The City of Edinburgh Council

Notice of meeting and agenda

10.00 am, Thursday, 31 May 2018 Council Chamber, City Chambers, High Street, Edinburgh

This is a public meeting and members of the public are welcome to attend

Tel: 0131 529 4246 1. Order of business

1.1 Including any notices of motion and any other items of business submitted as urgent for consideration at the meeting.

2. Declaration of interests

2.1 Members should declare any financial and non-financial interests they have in the items of business for consideration, identifying the relevant agenda item and the nature of their interest.

3. Deputations

3.1 If any

4. Minutes

4.1 The City of Edinburgh Council of 3 May 2018 (circulated) – submitted for approval as a correct record

5. Questions

5.1 By Councillor Mary Campbell - PP1 and PP2 Contracts – for answer by the Convener of the Education, Children and Families Committee

5.2 By Councillor Corbett - Parking Passes – for answer by the Convener of the Finance and Resources Committee

5.3 By Councillor Jim Campbell - Police Numbers – for answer by the Convener of the Culture and Communities Committee

5.4 By Councillor Mowat - Assessing of Road Defects – for answer by the Convener of the Transport and Environment Committee

5.5 By Councillor Johnston - Building Warrants – for answer by the Convener of the Finance and Resources Committee

5.6 By Councillor Rose - Additional Support Needs – for answer by the Leader of the Council

5.7 By Councillor Miller - Safeguards to Ensure Secure and Safe Accommodation for Refugees – for answer by the Convener of the Housing and Economy Committee

5.8 By Councillor Lang - Parking of Commercial Vehicles on Queensferry Road – for answer by the Convener of the Transport and Environment Committee

The City of Edinburgh Council – 31 May 2018 Page 2 of 12 5.9 By Councillor Lang - Ingliston Park and Ride – for answer by the Convener of the Transport and Environment Committee

5.10 By Councillor Lang - Davidson's Mains Roundabout – for answer by the Convener of the Transport and Environment Committee

5.11 By Councillor Jim Campbell – Land Supply – for answer by the Convener of the Planning Committee

5.12 By Councillor Rose – Section 75 Legal Arrangements since 1 May 2017 – for answer by the Convener of the Planning Committee

5.13 By Councillor Jim Campbell – Planning Applications – for answer by the Convener of the Planning Committee

5.14 By Councillor Jim Campbell - House Building – for answer by the Convener of the Housing and Economy Committee

5.15 By Councillor Doggart – Convener Meetings with Education Minister – for answer by the Convener of the Education, Children and Families Committee

5.16 By Councillor Booth – Proposals on Extending the Tram to Newhaven – for answer by the Convener of the Transport and Environment Committee

6. Leader’s Report

6.1 Leader’s report

7. Appointments

7.1 If any

8. Reports

8.1 The EDI Group Ltd – Transition Strategy – report by the Executive Director of Place (circulated)

8.2 Fair Fringe and Fair Hospitality Charter Guidelines – report by the Executive Director of Place (circulated)

8.3 Edinburgh Transient Visitor Levy – report by the Chief Executive (circulated)

8.4 Report of Pre-Determination Hearing – 1 Riccarton Mains Cottages, Riccarton Mains Road, Currie (Land 320 Metres Southeast Of) – referral from the Development Management Sub-Committee (circulated)

The City of Edinburgh Council – 31 May 2018 Page 3 of 12 8.5 Outcome of the Statutory Consultation Process on the Proposal to build a new Non-Denominational Secondary School to replace Castlebrae High School and Implement Minor Catchment Change to Formalise and Align Catchment Boundaries – report by the Executive Director for Children and Families (circulated)

9. Motions

9.1 By Councillor Burgess – Recycling Facilities in Council Buildings

“Council;

Believes that high-quality recycling facilities should be provided at all Council buildings, including our schools, to allow staff, the public and pupils to be able to prevent recyclable material being dumped in landfill or incinerated;

Understands for example that not all Council buildings including schools have adequate recycling facilities for different kinds of recyclable waste such as packaging, paper, glass and food waste;

Therefore calls for a report to the Transport and Environment Committee in two cycles on improving recycling facilities in schools and other council buildings.”

9.2 By Councillor Main - Scotland's Charter for a Tobacco-free Generation

“Council notes

1. Smoking is the biggest avoidable cause of death in Scotland and results in the disability and impoverishment of thousands of people in Edinburgh every year. Childhood exposure to second-hand smoke causes ill-health, reduces educational attainment, and smoking imagery can lead children to become smokers themselves.

2. The Scottish Government's target of a Tobacco-free Scotland by 2034 (5% prevalence or less),

3. Notes the action already being undertaken by the Council with partners, and that Council Trading Standards Officers have shared an award from ASH Scotland for their work with NHS Lothian Health Promotion Service and other organisations in the #Notafavour Campaign to reduce the supply of tobacco to under 18’s by adults.

4. Notes that four Edinburgh Schools, Currie Community High, Firhill High, Castlebrae High and Royal High have signed up to the charter

The City of Edinburgh Council – 31 May 2018 Page 4 of 12 Council endorses the Principles of Scotland's Charter for a Tobacco-free Generation:

1. every baby should be born free from the harmful effects of tobacco;

2. children have a particular need for a smoke-free environment;

3. all children should play, learn and socialise in places that are free from tobacco;

4. every child has the right to effective education that equips them to make informed positive choices on tobacco and health;

5. all young people should be protected from commercial interests which profit from recruiting new smokers;

6. any young person who smokes should be offered accessible support to help them to become tobacco-free.

Therefore

1. Council calls for a report in two cycles to Corporate Policy and Strategy Committee reviewing council strategy, policy and practice to ensure that the Council is helping protect children from tobacco, reducing the harm caused by tobacco in our communities and encouraging others to do the same. The report will include action undertaken to date, such as a smoking ban on all Council property including parks and membership of Lothian Tobacco Prevention Working group, and options for further action.

2. Agrees to sign up to the Charter for a Tobacco-free Generation.”

9.3 By Councillor Staniforth – Edinburgh Does Not Welcome Donald Trump

“Council:

1. Notes that Donald Trump is likely to visit the UK this summer and this visit may include Scotland.

2. Notes Trump’s record on race relations is dire; his so-called ‘Muslim ban’ caused distress and chaos to US Muslim families and his stated aim to build a wall between the US and Mexico is regressive and undesirable.

3. Notes that Trump’s record on gender is equally bad; both his campaign and his short tenure have been littered with misogynistic commentary and his ill-conceived attempt to ban transgender people serving in the armed forces was deeply transphobic.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 31 May 2018 Page 5 of 12 4. Notes that points 3 and 4 are just two in a long list of reasons why Donald Trump is unfit for public office.

5. Affirms that Edinburgh is a welcoming and international city, which opens its arms to all ethnicities and religions; all sexualities and genders.

6. Therefore, as representatives of Scotland’s capital, does not welcome President Trump to Scotland and will not engage in any civic welcome extended to him.”

9.4 By Councillor Jim Campbell – Locality Committee Funding Oversight Locus

“Council:

1) Notes the significant amounts of grant expenditure in Localities detailed in answer to Question 23 at Council on 24 August 2017, and contrasts this with the amounts in the Neighbourhood Environment Programme / Community Grants Fund Report to Locality Committees in the last cycle. Council 24 Community HRA & Roads August, Grant Grant Fund, NEP Budget Expenditure 2017/18 2018/19 2016/17 £M £M £M North West 1.956 0.114 0.734 North East 1.150 0.089 0.666 South West 0.927 0.094 0.672 South East 0.656 0.109 0.528

2) Welcomes the comments of the Convener of the Culture and Communities Committee in Council on 24 August 2017 in response to being asked what proportion of the total budget he would like to see spent through the Localities Committees, when he replied.

“Well that’s an interesting question. I wouldn’t like to guess a percentage at this moment in time. But it’s certainly worth thinking about and, as we go into consultation, as we’re in consultation, over the summer about the structure of the Localities and how it’s going to look on the ground, that is certainly something we should consider. But we have to consider it across all four Localities.”

3) Therefore instructs officers to prepare a report with proposals for involving each Locality Committee in the distribution of Council funds in their Locality in two cycles to go to each Locality Committee for

The City of Edinburgh Council – 31 May 2018 Page 6 of 12 comment and then to be referred to the Culture and Communities Committee for its consideration.”

9.5 By Councillor Webber – Local Engagement with Portfolio Planning

“Council:

Notes Council owned buildings and assets often change their use. There is a specific case in Currie whereby a building that was used by The Health and Social Care Partnership has been vacated and it is currently undergoing an assessment with plans to repurpose it for other uses.

This feasibility study is taking place without any assessment or consultation with the local community where much needed space is limited and very much needed for projects such as Dementia Hub and a venue for a local nursery group.

1) Calls for a report to identify how many assets have been “repurposed” in this manner, by ward over the last 12 months and details the specified change in use.

2) Calls for a report with a view to ensuring portfolio planning no longer make decisions in isolation on a property by property basis but take a more strategic approach, engage with local communities, and identify the best and most appropriate use for the assets.”

9.6 By Councillor Graczyk – Deaf Awareness Week

“Council:

1. Notes, the annual observance of Deaf Awareness Week for 2018 was between 14th to 20th May.

2. Recognises, the purpose of Deaf Awareness Week is to increase public awareness of deaf issues, people, and culture. It also raises awareness of the importance of meaningful connections and effective communication for people who suffer from hearing loss and deafness.

3. Celebrates a unique campaign of so many various organisations collaborating and working together to promote their own version of work to raise awareness and challenge perceptions of hearing loss and deafness across the UK.

4. Thanks the UK Council on Deafness and others for co-ordinating a series of activities and events across the UK throughout Deaf Awareness Week to encourage people to come together as a community for both educational events and celebrations.”

The City of Edinburgh Council – 31 May 2018 Page 7 of 12 9.7 By Councillor Lang – Private Business

“Council

1. Notes the provisions contained within Section 50(A) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 which allow for certain matters of Council business to be considered and decided upon in private.

2. Notes the requirements within the Councillors’ Code of Conduct to respect and comply with the requirement to keep such information private.

3. Recognises the need for confidential matters to be handled in a consistent manner by elected members but notes there are currently no formal provisions for when the confidentiality around specific matters is lifted and matters can be shared and discussed publicly.

4. Requests that council officers use the planned report on political management arrangements at the 28 June Council meeting to include proposals to either amend standing orders or issue formal guidance to address this issue.”

9.8 By Councillor Bruce – The Marriage of the Earl and Countess of Dumbarton

“Council:

1) Congratulates their Royal Highnesses the Earl and Countess of Dumbarton on their recent marriage and wishes them every success for their future life together.

2) Asks the Lord Provost to write to their Royal Highnesses on behalf of the Council and the citizens of Edinburgh to offer our congratulations and best wishes.”

9.9 By Councillor Doggart - Number of reports presented to Council and all Council Committees Since Inception of the Current Council

“Council:

Instructs the Chief Executive to report to Governance, Risk and Best Value Committee within one cycle on the number of reports presented to Council and all Council committees since the inception of the current Council. The report should contain:

a) Number of reports due for committee

b) Number of reports presented to committee/Council on time

c) Number of reports presented late, or not at all, to committee/Council

The City of Edinburgh Council – 31 May 2018 Page 8 of 12 d) The reasons for the late presenting of reports

e) Steps the Chief Executive will take to ensure no further report deadlines are missed during the current Council: and

f) Any other information the Chief Executive believes will inform Council.”

9.10 By Councillor Cameron - African Heads of Mission

“Council is delighted to learn that the African Heads of Mission based in the UK will be meeting together in Edinburgh in September 2018. This is first time that such a meeting has been held in Scotland. In addition to the Ambassadors and High Commissioners attending, they will be accompanied by cultural attaches and education attaches.

Their programme comprises high level presentations and discussions across a wide range of economic and social interests including Fintech, Education, Culture, Energy and Social Enterprise.

Council welcomes this meeting and the opportunities it presents for Edinburgh and Scotland and requests that the Lord Provost marks this occasion in an appropriate manner.”

9.11 By Councillor Kate Campbell – The Rock Trust - 25 Years of Sleep Outs

“Council notes that The Rock Trust, an Edinburgh based charity working with young people aged 16-25 who are homeless or at risk of homelessness, will be having their 25th Sleep Out this year. Over the last 25 years the Trust have helped more than 15,000 young people in the city by providing them with accommodation and support.

