - per Week €305.37 €31 7.58 1-Apr-08 - Crewe Road - per Week €308.50 €320.84 1-Apr-08 - West Pilton View - per Week €477.63 €496.74 1-Apr-08 -West Pilton Park (Single Occupancy) - per Week €443.1 8 €460.9 1 1-Apr-08 - West Pilton Park (Family Occupancy) - per Week €548.10 €570.02 1-Apr-08 - Bruntsfield - per Week €347.50 €361.40 1-Apr-08 - Bingham - per Week €422.82 €439.73 1-Apr-08 - Leith Street - per Week €422.82 €439.73 1-Apr-08 - Core Furniture - per Week €8.40 €8.74 1-Apr-08
Staircleaninq charae 76
The City of Edinburgh Council 13 March 2008
Current Proposed Effective Price Price From
- Tenants and owner-occupiers €4.00 €4.34 1-Apr-08
Travellinq People's Site - per week €65.77 €68.40 1-Apr-08
Launderette Charqes Washing machine/dryer (Main) €2.09 €2.1 7 1-Apr-08 Washing machine/dryer (Sheltered) €0.89 €0.92 1-Apr-08 Tumble dryer (Main) €0.57 €0.60 1-Apr-08 Tumble dryer (Sheltered) €0.42 €0.43 1-Apr-08
Guest rooms (Sheltered Housinq) Standard Charge - per night €6.63 €6.89 1-Apr-08 Persons in receipt of state pension - per night €3.34 €3.47 1-Apr-08
Community Alarms Standard charge per property €2.1 9 €2.28 1-Apr-08
Hire of Community Rooms Full day hire €15.45 €16.07 1-Apr-08 Morning hire €5.53 €5.75 1-Apr-08 Afternoon hire €5.53 €5.75 1-Apr-08 Evening hire €5.53 €5.75 1-Apr-08 Lunchtime hire €7.73 €8.03 1-Apr-08
Garaqe Rents West - per year €386.00 €401.44 1-Apr-08 Central West - per year €329.00 €342.1 6 1-Apr-08 North - per year €329.00 €342.1 6 1-Apr-08 City Leith - per year €501 .OO €521.04 1-Apr-08 East - per year €329.00 €342.1 6 1-Apr-08 South - per year €444.00 €461.76 1-Apr-08
Stair Cleaninq Per week €2.00 €2.1 0 1-Apr-08
Supportinq People Per week €4.50 €4.70 1-Apr-08 Per week €5.85 €6.1 0 1-Apr-08 Per week €6.50 €6.75 1-Apr-08 1 Hour per week €8.00 €8.30 1-Apr-08 2-3 Hours per week €16.00 €16.60 1-Apr-08 4-5 hours per week €20.00 €20.80 1-Apr-08 5+hours per week €30.00 €31.20 1-Apr-08