The Rock Trust marked their 25th Year by creating a Scottish coalition to end youth homelessness, bringing together organisations from housing, youth, LGBTI, health, justice and care to work across the country supporting local responses and early interventions to end youth homelessness.

In recognition of the 25 years of Sleep Outs they are putting together an exhibition of stories and photographs from the many years of the event.

Council invites the Lord Provost to recognise these achievements, and this significant anniversary, and marks this occasion in an appropriate manner.”

9.12 By Councillor Webber - European Hockey Success for the Capital's Top Clubs

“Council:

1) Congratulates and recognises the significant achievements of both Edinburgh University Women’s Hockey Club and Grange Men’s Hockey club who both won their respective European Tournaments on Monday 21st May 2018. The City of Edinburgh Council – 31 May 2018 Page 9 of 12 2) Notes there were huge victories for Grange Men and Edinburgh University WHC on the final day of European club hockey tournaments in Vienna and Edinburgh respectively.

a) Grange who travelled to Vienna to play in the EuroHockey Club Trophy of 2018 won in the final by claiming a 5-2 victory over HC Vinnitsa (Ukraine)

b) Edinburgh University won the all-Scottish final with a 1-0 victory over Clydesdale Western from Glasgow in the European Women’s Club Challenge at Peffermill.

3) Recognises this is an incredible result for the capital city’s hockey clubs and further strengthens hockey as the 2nd fastest growing team sport in Scotland.”

9.13 By Councillor Mary Campbell - Edinburgh's Coastline - Protecting and Enhancing our “Blue Belt”

“Council:

1) believes that as a capital city we benefit from both our historic city centre, and also our beautiful coastline. Our coastline has many highlights, from the sandy beach of Portobello, to the sea life-rich rocks in the Forth, and the stunning views from the promenade at Cramond;

2) notes that, as a council we invest a lot of time and effort into our city centre, for the benefit of both residents and visitors. Council believes that a similar level of effort should also be applied to our coastline, to ensure that we are preserving and enhancing the wide variety of historic and environmental features that make our coastline so special, and to enhance residents’ access to our coastline by creating a continuous active travel promenade from Joppa to South Queensferry.

3) notes that the council has undertaken some work to pursue this agenda, both separately and in co-operation with partners, including production of the Edinburgh Promenade Design Code and SESTRAN studies on cross-boundary cycle development; that some off-road cycle/footpath links have been identified in the LDP but notes that that progress to deliver on this work has been a little sporadic;

4) further notes that some council partners including the Scottish Wildlife Trust and Royal Botanic Gardens have projects to enhance & preserve the natural heritage and biodiversity of our coastline;

5) Therefore agrees to receive a scoping report, which covers work to date, work currently in train, and the scope of work which needs to be undertaken in the future. This should report within two cycles to be

The City of Edinburgh Council – 31 May 2018 Page 10 of 12 brought to the Transport and Environment Committee, and should include options for political governance of the work.

6) notes that residents and businesses have already been working hard to protect and enhance the coastline, and any strategy should include a clear mechanism for engaging with all key stakeholders.”

9.14 By Councillor Osler – Meadowbank Stadium

“Council instructs the appropriate Directors to report in one cycle to the Culture and Communities Committee on agreements made to date on the strategic vision for the replacement Meadowbank Stadium, including details of when decisions were taken and all meetings at which they were scrutinised publicly.”

Laurence Rockey Head of Strategy and Insight

Information about the City of Edinburgh Council meeting

The City of Edinburgh Council consists of 63 Councillors and is elected under proportional representation. The City of Edinburgh Council usually meets once a month and the Lord Provost is the Convener when it meets.

The City of Edinburgh Council usually meets in the Council Chamber in the City Chambers on the High Street in Edinburgh. There is a seated public gallery and the Council meeting is open to all members of the public.

Further information

If you have any questions about the agenda or meeting arrangements, please contact Allan McCartney, Committee Services, City of Edinburgh Council, Business Centre 2.1, Waverley Court, 4 East Market Street, Edinburgh EH8 8BG, Tel 0131 529 4246, e-mail [email protected].

A copy of the agenda and papers for this meeting will be available for inspection prior to the meeting at the main reception office, City Chambers, High Street, Edinburgh.

The agenda, minutes and public reports for this meeting and all the main Council committees can be viewed online by going to www.edinburgh.gov.uk/cpol.

For remaining items of business likely to be considered in private, see separate agenda.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 31 May 2018 Page 11 of 12 Webcasting of Council meetings

Please note: this meeting may be filmed for live and subsequent broadcast via the Council’s internet site – at the start of the meeting the Lord Provost will confirm if all or part of the meeting is being filmed.

You should be aware that the Council is a Data Controller under the Data Protection Act 1998. Data collected during this webcast will be retained in accordance with the Council’s published policy including, but not limited to, for the purpose of keeping historical records and making those records available via the Council’s internet site.

Generally the public seating areas will not be filmed. However, by entering the Council Chamber and using the public seating area, you are consenting to being filmed and to the use and storage of those images and sound recordings and any information pertaining to you contained in them for web casting and training purposes and for the purpose of keeping historical records and making those records available to the public.

Any information presented by you to the Council at a meeting, in a deputation or otherwise, in addition to forming part of a webcast that will be held as a historical record, will also be held and used by the Council in connection with the relevant matter until that matter is decided or otherwise resolved (including any potential appeals and other connected processes). Thereafter, that information will continue to be held as part of the historical record in accordance with the paragraphs above.

If you have any queries regarding this, and, in particular, if you believe that use and/or storage of any particular information would cause, or be likely to cause, substantial damage or distress to any individual, please contact Committee Services on 0131 529 4105 or [email protected] .

The City of Edinburgh Council – 31 May 2018 Page 12 of 12 Minutes Item No 4.1

The City of Edinburgh Council

Edinburgh, Thursday 3 May 2018

Present:-

LORD PROVOST

The Right Honourable Frank Ross

COUNCILLORS

Robert C Aldridge Graham J Hutchison Scott Arthur Andrew Johnston Gavin Barrie David Key Eleanor Bird Callum Laidlaw Chas Booth Kevin Lang Claire Bridgman Lesley Macinnes Mark A Brown Melanie Main Graeme Bruce John McLellan Steve Burgess Amy McNeese-Mechan Lezley Marion Cameron Adam McVey Ian Campbell Claire Miller Jim Campbell Max Mitchell Kate Campbell Joanna Mowat Maureen M Child Gordon J Munro Nick Cook Hal Osler Gavin Corbett Ian Perry Cammy Day Susan Rae Alison Dickie Alasdair Rankin Denis C Dixon Lewis Ritchie Phil Doggart Cameron Rose Marion Donaldson Neil Ross Karen Doran Jason Rust Scott Douglas Stephanie Smith Catherine Fullerton Alex Staniforth Neil Gardiner Mandy Watt Gillian Gloyer Susan Webber George Gordon Iain Whyte Ashley Graczyk Donald Wilson Joan Griffiths Norman J Work Ricky Henderson Louise Young Derek Howie

1 Minutes

Decision

To approve the minute of the Council of 20 March 2018 as a correct record subject to:

(a) noting that the Declaration of Interests at Item 22 should be “Registered Landlords”.

(b) noting that Councillor Hutchison was not in attendance at the meeting and should not be recorded in the votes at items 7, 16, 17 and 22.

2 Questions

The questions put by members to this meeting, written answers and supplementary questions and answers are contained in Appendix 1 to this minute.

3 Leader’s Report

The Leader presented his report to the Council. He commented on:

 St Mirren’s Promotion to the SPL  Apologies to Councillor McLellan for remarks made  Contributions by external organisations on consultation on Tram exercise  Active travel  City Deal and house building  Avengers movie – Edinburgh as a backdrop  Attempted deportation of Clara Ponsati from Edinburgh  Welcome additional £10m allocation from the Scottish Government for Roads - £480,000 to Edinburgh

The following questions/comments were made:

Councillor McLellan - Thank Councillor McVey for retracting his remarks and accept his and Councillor Bird’s apologies Clarified had procured meetings with developers of St Margaret’s House Councillor Whyte - Health and Social Care/Building Warrant system/Road Surfaces/increased charges – performance improvement in a Council service

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 2 of 118

Councillor Main - Margaret Campbell, South East Locality – condolences to family - Food poverty – combatting current crisis

Councillor Aldridge - Delayed Janitorial Review – charges for community groups

Councillor Day - Thank you to those supporting him and Councillor Wilson in London Marathon fundraising efforts - Imigration caps - Condemnation of UK Government’s recent approach to minority groups of British citizens

Councillor Young - Kira Noble – congratulations for fundraising – support for campaign

Councillor Munro - CGI ICT provision

Councillor Cameron - EICC –congratulations on success on events

Councillor Staniforth - Planning Application – Meadowbank Stadium – possible delay

Councillor Booth - Seafield Sewage Works – concern at withdrawal of funding by Scottish Water for expert adviser

Councillor Cook - Tram Project Team – consultation work - costs

Councillor Lang - Thanks to Facilities Team for City Chambers layout

Councillor Ritchie - Tram project – conjestion charge

4 Review of Appointments to Committees, Boards and Joint Boards for 2018/19

The Council was invited to appoint members to Committees, Boards and Joint Boards for the municipal year 2018/2019.

Motion

To approve the appointments to Committees etc membership as submitted subject to:

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 3 of 118

a) Councillor Doggart replacing Councillor Webber on the Governance, Risk and Best Value Committee. b) Councillor Griffiths replacing Councillor Child on the Education, Children and Families Committee.

- moved by Councillor Kate Campbell, seconded by Councillor Doran

Amendment

Council

(1) To note that there had been a material change of circumstances since the decision on 15th March 2018 with the further reduction in the SNP Group to 17 members.

(2) To further note that 9 member Committees no longer reflected the political balance of the Council and in order to restore political balance Council agrees that 9 member Committees (ie Regulatory Committee; Licensing Sub- Committee; Personnel Appeals Committee, and the Lothian Valuation Joint Board) would comprise of 3 Conservative, 2 SNP, 2 Labour, 1 Green and 1 SLD.

(3) To otherwise approve the appointments to committee etc membership as submitted, subject to Councillor Doggart replacing Councillor Webber on the Governance, Risk and Best Value Committee.

- moved by Councillor Whyte, seconded by Councillor Mowat

Voting

For the motion - 36 votes For the amendment - 25 votes

(For the motion: The Lord Provost and Councillors Arthur, Bird, Booth, Bridgman, Burgess, Cameron, Ian Campbell, Kate Campbell, Child, Corbett, Day, Dickie, Dixon, Donaldson, Doran, Fullerton, Gardiner, Gordon, Griffiths, Henderson, Howie, Key, Macinnes, McNeese-Mechan, McVey, Main, Miller, Munro, Perry, Rae, Rankin, Staniforth, Watt, Wilson and Work

For the amendment: Councillors Aldridge, Brown, Bruce, Jim Campbell, Cook, Doggart, Douglas, Gloyer, Graczyk, Hutchison, Johnston, Laidlaw, Lang, McLellan, Mitchell, Mowat, Osler, Ritchie, Rose, Neil Ross,Rust, Smith, Webber,Whyte and Young

Abstention: Councillor Barrie)

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 4 of 118

Decision

To approve the appointments to Committees, Boards and Joint Boards for 2018/19 as detailed in Appendices 2 to 5 of this minute.

(Reference – report by the Chief Executive, submitted)

5 Appointments to Outside Organisations

The Council had agreed its political management arrangements and made appontments to a range of outside organisations. A number of Councillors had resigned from their positons on various organisations and the Council was required to appoint members in their place.

Motion

1) To note that, as Convener of Housing and Economy Committee, Councillor Kate Campbell had replaced Councillor Barrie on Essential Edinburgh – BID Company Boards, Capital City Partnership and EDI Ltd.

2) To appoint Councillor Kate Campbell to serve in place of Councillor Barrie on Business Loans Scotland Ltd and on EICC Ltd and to appoint Councillor Kate Campbell as Chair of EICC.

3) To note the request for a Councillor to serve on Scotland Excel Joint Committee’s Executive Sub-Committee until June 2019.

4) To note that Councillor Gardiner had not taken up the appointment to the Wester Hailes Land and Property Trust and this position remained vacant.

- moved by Councillor Kate Campbell, seconded by Councillor Doran

Amendment

2) To appoint Councillor Kate Campbell to serve in place of Councillor Barrie on Business Loans Scotland Ltd and on EICC Ltd and to appoint Councillor Cameron as Chair of EICC.

3) To appoint Councillor Hutchison to serve on Scotland Excel Joint Committee’s Executive Sub-Committee until June 2019.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 5 of 118

4) To note that Councillor Gardiner had not taken up the appointment to the Wester Hailes Land and Property Trust and appoint Councillor Webber in his place.

- moved by Councillor Smith, seconded by Councillor Rose

In accordance with Standing Order 20(7), Paragraphs 3) and 4) of the amendment were accepted as an amendment to the motion.

Voting

For the motion (as adjusted) - 36 votes For the amendment - 25 votes

(For the motion (as adjusted): The Lord Provost and Councillors Arthur, Barrie, Bird, Booth, Bridgman, Burgess, Ian Campbell, Kate Campbell, Child, Corbett, Day, Dickie, Dixon, Donaldson, Doran, Fullerton, Gardiner, Gordon, Griffiths, Henderson, Howie, Key, Macinnes, McNeese-Mechan, McVey, Main, Miller, Munro, Perry, Rae, Rankin, Staniforth, Watt, Wilson and Work

Abstention: Councillor Cameron)

Decision

To approve the following adjusted motion by Councillor Kate Campbell:

2) To appoint Councillor Kate Campbell to serve in place of Councillor Barrie on Business Loans Scotland Ltd and on EICC Ltd and to appoint Councillor Kate Campbell as Chair of EICC.

3) To appoint Councillor Hutchison to serve on Scotland Excel Joint Committee’s Executive Sub-Committee until June 2019.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 6 of 118

4) To note that Councillor Gardiner had not taken up the appointment to the Wester Hailes Land and Property Trust and appoint Councillor Webber in his place.

(References – Act of Council No 8 of 29 June 2017; report by the Chief Executive, submitted.)

Declaration of Interests

Councillors Cameron and Smith declared a non-financial interest in the above item as Directors of EICC.

6 Chief Officer Roles

The Council had approved a Chief Officer/Chief Official executive management structure comprising, at Tier 1, a Chief Executive, Executive Director of Resources, Executive Director of Communities and Families, Executive Director of Place and Chief Officer of the Health and Social Care Partnership. The Tier 2 management structure contained a number of Head of Service roles reporting into the Tier 1 posts.

Details were provided on the current position regarding Chief Officer Roles within the Council.

Decision

1) To agree to the transfer of the reporting line for the post of Head of Safer and Stronger Communities and Chief Social Work Officer from the Chief Executive to the Executive Director of Communities and Families.

2) To agree to the deletion of the vacant post of Head of Operational Support from the Chief Officer structure of the Communities and Families Directorate.

3) To agree to the appointment, on an interim basis, of the Head of Customer to the re-designated role of Head of Customer Service and Information Technology, to be reviewed in Autumn 2018.

(References – Act of Council No 4 of 10 December 2015; report by the Chief Executive, submitted.)

7 Designation of a Council Data Protection Officer

Details were provided on the proposed designation of the post of Information Governance Manager as the Council’s Data Protection Officer in line with the statutory requirements of the EU General Data Protection Regulation and the proposed Data Protection Act.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 7 of 118

Decision

1) To approve the designation of the post of Information Governance Manager as the Council’s Data Protection Officer.

2) To appoint Kevin Wilbraham as the Council’s Data Protection Officer.

3) To delegate power to the Chief Executive to make such amendments to the Scheme of Delegation to Officers to reflect new statutory requirements under the EU General Data Protection Regulation and the proposed Data Protection Act as necessary.

4) To ask the Chief Executive to bring recommendations back to the June Council meeting.

(Reference – report by the Chief Executive, submitted.)

8 Chief Officer Appointments – Communities and Families

Details were provided on recommendations of the Recruitment Committee on the appointment of the roles of Head of Children’s Services and Chief Social Work Officer/ Head of Safer and Stronger Communities.

Decision

1) To appoint Bernadette Oxley, as Head of Children’s Services and Jackie Irvine, as Chief Social Work Officer/ Head of Safer and Stronger Communities subject to the appropriate pre-employment checks.

2) To note the decision not to recruit permanently to the Head of Operational Support but maintain the interim arrangements currently in place until the new appointees were in post.

(Reference – report by the Executive Director for Communities and Families, submitted.)

9 Webcating of Public Meetings – Motion by Councillor Miller

The Council had agreed a motion by Councillor Miller calling for a report into the feasibility of extending webcasting, in particular to the Pensions Committee, Licensing Board and the Edinburgh Integration Joint Board.

Details were provided on the costs involved and feasibility of extending webcasting.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 8 of 118

Decision

1) To note the costs of extending webcasting facilities to the Pensions Committee, Licensing Board and the Edinburgh Integration Joint Board.

2) To agree to offer the use of webcasting facilities to the Pensions Committee, Licensing Board and the Edinburgh Integration Joint Board.

3) To agree to a short report, 6 months from now, on how the Pensions Committee, Licensing Board and the Edinburgh Integration Joint Board had responded to the offer of webcasting facilities.

(References – Act of Council No 19 of 15 March 2018; report by the Chief Executive, submitted.)

10 Spend to Save Funding for Craiglockhart Leisure and Tennis Centre

The Finance and Resources Committee had referred a report on the requirement for spend to save funding of £285,259 for Craiglockhart Tennis Centre to support the provision of six all-weather, floodlit tennis courts to the Council for approval.

Decision

To approve the use of the spend to save funding of £285,259 for Craiglockhart Tennis Centre to support the provision of six all-weather, floodlit tennis courts.

(References – Finance and Resources Committee, 27 March 2018 (item 16); referral from the Finance and Resources Committee, submitted)

Declaration of Interests

Councillors Bruce, Dixon, Osler, Staniforth and Wilson declared a non-financial interest in the above item as members of the Board of Edinburgh Leisure.

11 City Strategy Investment Fund – Powderhall Stables

The Housing and Economy Committee had referred a report on the City Strategic Investment Fund (CSIF) which outlined a proposal for the allocation of £500,000 to support the restoration and refurbishment of Powderhall Stables, to the Council for approval.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 9 of 118

Decision

To approve the allocation of £500,000 from the CSIF for the restoration and refurbishment of Powderhall Stables, subject to sufficient grant funding being secured from other sources to enable the project to proceed.

(References - Housing and Economy Committee 22 March 2018 (item 13); referral from the Housing and Ecomnomy Committee, submitted)

12 City Strategic Investment Fund - Motion by Councillor Jim Campbell

The following motion by Councillor Jim Campbell was submitted in terms of Standing Order 16:

“Council:

Ask Officers for a report to Council within one cycle outlining options to maintain the real value of the City Strategic Investment Fund, so it can accurately be described as “evergreen”.”

Decision

To approve the motion by Councillor Jim Campbell subject to the report called for being considered by the Housing and Economy Committee.

13 No Ball Games Signs - Motion by Councillor Mary Campbell

The following motion by Councillor Mary Campbell was submitted in terms of Standing Order 16:

“Council notes the importance of physical activity for our children and young people, as a key aspect of improving both physical and mental health.

Council believes that ‘No Ball Games’ signs are unenforceable, serve no purpose and will discourage people from enjoying physical activity.

Council agrees to bring Housing greenspace policy in line with Parks and Greenspace policy, and to remove all ‘No Ball Games’ signs from Housing greenspace land.”

Motion

To approve the motion by Councillor Mary Campbell.

- moved by Councillor Staniforth, seconded by Councillor Miller

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 10 of 118

Amendment

Deletes all after “Council notes the importance of physical activity for our children and young people, as a key aspect of improving both physical and mental health.” and replaces with:

“Council recognises that decisions taken in relation to HRA land must be made in consultation with tenants and residents.

Council requests that officers bring forward a report in one cycle to Housing and Economy Committee on how best to consult with tenants on the issue of No Ball Games signage, recognising the importance of physical activity to health and well being whilst also respecting the right of tenants and residents to shape their communities”.

- moved by Councillor Kate Campbell, seconded by Councillor Cameron

In accordance with Standing Order 20(7), the amendment was accepted as an addendum to the motion.

Decision

To approve the following adjusted motion by Councillor Mary Campbell:

Council notes the importance of physical activity for our children and young people, as a key aspect of improving both physical and mental health.

Council recognises that decisions taken in relation to HRA land must be made in consultation with tenants and residents.

14 The Spartans FC Win the Scottish Lowland League Title - Motion by Councillor Brown

The following motion by Councillor Brown was submitted in terms of Standing Order 16:

“Council:

Congratulates The Spartans FC on winning the Scottish Lowland League Championship title on Saturday 14th April 2018. It is the second time the North

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 11 of 118

Edinburgh based Community Club has secured silverware having won the inaugural competition in 2013/14.

Further congratulates Head Coach Douglas Samuel, the players and back room staff who have orchestrated a phenomenal achievement in a season that went down to final game of the campaign where they lifted the trophy in front of a bumper crowd at their home ground Ainslie Park in Pilton.

Extends its support to the Club in their Play-Off games against Highland League champions Cove Rangers, the winner taking on Cowdenbeath for the right to play in next season’s Scottish Professional Football League.”

Decision

To approve the motion by Councillor Brown.

Declarations of Interest

Councillors Bird, Brown, Donaldson and Gordon declared a non-financial interest in the above item as members of the Board of Spartans.

15 Dogs in Community Centres - Motion by Councillor Laidlaw

The following motion by Councillor Laidlaw was submitted in terms of Standing Order 16:

“Council:

To examine whether current policy preventing employees taking dogs to work can be reviewed to create guidelines that allow this to happen safely within the context of Community Centres based on the benefits that interaction with dogs can bring to the communities they serve.

Asks officers to report within once cycle to the Culture and Communities Committee reviewing current policy restricting community centre employees taking dogs to work, and questioning if they should be revised, in light of research demonstrating the positive benefits that interaction with pets, through the Pets as Therapy (PAT) scheme, can bring to vulnerable adults, the lonely and hard-to-reach young people who most often access community centres.

Asks Officers to develop a set of best-practice guidelines for pets in the workplace to enable a safe trial of a ‘bring your dog to work’ scheme for centre employees; such as requirements to exercise on lead, wear collars and only be brought into public areas following approval of attendees.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 12 of 118

Recognises the concerns that some have over allergies and animal phobias and provides appropriate safe-guards such as the provision (at the owner’s expense) of a suitable kennel/crate that the animal may be restricted to.”

Motion

To approve the motion by Councillor Laidlaw.

- moved by Councillor Laidlaw, seconded by Councillor Rose

Amendment

To take no action on the matter.

- moved by Councillor Rankin, seconded by Councillor Donaldson

Voting

The voting was as follows:

For the motion - 19 votes For the amendment - 43 votes

(For the motion: Councillors Brown, Bruce, Jim Campbell, Cook, Doggart, Douglas, Graczyk, Hutchison, Johnston, Laidlaw, McLellan, Mitchell, Mowat, Ritchie, Rose, Rust, Smith, Webber and Whyte

For the amendment: The Lord Provost and Councillors Aldridge, Arthur, Bird, Booth, Bridgman, Burgess, Cameron, Ian Campbell, Kate Campbell, Child, Corbett, Day, Dickie, Dixon, Donaldson, Doran, Fullerton, Gardiner, Gloyer, Gordon, Griffiths, Henderson, Howie, Key, Lang, Macinnes, McNeese-Mechan, McVey, Main, Miller, Munro, Osler, Perry, Rae, Rankin, Neil Ross, Staniforth, Watt, Wilson, Work and Young.)

Decision

To approve the amendment by Councillor Rankin.

16 EVOC Celebration 150 Years - Motion by Councillor Osler

The following motion by Councillor Osler was submitted in terms of Standing Order 16:

“Council:

 Congratulates the Edinburgh Voluntary Organisation Council (EVOC) on reaching its 150th anniversary this year.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 13 of 118

 Notes all the hard work and dedication this organisation has put into addressing health and social issues within the city and its continuing support of third sector organisations.

 Looks forward to working with EVOC for the next 150 years. and asks the Lord Provost to mark this in an appropriate way.”

Decision

To approve the motion by Councillor Osler.

17 Commonwealth Games - Motion by Councillor Osler

The following motion by Councillor Osler was submitted in terms of Standing Order 16:

“Council:

 Congratulates all the Scottish athletes that have recently taken part in the Commonwealth Games on the Gold Coast in Australia.

 Thanks them for their dedication and commitment to their sport.

 Recognises the support provided by the coaches, staff and families, without whom the athletes would not be able to participate.

 Recognises the many benefits of participatory sport and the impact physical activity has in improving mental as well as physical health. and asks the Lord Provost to mark this in an appropriate way.”

Decision

To approve the motion by Councillor Osler

18 Exit Pay Gap - Motion by Councillor Graczyk

The following motion by Councillor Graczyk was submitted in terms of Standing Order 16:

“Council,

1. Notes, that the UK Government has brought forward legislation to implement a £95,000 individual exit payment cap for public sector employees when they leave employment and those earning £80,000 or more will need to repay

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 14 of 118

specified exit payments if they are re-employed in the public sector within 12 months;

2. Further notes, that devolution gives the Scottish Government powers over severance deals and that it consulted last year on A Severance Policy for Scotland;

3. Recognises, that severance arrangements should be fair and equitable while providing value for money for taxpayers in Edinburgh and elsewhere in Scotland;

4. Condemns, the unacceptable practice of public sector bodies awarding lucrative golden good-bye deals which are not proportionate or justifiable;

5. Requests, the Council Leader / Convener of the Finance and Resources Committee write to the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Constitution to ask how the Scottish Government is taking forward severance policy in the light of UK Government progress on this issue and its own consultation last year and confirming Council’s support for the implementation of an exit payment cap to curb excessive unjustified payments. Thus, providing more money for public services benefiting the Edinburgh taxpayers.”

Motion

To approve the motion by Councillor Graczyk.

- moved by Councillor Graczyk, seconded by Councillor Rust

Amendment

Council:

Approves paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the motion by Cllr Graczyk.

Deletes paragraphs 4 and 5 and replaces with:

4) Notes that Edinburgh Council does not have any private contractual arrangements with any staff (up to and including Chief Officials) to make exit payments or ‘golden good-bye’ type payments;

5) Notes that the Scottish Government is taking forward severance policy following a consultation which closed in June last year and notes that the Government has updated the Public Audit and Post-Legislative Scrutiny Committee Convener in writing on the 15th of March 2018 setting out how this is being taken forward. Also notes that Council officers are in touch with Scottish Government officials and expect further information to be published this year.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 15 of 118

- moved by Councillor Rankin, seconded by Councillor Donaldson

In accordance with Standing Order 20(7), the amendment was accepted as an addendum to the motion

Decision

To approve the following adjusted motion by Councillor Graczyk:

1) Notes, that the UK Government has brought forward legislation to implement a £95,000 individual exit payment cap for public sector employees when they leave employment and those earning £80,000 or more will need to repay specified exit payments if they are re-employed in the public sector within 12 months;

2) Further notes, that devolution gives the Scottish Government powers over severance deals and that it consulted last year on A Severance Policy for Scotland;

3) Recognises, that severance arrangements should be fair and equitable while providing value for money for taxpayers in Edinburgh and elsewhere in Scotland;

4) Notes that Edinburgh Council does not have any private contractual arrangements with any staff (up to and including Chief Officials) to make exit payments or ‘golden good-bye’ type payments;

19 Condemning Antisemitism - Motion by Councillor Graczyk

The following motion by Councillor Graczyk was submitted in terms of Standing Order 16:

“Council

1. NOTES

a. the alarming rise in antisemitism across the UK in recent years and the duty of the Council and all political parties to condemn and combat it

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 16 of 118

b. the international working definition of antisemitism created by the European Union’s Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia:

i. ‘Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred towards Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed towards Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.’

c. the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) adoption of the working definition in May 2016 and the appended guide with a series of examples

d. the adoption by the UK Government of the working definition in December 2016

e. the adoption by the Scottish Government of this working definition in April 2017

2. CONDEMNS Antisemitism and all its expressions – along with Islamophobia and other forms of racism

3. ADOPTS the IHRA working definition of antisemitism

4. REAFFIRMS that criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitic. But singling out Israel for selective condemnation and opprobrium, let alone denying its right to exist or seeking its destruction, is discriminatory and hateful.

5. CELEBRATES and RESPECTS

a. Mutual respect and tolerance

b. freedom of speech

c. democracy which should be free from the hatred of antisemitism.”

Motion

To approve the motion by Councillor Graczyk.

- moved by Councillor Graczyk, seconded by Councillor Rose

Amendment

Council

1. NOTES

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 17 of 118

a. the enormous contribution of the Capital’s Jewish community through the 200 Year history of the community in Edinburgh

b. and welcomes the ambitious plans for a Jewish Cultural centre based in Edinburgh that are currently progressing and notes the Council’s support for this aspiration.

c. that Police Scotland are working with partner organisations through the Edinburgh Partnership, including the council, to tackle antisemitism and hate crime across the City.

d. the international working definition of antisemitism created by the European Union’s Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia:

‘Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred towards Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed towards Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.’

e. the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) adoption of the working definition in May 2016 and the appended guide with a series of examples.

f. the adoption by the UK Government of the working definition in December 2016.

g. the adoption by the Scottish Government of this working definition in April 2017

2. CONDEMNS Antisemitism and all its expressions – along with Islamophobia and all forms of racism.

3. ADOPTS the IHRA working definition of antisemitism.

4. NOTES that the definition of anti-Semitism does not preclude criticism of specific actions of the Israeli Government or engaging in respectful political debate and highlighting important human issues but denying Israel’s right to exist or seeking its destruction is discriminatory and hateful.

5. CELEBRATES and RESPECTS

a. Mutual respect and tolerance

b. freedom of speech

c. democracy which should be free from antisemitism’s hatred.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 18 of 118

- moved by Councillor McVey, seconded by Councillor Day

In accordance with Standing Order 20(7), the amendment was accepted as an addendum to the motion together with Paragraph 1(a) of the motion.

Decision

To approve the following adjusted motion:

Council

1 NOTES

a. the alarming rise in antisemitism across the UK in recent years and the duty of the Council and all political parties to condemn and combat it

b. the enormous contribution of the Capital’s Jewish community through the 200 Year history of the community in Edinburgh

c. and welcomes the ambitious plans for a Jewish Cultural centre based in Edinburgh that are currently progressing and notes the Council’s support for this aspiration.

d. that Police Scotland are working with partner organisations through the Edinburgh Partnership, including the council, to tackle antisemitism and hate crime across the City.

e. the international working definition of antisemitism created by the European Union’s Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia:

f. the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) adoption of the working definition in May 2016 and the appended guide with a series of examples.

g. the adoption by the UK Government of the working definition in December 2016.

h. the adoption by the Scottish Government of this working definition in April 2017

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 19 of 118

2. CONDEMNS Antisemitism and all its expressions – along with Islamophobia and all forms of racism.

3. ADOPTS the IHRA working definition of antisemitism.

5. CELEBRATES and RESPECTS

a. Mutual respect and tolerance

b. freedom of speech

c. democracy which should be free from antisemitism’s hatred.

20 CEC BSL Interpreter and Stenographer Agency - Motion by Councillor Graczyk

The following motion by Councillor Graczyk was submitted in terms of Standing Order 16:

“Council:

1. Recognises, an acute shortage of BSL Interpreters and Stenographers to facilitate for Deaf people to fully participate in workplace and in everyday lives in Edinburgh and throughout Scotland.

2. Calls, for a report in two or three cycles on the potential for a working partnership between the City of Edinburgh Council as a service provider agency and Skills Development Scotland as promoter, and Heriot Watt University and Edinburgh College as trainers to better facilitate for Deaf people and the BSL National Plan.

3. Requests, that said report includes, but is not limited to:

(a) Outcomes of liaising with:

i. Skills Development Scotland as possible promoter and partner

ii. Edinburgh College as possible provider of stenography course and partner

iii. Heriot Watt as provider of an established ‘BSL (Interpreting, Translating and Applied Language Studies), MA (Hons)’ course and as possible partner.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 20 of 118

(b) consideration of the operation of BSL Interpreter & Stenographer agencies elsewhere and its relationship with the Third sector and other external bodies, especially those representatives of Deaf people;

(c) consideration of ‘spend to save’ by facilitating a full cost service to the private sector and a special rates service for Third sector, Public sector, outside & arm’s length organisations connected to the Council;

(d) consideration of money raised going towards public services, and especially towards equipment for Deaf children in Schools as this provision is presently affecting other parts of the Education budget;

(e) the level of civic and budgetary support required by the Council;

(f) consideration of funding support from Skills Development Scotland, Heriot Watt, and Edinburgh College;

(g) seek and consider the views of Deaf people during the development process;

(h) recommends, setting up a working group to look at best practice in implementing this initiative in other councils and how the City of Edinburgh Council could improve its performance so it is not just compliant but a leader in this field.”

Motion

To approve the motion by Councillor Graczyk.

- moved by Councillor Graczyk, seconded by Councillor Mitchell

Amendment

Council:

Recognises the shortage of BSL Interpreters and Stenographers as detailed in paragraph 1 of the motion.

As this is a national issue, agrees that the Council Leader raise it through COSLA with a view to COSLA reporting on the potential for a working partnership between Scottish Councils and other relevant agencies, taking account of the issues raised in paragraph 3 of the motion.

- moved by Councillor Day, seconded by Councillor McVey

In accordance with Standing Order 20(7), the amendment was accepted as an addendum to the motion.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 21 of 118

Decision

To approve the following amended motion by Councillor Graczyk:

Council:

1. Recognises, an acute shortage of BSL Interpreters and Stenographers to facilitate for Deaf people to fully participate in workplace and in everyday lives in Edinburgh and throughout Scotland.

3. Requests, that said report includes, but is not limited to:

(a) Outcomes of liaising with:

i. Skills Development Scotland as possible promoter and partner

ii. Edinburgh College as possible provider of stenography course and partner

iii. Heriot Watt as provider of an established ‘BSL (Interpreting, Translating and Applied Language Studies), MA (Hons)’ course and as possible partner.

(e) the level of civic and budgetary support required by the Council;

(f) consideration of funding support from Skills Development Scotland, Heriot Watt, and Edinburgh College;

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 22 of 118

(g) seek and consider the views of Deaf people during the development process;

4. As this is a national issue, agrees that the Council Leader raise it through COSLA with a view to COSLA reporting on the potential for a working partnership between Scottish Councils and other relevant agencies, taking account of the issues raised in paragraph 3 above.

21 Best Bib N Tucker CIC - Motion by Councillor Rust

The following motion by Councillor Rust was submitted in terms of Standing Order 16:

“Council:

1) Congratulates Best Bib N Tucker CIC, a social enterprising organisation, on the award of £116,828 from the National Lottery, which funding will be used to provide a range of community activities in Oxgangs for all ages, centred around sewing, clothing and furniture upcycling.

2) Notes that since this social enterprise, which produces clothing for adults and children, was founded by Faith Dewar, Eileen Jubb and Lesley Lynch, it has had a focus on promoting social inclusion, minimising isolation and stigma and providing community education and learning in a friendly, relaxed environment in Oxgangs.

3) Wishes Best Bib N Tucker CIC and all its volunteers a successful future in its new premises in Firrhill Neuk as it continues its excellent community focused work.”

Decision

To approve the motion by Councillor Rust.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 23 of 118

22 Colinton Mains Bowling Club - Motion by Councillor Rust

The following motion by Councillor Rust was submitted in terms of Standing Order 16:

“Council:

1) Notes with regret the planned closure of Colinton Mains Bowling Club at the end of this bowling season in September due to falling membership and rising costs;

2) Further notes the Club which caters for men and women, has participated over many years in the Senior Men’s League, Ladies Friendlies, Junior and internal competitions;

3) Recognises that off the green, the Club has played a key community role as a social hub and meeting place and thanks the Committee for its efforts;

4) Is advised that the Lord Provost is very welcome to the Club during this final season to ‘throw a bowl’;

5) Reassures the local community that the Council owned ground on Oxgangs Road North will on termination of the Bowling Club lease be maintained by the City Council and that any subsequent transaction of sale, lease, or otherwise in relation to the ground will follow all due process and appropriate neighbour notifications and community engagement.”

Decision

To approve the motion by Councillor Rust.

23 Closure of Sighthill Health Centre - Motion by Councillor Graczyk

The following motion by Councillor Graczyk was submitted in terms of Standing Order 16:

“Council,

1) Notes, one of the three practices (Dr Helga Rhein Practice) based at Sighthill Health Centre is closing next month of June 2018;

2) Further notes, that 3500 patients are being expected to split between the existing medical practices in nearby area with restricted or closed lists. This does not include the further 1000 people who will be housed in the new builds

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 24 of 118

behind the current clinic or the new homes being built at Longstone and the Gyle;

3) Requests, that the Council Leader and Chair of Integration Joint Board write to the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport to request:

a) reconsideration of decision to close that practice at Sighthill Health Centre

b) an explanation of how the Scottish Government expects to facilitate for the current 3500 patients as well as the 1000 new patients, when all medical practices in nearby area have closed or restricted lists

c) an explanation of what action is being taken to address the immense GP shortages to prevent further local surgeries from closing

4) Further requests, that the date and contents of any response received by the Cabinet Secretary for Health & Sports would be revealed at the next available Full Council by the Council Leader and Chair of Integration Joint Board.”

Decision

To note that Councillor Graczyk had withdrawn her motion.

24 Brain Tumour Action - Motion by Councillor Henderson

The following motion by Councillor Henderson was submitted in terms of Standing Order 16:

“Council:

Recognises the valuable work undertaken by Brain Tumour Action in supporting people affected by brain tumours and their families and carers, all of which is carried out by volunteers.

Notes that Brain Tumour Action is the oldest brain tumour charity in the UK, having been founded in 1993 as an early example of a patient / professional partnership.

Congratulates Brain Tumour Action on reaching its 25th anniversary and requests the Lord Provost to mark the anniversary in an appropriate manner.”

Decision

To approve the motion by Councillor Henderson.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 25 of 118

25 Gracemount High School – UNICEF Gold Award for Rights Respecting School - Motion by Councillor Macinnes

The following motion by Councillor Macinnes was submitted in terms of Standing Order 16:

“Council congratulates Gracemount High School, in the Liberton/Gilmerton ward, on the school’s considerable achievement in being awarded the UNICEF Gold award for Rights Respecting Schools. This is a first for an Edinburgh local authority secondary school and reflects the hard work, dedication and energy of Mr Ross Hunter, the head teacher, the teaching and support staff and, above all, the school students and the school community.”

Decision

To approve the motion by Councillor Macinnes.

26 Great Get Together 2018 - Motion by Councillor Day

The following motion by Councillor Day was submitted in terms of Standing Order 16:

“Council:

Notes that the Great Get Together was set up in 2016 after Jo Cox’s death and that it will be held again this year from 22-24 June, to coincide with Jo’s birthday.

Notes that the organisers hope to build on last year’s success, which saw thousands of events across the UK, and to extend the reach of the event in Scotland by involving as many cities, towns and communities as possible.

Believes that Jo Cox’s message that “we have more in common than that which divides us” has relevance today and demonstrates the spirit that politics and public service should embody.

Agrees to participate in the Great Get Together 2018 and asks the Chief Executive to liaise with the organisers and with appropriate Conveners on proposals for the event.”

Decision

To approve the motion by Councillor Day.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 26 of 118

27 Men’s World Curling Championships 2018 - Motion by Councillor Work

The following motion by Councillor Work was submitted in terms of Standing Order 16:

“Council notes the Scottish Curling Team of Hammy McMillan, Bobby Lammie, and Grant Hardie skipped by Napier student Bruce Mouat (Murrayfield curling) success at the recent Men’s World Curling Championship.

Council notes that in winning bronze they secured Scotland’s first men’s medal since 2013 and with an average age of less than 24 were one of the youngest teams competing.

Council congratulates them for their success and requests that the Lord Provost recognises this in an appropriate manner.”

Decision

To approve the motion by Councillor Work.

28 PROCESSIONS Event - Motion by the Lord Provost

The following motion by the Lord Provost was submitted in terms of Standing Order 16:

“Council notes that:

1. The PROCESSIONS event, produced in partnership by the NOW 14-18 WWI Centenary Art Commission and public art producers Artichoke, will celebrate 100 years since the People Act which gave women the right to vote and stand for public office.

2. Four PROCESSIONS parades will take place simultaneously in London, Belfast, Cardiff and Edinburgh with all events being televised in a live 2.5 hr BBC special between 1430 - 1700. The Edinburgh event is anticipated to attract over 20K participants.

3. Parade participants will carry suffragette-inspired banners created in a series of local workshops. The event will replicate the 1909 procession along Princes Street organised by the Women’s Social and Political Union (WSPU). That parade focussed on the achievements of women in the past and the opportunities for women in the future. The Museum of Edinburgh will celebrate the contribution of Edinburgh’s women to the suffrage movement

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 27 of 118

through an exhibition ‘Their work is not forgotten’ which will run from 8 June to 14 October.

4. Due to the live coverage of PROCESSIONS on the BBC, and the likely popularity of this unique historic event, it is recommended that the parade be allowed use of the East End of Princes Street (from the Mound to North Bridge).

Council approves the recommendation to allow the PROCESSIONS Parade along the East End of Princes Street, from the mound, on Sunday 10th June 2018.”

Decision

To approve the motion by the Lord Provost.

29 Schools – Inspection and Maintenance Regime - Motion by Councillor Perry

The following motion by Councillor Perry was submitted in terms of Standing Order 16:

“Given the latest series of incidents at Oxgangs Primary School, the Council no longer has full confidence that the present inspection and maintenance regime carried out by Edinburgh Schools Partnership (ESP) is sufficient to ensure the safety of the teachers, support staff, pupils and parents who are using the PPP1 school buildings.

Consequently, the Council notes,

1) ESP is the company responsible for building, maintaining, and operating the city’s 17 PPP1 schools on behalf of the Council and has the contractual responsibility for the ongoing maintenance and inspection of these buildings.

And instructs officials to,

2) Review the contract and ensure that ESP deliver their obligations in full to ensure that all PPP1 schools are safe and compliant as per the contract. This should involve the regular inspection of all PPP1 schools by an independent surveyor, where considered necessary by the Council. ESP should carry out any remedial work promptly and this should be checked to the satisfaction of the Council, using independent inspections.”

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 28 of 118

Motion

To approve the following adjusted motion by Councillor Perry:

Given the latest series of incidents at Oxgangs Primary School, the Council no longer has full confidence that the present inspection and maintenance regime carried out by Edinburgh Schools Partnership (ESP) is sufficient to ensure the safety of the teachers, support staff, pupils and parents who are using the PPP1 school buildings.

Consequently, the Council notes, 1) ESP is the company responsible for building, maintaining, and operating the city’s 17 PPP1 schools on behalf of the Council and has the contractual responsibility for the ongoing maintenance and inspection of these buildings. And instructs officials to,

2) Review the contract and ensure that ESP deliver their obligations in full to ensure that all PPP1 schools are safe and compliant as per the contract. This should involve the regular inspection of all PPP1 schools by an independent surveyor, when considered necessary by the Council. ESP should carry out any remedial work promptly and this should be checked to the satisfaction of the Council, using independent inspections.

- moved by Councillor Perry, seconded by Councillor Dickie

Amendment 1

Council further requests reports back to Finance and Resources Committee regarding the outcome of said inspections to ensure full contractual compliance as set out above, which reports will be publicly available.

- moved by Councillor Rust, seconded by Councillor Jim Campbell

Amendment 2

To add to the adjusted motion:

Add further paragraph:

3. Further requests an outline of a) what contact there has been with ESP shareholders and their role in ensuring that ESP meets the expectations of the council and school communities; b) arrangements in future years for rigorous contract performance monitoring and c) the extent to which arrangements for new school procurement now take account of lessons emerging from these PPP1 contracts.

- moved by Councillor Corbett, seconded by Councillor Main

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 29 of 118

In accordance with Standing Order 20(7), the motion was adjusted, Amendment 1 was adjusted and accepted as an addendum to the motion and amendment 2 was accepted as an addendum to the motion.

Decision

To approve the following amended motion by Councillor Perry:

Consequently, the Council notes,

And instructs officials to,

2) Review the contract and ensure that ESP deliver their obligations in full to ensure that all PPP1 schools are safe and compliant as per the contract. This should involve the regular inspection of all PPP1 schools by an independent surveyor, when considered necessary by the Council. ESP should carry out any remedial work promptly and this should be checked to the satisfaction of the Council, using independent inspections.

Council further requests reports back to Finance and Resources Committee on a) the new inspection regime prior to its implementation; and b) the outcome of said inspections to ensure full contractual compliance as set out above, which reports will be publicly available.

Council further requests

3) an outline of a) what contact there has been with ESP shareholders and their role in ensuring that ESP meets the expectations of the council and school communities; b) arrangements in future years for rigorous contract performance monitoring and c) the extent to which arrangements for new school procurement now take account of lessons emerging from these PPP1 contracts.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 30 of 118

30 Damage to Parks - Motion by Councillor Staniforth

The following motion by Councillor Staniforth was submitted in terms of Standing Order 16:

“Council Notes:

That the damage done to Sighthill Park by an event leaving in bad weather on April 9th is only the most recent in a string of cases of an event damaging the park in which it takes place.

That while such events enrich the city's cultural life that should not be to the detriment of parks which are a valuable asset to local people.

Therefore Council:

Calls for a report within two cycles on park events in the last three years where there has been damage to the ground detailing:

• The type of damage,

• The causes of the damage,

• How the costs of restoration were met and to what extent,

• How long the ground was out of use for the public,

• The details on the leases given to the damaging events and how those leases were enforced and

• What mitigating action can be taken for future events to prevent damage and cover full costs of restoration.

This report should go to the South West and South East Locality Committees and then to Transport and Environment Committee.”

Decision

To approve the following adjusted motion by Councillor Staniforth

Council Notes:

That the damage done to Sighthill Park by an event leaving in bad weather on April 9th is only the most recent in a string of cases of an event damaging the park in which it takes place.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 31 of 118

That while such events enrich the city's cultural life that should not be to the detriment of parks which are a valuable asset to local people.

Therefore Council:

Calls for a report within two cycles on park events in the last three years where there has been damage to the ground detailing:

• The type of damage,

• The causes of the damage,

• How the costs of restoration were met and to what extent,

• How long the ground was out of use for the public,

• The details on the leases given to the damaging events and how those leases were enforced and

• What mitigating action can be taken for future events to prevent damage and cover full costs of restoration.

This report should go to all four Locality Committees and then to Transport and Environment Committee.

31 Cross Party Disability Forum - Motion by the Councillor Graczyk

The following motion by the Councillor Graczyk was submitted in terms of Standing Order 16:

“Council:

1. Recognises, the public-sector duty in promoting equalities and disability rights.

2. Aims, to create a collaborative, cross-party disability forum led by disabled people, including Councillors, Council staff and relevant third sector bodies, to act as a platform to advocate and share ideas which can empower and contribute to disability-inclusive development in public services, and to look at best practice in implementing this duty within the Council’s remit.

3. Calls, for a report to:

a) audit current activities by the City of Edinburgh Council to meet its legislative duty at present.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 32 of 118

b) assess whether a forum might improve this further and in what ways: how best to implement it, how to evidence and assess, how complaints are dealt with, how it such activity can be mainstreamed and how to provide comparison with other public-sector bodies.

c) consider how disabled Council employees, as well as cross-party Councillors, might be involved.

d) consider the operation of a forum to include, but not limited to:

i. the review polices relevant to disabled people.

ii. innovative ideas which enhance disabled peoples’ own capacities.

iii. support and advice on how public services could be improved for disabled people in a sustainable and person-centred manner.

iv. promotion of independent living, free choice, and control for users.

v. focus and monitor on quality and evaluation of services for disabled people.

vi. exploration of potential for joint initiatives of relevant groups involving the Council, disability specialist agencies, relevant stakeholders, including the third sector, and cross-party elected members.

vii. Investigation of how services and other relevant advice could be best delivered to all relevant stakeholders and disabled people to ensure the best support is provided for disabled people and their families.”

Decision

To approve the following adjusted motion by Councillor Graczyk:

Council:

1. Recognises, the public-sector duty in promoting equalities and disability rights.

2. Calls, for a report to:

a) audit current activities by the City of Edinburgh Council to meet its legislative duty at present.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 33 of 118

c) consider how disabled Council employees, as well as cross-party Councillors, might be involved.

d) consider the operation of a forum to include, but not limited to:

i. the review polices relevant to disabled people.

ii. innovative ideas which enhance disabled peoples’ own capacities.

iii. support and advice on how public services could be improved for disabled people in a sustainable and person-centred manner.

iv. promotion of independent living, free choice, and control for users.

v. focus and monitor on quality and evaluation of services for disabled people.

32 Gender Pay Gap - Motion by the Councillor Miller

The following motion by the Councillor Miller was submitted in terms of Standing Order 16:

“Council:

1. Notes that the deadline on 4 April 2018 for private and voluntary sector employers to publish gender pay gap information under The Equality Act 2010 (Gender Pay Gap Information) Regulations 2017 has caused widespread national discussion and debate regarding the gender pay gap.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 34 of 118

2. Notes that Close The Gap has advised that The City of Edinburgh Council may not have fully met the requirements of its public sector equality duty, as per The Equality Act 2010 (Specific Duties) (Scotland) Regulations 2012 as amended, which required the Council to report a single gender pay gap figure covering the whole organisation by the deadline of 30 April 2017.

3. Calls for Council to meet its duties to report a single gender pay gap figure covering the whole organisation in one cycle.

4. Further, calls for a report detailing the gender breakdown of Council workers by grade and type of role, analysing any emerging patterns of occupational segregation which may contribute to the pay gap, to be reviewed at the Finance and Resources Committee.”

Decision

To note that Councillor Miller had withdrawn her motion.

33 Localities Funding Review - Motion by the Councillor Graczyk

The following motion by the Councillor Graczyk was submitted in terms of Standing Order 16:

“Council: a) Notes, under the newly formed four Localities structure the total devolved budget represents less than 1% of the total Council budget, including the Neighbourhood Environmental Programme and Community Grant Fund; b) Recognises, it has been over ten years since there has been a funding methodology review to address this historical imbalance; c) Further recognises, that funding allocations should be fair and equitable while providing value for money for taxpayers in Edinburgh; d) Calls, for a report in one cycle to the Finance and Resources Committee on exploring the clear factors influencing the budget allocations and its context; e) Requests, that said report includes, but is not limited to:

1. The current spend on council services in each locality broken down by service area;

2. clarification of current funding allocation methodology being used and what budget is currently devolved to Localities;

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 35 of 118

3. consideration of best methodology and compatibility of allocation of funding between the four Localities;

4. consideration on what further budgets could be devolved to support the key purpose of the four Local Improvement Plans, including Reduction of Poverty and Inequality;

5. consideration on whether resources should be balanced geographically and allocated according to need or as equality of funding between the Localities;

6. consideration for revised allocation methodology to be based on the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD) data.”

Decision

To approve the following adjusted motion by Councillor Graczyk

Council: a) Notes, under the newly formed four Localities structure the total devolved budget represents less than 1% of the total Council budget, including the Neighbourhood Environmental Programme and Community Grant Fund; b) Recognises, it has been over ten years since there has been a funding methodology review to address this historical imbalance; c) Further recognises, that funding allocations should be fair and equitable while providing value for money for taxpayers in Edinburgh; d) Calls, for a report to the Finance and Resources Committee on exploring the clear factors influencing the budget allocations and its context; e) Requests, that said report includes, but is not limited to:

1. The current spend on council services in each locality broken down by service area;

2. clarification of current funding allocation methodology being used and what budget is currently devolved to Localities;

3. consideration of best methodology and compatibility of allocation of funding between the four Localities;

4. consideration on what further budgets could be devolved to support the key purpose of the four Local Improvement Plans, including Reduction of Poverty and Inequality;

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 36 of 118

5. consideration on whether resources should be balanced geographically and allocated according to need or as equality of funding between the Localities;

6. consideration for revised allocation methodology to be based on the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD) data

The report on 1 and 2 above to be submitted to the August 2018 Committee and the one on 3-6 above to the October 2018 Committee.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 37 of 118

Appendix 1

(As referred to in Act of Council No 2 of 3 May 2018)

QUESTION NO 1 By Councillor Burgess for answer by the Convener of the Transport and Environment Committee at a meeting of the Council on 3 May 2018

Question (1) How much climate–changing carbon dioxide pollution were each of the Council’s ten largest buildings responsible for in each of the last 5 years?

Answer (1) The Summary below details the carbon dioxide pollution for the Council’s ten largest buildings over the last five years:

The response to this question has adopted the following assumptions:

 That it relates specifically to energy consumption in a building (electricity and natural gas).  The ten largest buildings were taken to mean those with the highest energy related carbon emissions between April 17 and March 18.  The carbon factors from the Carbon Reduction Commitment Energy Efficiency Scheme (CRC) were used to determine the related carbon emissions.  Generation from Solar PV Panels is assumed to be emission free.  Gas data has been presented based on actual use.  Portobello High School falls within the top 10 buildings. To allow historic comparison, data from the old school has been included up to date of opening of the new school.  James Gillespie’s High School also falls within the top 10. Data presented is for consumption within the school site including during construction and related decant of pupils.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 38 of 118

 The 10 buildings includes PPP2 School where CEC is directly liable for consumption and emissions. PPP1 schools managed by Edinburgh Schools Partnership, have not been considered.  The majority of buildings have a fixed usage pattern (i.e. school/office) resulting in a relatively stable demand for energy. Energy use will be influenced by the severity of the weather, changes to opening hours and any (energy efficiency) works.  As a performance venue, consumption in the Usher Hall is less stable, and is influenced both by the utilisation of the venue and the amount of people attending an event. The table below includes detail on the number of events and associated income at the Usher Hall.

Usher Hall Events and Income Year No of Events 2013/14 131 2014/15 144 2015/16 155 2016/17 156 2017/18 168

Over the last five years there has been a year on year increase in the number of events at the Usher Hall. Revenue has also increased significantly indicating greater attendance at events. A lot of the increase has been down to the venue being used for Rock & Pop concerts resulting in longer days for set up teams and night shift attendance to remove and then reinstall seating. All of these factors have had a significant impact on energy consumption at the Usher Hall.

The information has been presented in both tabular and graphical formats:

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 39 of 118

Carbon Emission Data

2017/18 2016/17 2015/16 2014/15 2013/14 Waverley Court Offices 1,389 1,611 1,748 1,866 1,969 Forrester/St Augustine's High School 1,565 1,563 1,640 1,732 1,784 Wester Hailes Education Centre 1,355 1,513 1,647 1,682 1,812 James Gillespie's High School 1,080 962 586 636 507 Usher Hall 1,072 1,064 1,190 995 913 City Chambers 976 1,109 1,154 1,321 1,371 Portobello High School 916 935 925 896 981 Leith Academy 839 940 909 987 999 Broughton High School 752 805 843 844 901 Holyrood High School 738 792 837 869 847 Total 10,683 11,294 11,479 11,827 12,083

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 40 of 118

Electricity Consumption Data

Electricity Consumption (kWh) 2017/18 2016/17 2015/16 2014/15 2013/14 Waverley Court Offices 2,714,642 2,799,332 2,808,886 2,828,819 2,954,110 Forrester/St Augustine's High School 1,816,354 1,691,661 1,705,990 1,789,271 1,832,429 Wester Hailes Education Centre 1,171,999 1,461,968 1,473,260 1,480,833 1,457,133 James Gillespie's High School 1,020,022 742,036 347,802 677,537 478,613 Usher Hall 1,363,729 1,434,677 1,451,103 1,138,911 1,106,150 City Chambers 1,335,567 1,463,001 1,436,503 1,542,452 1,636,880 Portobello High School 1,046,583 860,742 671,103 697,578 724,610 Leith Academy 681,106 852,312 773,236 800,376 798,295 Broughton High School 947,761 978,693 930,665 932,682 1,007,076 Holyrood High School 983,516 1,013,549 944,622 958,716 942,010 Total 13,081,279 13,297,971 12,543,170 12,847,174 12,937,305

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 41 of 118

Gas Consumption Data

Gas Consumption (kWh) 2017/18 2016/17 2015/16 2014/15 2013/14 Waverley Court Offices 1,921,368 1,963,718 1,924,697 1,937,881 2,021,409 Forrester/St Augustine's High 4,745,652 4,395,697 4,309,813 4,216,259 4,317,471 School Wester Hailes Education Centre 4,941,986 4,685,485 4,975,641 4,837,589 5,573,218 James Gillespie's High School 3,761,310 3,435,985 2,246,696 1,487,148 1,350,031 Usher Hall 2,999,730 2,304,395 2,553,592 2,099,435 1,712,878 City Chambers 2,540,329 2,481,697 2,394,446 2,700,795 2,645,859 Portobello High School 2,811,157 2,995,342 3,215,100 2,839,947 3,205,478 Leith Academy 3,152,486 3,046,548 2,851,676 3,034,114 3,088,343 Broughton High School 2,124,208 2,001,341 2,067,592 1,880,397 1,938,244 Holyrood High School 1,974,379 1,847,253 1,998,959 1,938,404 1,837,533 Total 30,972,605 29,157,460 28,538,213 26,971,969 27,690,464

Question (2) How much has the Council paid out in Carbon Reduction Commitment penalties in each year since their introduction?

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 42 of 118

Answer (2) The Council has not received any penalties under the Carbon Reduction Commitment scheme since their introduction and has therefore not paid out any monies.

Question (3) What is the status of the Council’s Carbon Management Plan approved in 2015/16?

Answer (3) The Carbon Management Plan is being rolled into the Council’s wider approach to sustainability. Strategy and Insight is working with the Place Division to prioritise and deliver a joined up approach to sustainability moving forward. Council will be updated on progress within 2 cycles.

Question (4) Which senior Council officer has responsibility for environmental sustainability performance and in particular reducing the Council’s climate–changing carbon dioxide pollution?

Answer (4) The Executive Director of Place is the sustainable lead and works with officers across all Council services areas on this.

Supplementary Thanks very much Lord Provost. My question is about the Question Council's capacity to tackle climate changing pollution which is one of the Council coalition’s pledges to the city. Thanks to the Transport and Environment Convener and officers for the answers, particularly Part 1, the information about the carbon performance of the Council's top 10 buildings. This is the sort of data that the Council will need to drive a reduction in its climate-changing pollution.

Firstly can the Convener clarify the answer to Part 2 about the carbon reduction commitment as I understand the Council actually pays around £1m every year under the carbon reduction commitment and secondly on Part 3, will the Convener ensure that officers who do produce the annual report on the Council's carbon management plan, which is the Council's key driver for action on climate change, the requirement for this annual report was a clear decision of Corporate Policy and Strategy Committee, thank you.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 43 of 118

Supplementary Thank you Councillor Burgess. I too was very pleased to Answer see some of the information coming forward, I think it's important that this sits in the public domain. In terms of your query around Part 2 of your question, about the penalties paid out under the carbon reduction commitment penalties, I'm not aware of the figure that you’ve just quoted so I'll certainly be following that up with officials and will come back to you on an individual basis and if necessary back to full Council on that statement. In terms of your request around Question 3, I am very happy to comply with what you ask for, thank you.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 44 of 118

QUESTION NO 2 By Councillor Corbett for answer by the Convener of the Education, Children and Families Committee at a meeting of the Council on 3 May 2018 On behalf of myself, Councillor Rust and Councillor Arthur, and following the answers given to Councillor Rust on 15 March 2018 on Oxgangs Primary School:

Question (1) On 15 March the Council said that the incident in 2018 in which a ceiling tile became dislodged was at an end and that “all ceilings in the school have now been inspected by the PPP provider accompanied by a council officer”. In that case why did an inspection by Summers Inman on 28 March identify the following issues associated with the ceilings in the property:

• The suspended ceiling grid support wires were not installed correctly to a section of ceiling above a cloakroom;

• Sections of the suspended ceiling grid are loose and incorrectly fitted;

• Numerous light fittings housed within the suspended ceiling grid did not have support wires installed or installed correctly, as per the manufacturers recommendations;

• Several incorrectly fitted, missing or damaged ceiling tiles and ill-fitted light fittings within the suspended ceiling grids;

• Debris housed upon the top of the suspended ceilings;

• Unsecure services and missing sections of ducting within the suspended ceiling voids;

• Unsecure sheeting around services taken through the roof within the suspended ceiling voids?

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 45 of 118

Answer (1) The specific inspection referenced, conducted by Amey PLC, was carried out to establish if any similar ceiling hangers, which caused the original ceiling tile fall, where missing.

While the results of this inspection were technically correct, it does not excuse the lack of establishing other issues as identified above.

Question (2) In light of the answer to 1 what steps has the Council taken to independently verify assurances given by the PPP provider for work done in Oxgangs PS and in other buildings for which it is responsible?

Answer (2) The Council commissioned a series of robust and independent tactile roof surveys and ceiling void surveys on all PPP1 properties during the Easter school break 2018.

In addition, following the initial roof and ceiling surveys at Oxgangs Primary School, a further independent condition survey was carried during the Easter break. Checks were also made on 16 April 2018 to ensure that any works required from these surveys was completed before the school reopened on 17 April 2018.

Question (3) What action is the Council taking to ensure that the PPP provider is carrying out future inspection and repairs and maintenance to an acceptable standard?

Answer (3) The Council PPP monitoring team regularly check the on- site documentation, ensuring that the service subcontractor has completed planned maintenance works, both statutory and non-statutory, across the PPP estate. Additionally, the Council’s PPP monitoring team measures the facilities management provider against the Service Level Specification. Any performance or availability failures are subsequently logged with the helpdesk for rectification with a predetermined time to rectify any defects, dependent on the risk profile. School feedback is also provided through formal monthly meetings with the Council’s monitoring team and Amey PLC.

Detailed discussions are continuing with the Edinburgh Schools Partnership (ESP) to ensure that the Council can

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 46 of 118

have sufficient confidence and assurance about these arrangements for the future.

Question (4) What steps has the Council taken to assess whether and to what extent the PPP provider is in breach of contract and what options are open to the council if so?

Answer (4) The Council continues to take comprehensive legal and technical advice, both internal and external, in relation to the contract and the obligations of ESP. The Council remains focussed upon complex negotiations with ESP with regard to the initial incident and school closures in 2016, the issues highlighted by Professor John Cole in his independent report and these latest issues identified across the PPP1 estate.

Whilst recognising the inherent complexity of the contractual arrangements, the Council’s position is that ESP will be held fully accountable for any failures in the provision of services and, where necessary and appropriate to do so, will take formal legal action.

Question (5) What discussions has the Council had with Scottish Government officials and/or Ministers on the issue and what support have they offered?

Answer (5) The Council has been in regular contact with the Scottish Government on these issues, including correspondence with Ministers and has provided status updates to officials on the independent checks conducted during the Easter break. The Scottish Government offered the support of the Scottish Futures Trust in relation to the contractual issues with ESP to ensure that the widest possible range of expertise and experience is brought to bear. This offer of support was readily accepted and Council officers commenced dialogue with the Scottish Futures Trust in this regard as part of the ongoing discussions with ESP.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 47 of 118

Supplementary Thanks Lord Provost, for the purpose of the webcast I asked Question a series of questions about the repairs issues at Oxgangs Primary School in the last couple of months. Lord Provost, I asked these questions on behalf of myself and Councillors Arthur and Rust because it's really important for the school community to see that Councillors are working across the two wards that span the catchment area of the school and also across political boundaries. I also want to ask a supplementary in relation to a very well attended and well- informed meeting last night of parents, a senior management including the Chief Executive of the Council and the contractor at Oxgangs Primary School which raised a number of important questions. So two things just to clarify on, in relation to Answer (3) which is about how the Council ensures that we have confidence in future maintenance arrangements, can the Convener say why an identified fire-risk assessment in December 2016 identified a number of follow-up actions for Oxgangs Primary School which don't appear to have been implemented, so that’s the first supplementary.

Secondly in relation to Answer (5) which is about a dialogue with the Scottish Government, can the Convener say what we're doing to ensure that the future schools programme that we discussed at length in our budget debate learns the lessons of these PP1 contracts and doesn't get ourselves into the same kind of problems of complexity and accountability.

Supplementary On the first question to in relation to Question (3), I don't Answer have that detail but I’ll obviously get it for you. In relation to Question (5), we will be discussing that later in terms of the motion that we have all jointly put down in terms of inspections, but it would be certainly be my intention that when the next round of PPP contracts come forward, we’ll make sure that that is one of the issues that we deal with and deal with it at the beginning of the contracts not halfway through them.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 48 of 118

QUESTION NO 3 By Councillor Lang for answer by the Convener of the Transport and Environment Committee at a meeting of the Council on 3 May 2018

Question (1) On what date did the Convener or Council officers respond to the Edinburgh Airport Noise Action Plan consultation?

Answer (1) Council Officers submitted a response to the Edinburgh Airport Noise Action Plan consultation on the 29 March 2018. The deadline for responses was on the 2 April 2018. The Council Leader and Deputy Leader signed off the final response.

Question (2) Will she publish a copy of the response submitted?

Answer (2) Yes. The City of Edinburgh Council granted permission to Edinburgh Airport to publish the response when completing the survey. In advance of Edinburgh Airport publishing our response a copy will be circulated to members and it will be included within the Transport and Environment Business Bulletin.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 49 of 118

QUESTION NO 4 By Councillor Lang for answer by the Convener of the Finance and Resources Committee at a meeting of the Council on 3 May 2018

Question Does the total grant funding allocated to the Council by the Scottish Government for 2018/19 represent a real terms increase or decrease on the funding received in 2017/18?

Answer

Cash-terms Real-terms £m £m Unadjusted change in grant funding, 8.6 1.24% 2018/19 -1.5 -0.22% New monies included within headline -11.4 -11.3 Settlement but with associated Scottish Government commitments (primarily Early Years and Childcare expansion, continuing payment of the Living Wage in the adult social care sector, Carers' Act implementation and full-year effect of the teachers' pay settlement effective from January 2018).

Like-for-like change in revenue grant funding, 2018/19 -2.8 -0.41% -12.8 -1.85%

Supplementary Thank you Lord Provost. On the 29th of March and at first Question minister's question time the First Minister said, and I've got the official report here, that Local Government budgets are being increased in real terms in the coming financial year. Given the Convener’s answer to my question, can he explain, I presume he agrees with his party leader, can he explain why it is that Edinburgh appears to have been singled out for a real terms cut?

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 50 of 118

Supplementary I thank Councillor Lang for his question. As no doubt Answer Councillor Lang is aware, the Scottish Government takes an all Scotland view when it comes to Local Government funding rather than taking a sectional view or favouring any particular authority and of course there’s a needs-based formula which produces the sort of outcome that we’ve seen. What I can say is that the result that we see here is far better than we anticipated at the time of the mid year review in October of last year and I acknowledge the support of the Green Party in getting us to that position.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 51 of 118

QUESTION NO 5 By Councillor Lang for answer by the Convener of the Transport and Environment Committee at a meeting of the Council on 3 May 2018

Question (1) What progress has been made on the actions which were agreed with the Dalmeny Station Residents Association following its deputation to the October meeting of the Transport and Environment Committee?

Answer (1) The actions and progress to date are covered in the table below.

Question (2) What actions remain outstanding and what timetable exists to complete these actions?

Answer (2)

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 52 of 118

Action Progress to Date Next Steps Speed/traffic survey completed. Over the next 12 months, this site will be Monitoring vehicle speed/driver behaviour monitored during the 20mph Programme Analysis of the available data suggests that review period. vehicle speeds are, on average, close to the 20mph speed limit near the residential properties and around 25mph on the “open road section” to the east. The location of the survey points have been queried, however, in general the average vehicle speeds near the residential properties are close to the 20mph speed limit.

Up to date collision data for Rosshill Terrace found no personal injury collisions noted in the standard three year search period. Over the last ten years one collision was recorded (in 2010) involving two vehicles and no pedestrians, resulting in one minor injury. The Almond Community Policing team Arrange Police speed checks have been asked to carry out police speed checks in the area. The statutory consultation process to Revisions to parking controls at Forth extend the existing waiting restrictions at Terrace the Forth Terrace junction should commence in the next 2 months.

The current proposal is to extend the double yellow lines by five metres on each side of the junction.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 53 of 118

It is expected that this process will take nine – 12 months.

The installation of a full width speed bump or table will be considered by the Council and local public transport operators. The adjacent land owner has been asked Remove foliage obstructing speed limit to arrange removal of their foliage which traffic signs is affecting signage visibility. Foliage removal is still to be completed but is expected in the next four to six weeks. Additional road markings (20 mph roundels Erect additional 20mph speed limit signs and SLOW markings) were laid at various and road markings locations in October 2017. Additional 20 mph repeater traffic signs were also erected in October 2017. The proposed Kirkliston and Queensferry Consider the impact of the route choices Traffic Study will consider the current following the opening of the Queensferry driver behaviour and traffic volume at this Crossing location, and on the Station Road corridor.

On conclusion of the study traffic management options could be considered mitigate road safety concerns, current and planned development pressures and changes in route choices in the overall area.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 54 of 118

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 55 of 118

QUESTION NO 6 By Councillor Lang for answer by the Convener of the Transport and Environment Committee at a meeting of the Council on 3 May 2018

Question (1) When was the sinkhole on Braehead Grove first reported to the Council?

Answer (1) The Council was made aware of subsidence in late September 2017. Initial investigations were carried out and a number of additional defects to the culvert were identified including several stone roof slabs which had collapsed.

Question (2) Which contractor was appointed to address the problems associated with the sinkhole and what money has been paid to them to date for work on this particular project?

Answer (2) The initial investigation and excavation works were carried out internally. Two external organisations have carried out works on this so far:

EEG - CCTV survey and vacuum debris removal works; and Creagh Concrete – fabrication of the new cover slabs.

The total cost so far has been in the region of £9,000.

Question (3) What issues are preventing the sinkhole being filled and the road being fully opened?

Answer (3) The excavation cannot be filled in until the culvert is repaired. As no suitable generic slabs are available, bespoke replacement roof slabs are being cast. It is expected that these will be available within the next two weeks and the work will be completed

The replacement roof slabs have now been cast and should be available in the next 2 weeks when the necessary strength has been reached.

It is hoped that the work will be completed within the next six weeks.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 56 of 118

Question (4) What additional communications are planned with residents on Braehead Grove and other surrounding streets following the initial letter drop?

Answer (4) A further communication regarding the work will be issued to local residents once the work dates are confirmed.

I find your use of the term sinkhole an interesting one as it conjures up visions of entire junctions in Mexico City opening up and swallowing cars! This is clearly not the case in this instance and our own home-grown version of a ‘sinkhole’ is regarded as a very small one and relates specifically to the collapse of the culvert.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 57 of 118

QUESTION NO 7 By Councillor Neil Ross for answer by the Convener of the Culture and Communities Committee at a meeting of the Council on 3 May 2018 Under Part 7 of the Antisocial Behaviour etc. (Scotland) Act 2004, the Council has the power to issue Antisocial Behaviour Notices (ASBNs) to landlords where there has been evidence of anti-social behaviour by tenants and the landlord has not taken any effective action.

Question (1) What is the Council’s policy on the issue of ASBNs

Answer The Council will consider ASBNs where appropriate and they are included in the Council’s Antisocial Behaviour Policy as one of the tools available for managing antisocial behaviour (4.2, page 4, and point 2 of the glossary on page 20 refers).

Question (2) How many ASBNs have been issued by the Council

a) in the past twelve months; and

b) in the past five years?

Answer (2) a) No ASBNs have been issued by the Council in the past twelve months.

b) No ASBNs have been issued by the Council in the past five years.

Question (3) If very few ASBNs have been issued, is it because they are ‘too difficult’ or is it because they are viewed as ineffective?

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 58 of 118

Answer (3) The Council uses the Scottish Government’s ‘Part 7 Guidance for Local Authorities’ when considering whether an ASBN is appropriate. The steps to an ASBN are described in paragraphs 21 to 38 inclusive. If considering an ASBN, officers would also seek advice from a Council solicitor specialising in antisocial behaviour remedies.

In most cases, an ASBN is not required as officers are able to resolve the antisocial behaviour through discussion with the landlord or landlord’s agent on the most appropriate approach to address the antisocial behaviour. This could

involve the landlord/landlord’s agent meeting with the tenant(s) to discuss the consequences of antisocial behaviour and/or arranging for suitable support for the tenant(s) to help sustain the private tenancy.

Supplementary Thank you Lord Provost and thank you to the Convener for Question his answer. In your answer to the third part of my question, in the smaller number of cases where an anti-social behaviour notice is or may be required or relevant can you say why it has not been issued?

Supplementary Well I don't have information on individual cases. If you Answer have information on an individual case you'd like to bring forward then certainly I can investigate it but, investigating whether it's appropriate to say of the ESPN, we take expert advice from the Council solicitor and also, but as it says in the answer, in most cases, discussion with the landlord is adequate to actually avert the anti-social behaviour. However, if you have a particular instance, I’m happy to investigate that.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 59 of 118

QUESTION NO 8 By Councillor Osler for answer by the Convener of the Transport and Environment Committee at a meeting of the Council on 3 May 2018 Several roads including Craigcrook Road which were surface dressed last year are due to be redone as the original work was so poor that it did not even survive the first frost.

Question (1) How many different sets of road repairs from last year,across the city have already been or are due to redone during 2018-19?

Answer (1) There are defects at 10 out of 26 sites which will be corrected in June/July 2018, at no cost to the Council.

Question (2) Breakdown by Ward?

Answer (2) Ward 1 – 3 sites Ward 5 – 4 sites Ward 6 – 1 site Ward 15 – 2 sites

Question (3) What investigation has been done to find out why the surface dressing did not work?

Answer (3) The Council and the Contractors (Kiely Bros.) have undertaken a detailed investigation into the problems encountered with surface dressing last year that suggests the problem is due to the late application of the dressings followed by severe frosts in December and January. It should be noted that neighbouring local authorities had similar problems with their surface dressing schemes last year. Whilst the Design Guide for Surface Dressings clearly shows that surface dressings carried out in early August are within the low risk period, the contractor has stated that the majority of other Scottish Councils try to complete their programmes by the end of July at the latest. The considered view is that surface dressings require a period of 3-4 months of good temperatures after completion to fully “bed-in” before the winter frosts arrive.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 60 of 118

Question (4) What measures have already been put in place to prevent the same issues from reoccurring and are any further measures in plan?

Answer (4) It is proposed to carry out future programmes of surface dressing at an earlier stage in the “weather window” i.e. June/July to give the dressing maximum opportunity to fully bed-in before the winter frosts arrive in October/November.

Supplementary Thank you Lord Provost and thank you very much indeed Question Convener for your responses. It's just a quick follow up. If the surface dressing still does not work, will the Convener actually consider fixing the roads properly and thereby reducing the stress for residents and businesses in the area?

Supplementary Thank you Councillor Osler. I would question you're use of Answer the term “to fix the roads properly”. If you look at the answer that has been provided to you in the written response it’s quite clear that every effort was being made to undertake the road resurfacing in the correct period of the year to allow the 3-4 months required for the proving of the surface, this is what's caused the problem.

So the problem arose because we strayed slightly into August while actually undertaking the road resurfacing work. This is a similar problem that's happened across neighbouring local authorities and reflects the way in which the weather patterns then developed across the winter months. There has been considerable work done by officers to look at exactly what has occurred with this. We are working very closely with contractors, we’re receiving reports from them about why this has occurred and I'm in possession of some quite detailed information that's been the result of very good work by the officers to rectify this situation. It's clearly something that we've had to learn from and that's something that is reflected across Scotland as well, this is not a situation that is specific to Edinburgh alone.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 61 of 118

QUESTION NO 9 By Councillor Osler for answer by the Convener of the Transport and Environment Committee at a meeting of the Council on 3 May 2018

Question (1) How many consultations across the city involving Active Travel have been suspended or had results not acted upon in the last twelve months?

Answer (1) Twelve

Question (2) Breakdown by Ward?

Answer (2) Ward 3 – One Ward 5 – Three Ward 7 – Two Ward 11 – One Ward 12 – Two Ward 15 – Two Wards 16 and 17 - One (consultation for a single project that encompasses both wards)

Question (3) At what stage was the consultation suspended - or not acted upon?

Answer (3) Eight projects were put on hold after the consultation had been completed and the consultation results had been made available to the public.

The remaining four projects were put on hold after the consultation had been completed. The work to conclude the consultation and prepare findings is now complete and the reports will be made available to the public shortly.

Question (4) What reason was given for the suspension or inaction?

Answer (4) The Council was awarded approximately £6 million of external match funding by Sustrans Scotland in September 2017, to deliver two Community Links PLUS projects that are expected to have a transformative impact on cycling in the city. These projects were in addition to the extensive programme of projects (40) already in our programme.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 62 of 118

Following this award, it was necessary to review delivery of programme for all of the projects as it was recognised that the whole programme could not be delivered concurrently.

Two of the projects which were put on hold have now been subsumed into the larger Community Links PLUS programme and will progress.

The remaining 10 projects are still on hold but the findings from the consultations which have already taken place will be used to inform the future designs when the projects progress and will be implemented as soon as possible.

Supplementary Thank you Lord Provost and thank you again Convener for Question your detailed response. It’s just a quick follow up. Why then when there are already 40 projects on the go and not sufficient resources to service them, have more consultations been started? I would just ask the Convener to reassure residents that have taken part in these consultations of the existing 10 that we have, that they will actually have priority over new consultations.

Supplementary Thank you Councillor Osler, I'm not exactly sure what you Answer mean by priority, but what I can say is that the issues that have arisen around consultations and the follow up activity not yet progressing and therefore the people who have been consulted not seeing progress on these projects, is actually, I'm perhaps stretching the truth slightly to refer to this as problems of success, but in actual fact we've been blessed with extra funding that is being given to us through the Community Links Plus project. This has caused us to have to stop and look exactly how we fulfil our active travel projects. That's one of the reasons why there's been as a substantial delay on some of these consultations going on into the next stage. What I can do is reassure the people of Edinburgh that in fact we’re looking very closely at this, about how we can respond to it. I've asked officers in particular to look at exactly what we need to do around staffing resources in the Active Travel team to allow us to start to make further moves. There's also a lot of work going on around match funding at the moment particularly in relation to Community Plus Links projects which are the sort of the big beasts of the active travel projects in our forward planning, thank you.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 63 of 118

QUESTION NO 10 By Councillor Osler for answer by the Convener of the Transport and Environment Committee at a meeting of the Council on 3 May 2018 A recent consultation regarding cycling and walking improvements in Davidsons’s Mains Park stated: “Widening of the waiting area at the signalised crossing of Queensferry Road has been allocated to a separate project where we will be looking at crossing improvements at the junction of Clermiston Road/ Queensferry Road.”

Question When is this improvement project due to take place?

Answer This project is in the early stages of development. The following actions have been progressed:  Traffic and pedestrian counts have been carried out at the junction during peak times and at the start and finish of the school day;  Video analysis to monitor traffic queue lengths and pedestrian and cyclist behaviour has been carried out:  Development, in partnership with Sustrans, of two conceptual options for improvements to the junction to assist pedestrians and cyclists;  Action to progress a feasibility study on the options and for the design of improvements. It is hoped that the feasibility study will be completed this summer and thereafter a programme for implementation will be developed.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 64 of 118

QUESTION NO 11 By Councillor Cook for answer by the Convener of the Transport and Environment Committee at a meeting of the Council on 3 May 2018

Question (1) How many individual food waste bins were distributed to households for the first time, following introduction of food waste recycling in the city?

Answer (1) The Food Waste Collection pilot commenced in January 2010 and included the distribution of 50,000 kitchen caddies and 50,000 kerbside food waste bins.

Question (2) In total, how many requests have been received for replacement food waste bins each year since introduction, due to them being reported as broken, lost or stolen?

Answer (2) Table 1 below provides details of the number of food waste caddies and kerbside food waste bins requested between 2013 and October 2017. The information includes requests for food waste kitchen caddies and food waste kerbside bins (food individual) that were requested as part of the introduction of the new recycling service. It is not possible to determine if these requests were because the bins were lost, stolen, damaged or missing.

Question (3) What cost has the Council incurred in issuing these replacement bins?

Answer (3) The typical current price quoted using the Scotland Excel Framework for procurement is £2.60 per unit. This equates to £154,502 (sets although reported as a single figure include 2 bins) for the replacement of bins for the period 2013-2017.

The Council is unable to provide exact costs for the delivery of these items as they are included as part of a mixed load of bin deliveries taking place that day.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 65 of 118

Question (4) Is the Waste and Cleansing Department completely satisfied that the food waste bins issued are of a sufficient robustness and durability to provide quality and value to council tax payers?

Answer (4) The Council sources food waste bins from suppliers on the Scotland Excel Framework for Recycle and Refuse Containers. All tenders to the Framework were assessed by Scotland Excel and a panel of officers from participating local authorities. All successful tenderers met the quality criteria specified by Scotland Excel.

Question (5) If not, what action has been taken to investigate introduction of more robust and durable food waste bins to households across the city?

Answer (5) N\A

Table 1: Requests for food waste containers by year/type

New Year Damaged Lost Missing Recycling Stolen Grand Total Service 2013 Food Caddy 2 17 11 2 32 Food Individual 60 174 74 15 323 355 2014 Food Caddy 126 343 927 53 1449 Food Individual 1,695 3025 4,522 867 10,109 11,558 2015 Food Caddy 495 186 2,782 3,381 35 6,879 Food Individual 2,409 2,773 4,788 4,825 664 15,459 Food Set 14 115 135 509 3 776 23,114 2016 Food Caddy 495 62 2,3 86 1,553 2 4,498 Food Individual 2,361 176 6,005 1,548 12 10,102 Food Set 6 81 61 253 2 403 15,003 2017 Food Caddy 415 19 1,307 700 1 2,442 Food Individual 1,700 70 2,927 730 12 5,439 Food Set 10 17 56 84 167 8,048 Grand Total 9,788 7,058 20,447 19,117 1,668 58,078

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 66 of 118

Supplementary Lord Provost thank you. Thank you Convener for the Question comprehensive details provided in her answer. However, I know at Question (2) it does state that it's not possible to determine if replacement food bin requests were because the bins were lost, stolen, damaged or missing but the accompanying table appears to provide that very information, so I wonder if she would agree to facilitate a short meeting with officers to clarify the data matters around these figures.

Supplementary I apologise Councillor Cook but I didn’t actually hear the Answer connecting bit of that last sentence. If you could repeat it for me please?

Councillor No problem. Question 2, the answer to my second question Cook states that it cannot provide the data broken down by bins that were lost, stolen, damaged or missing, so essentially the written answer says that data is not available, but the table provided appears to provide that very data, so I’d like a short meeting with officers to clarify the figures and issues around this data.

Supplementary I’d be happy to convene such a meeting. Answer

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 67 of 118

QUESTION NO 12 By Councillor Mowat for answer by the Convener of the Finance and Resources Committee at a meeting of the Council on 3 May 2018 The local media reported on 9th April 2018 Council has a 12- year backlog of 20,000 parking fines costing the City some £1.2 million in lost revenue. Can the Convener please explain

Question (1) How many parking tickets are unpaid for

a) Vehicles registered to EH postcodes

b) Vehicles registered in the Scotland, but outside EH postcodes

c) Vehicles registered in the UK, but outside Scotland

d) Vehicles not registered in the UK

e) Diplomatic vehicles

f) Commercial vehicles

Answer (1) The 20,000 unpaid parking tickets relate to those issued and unpaid in 2017 rather than the twelve year period referred to in the article. The figures in the answer below relate to the period 1 June 2016 – 31 December 2017 which was the timeframe in the Freedom of Information request that was this basis of the media article.

a) 21,232 parking tickets are unpaid for vehicles with owners living at EH postcodes. This equates to 0.88% of the total tickets issued over the period.

b) 5,861 parking tickets are unpaid for vehicles whose owners live in Scotland but outside EH postcodes. This equates to 0.24% of the total tickets issued over the period.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 68 of 118

c) 2,430 parking tickets are unpaid for vehicles with owners living in the UK but outside Scotland. This equates to 0.10% of the total tickets issued over the period.

d) 3,337 parking tickets were issued to vehicles not registered in the UK This equates to 0.13% of the total tickets issued over the period.

e) None.

f) We do not hold this information

Question (2) The approach taken to date regarding collection of these unpaid debts?

Answer (2) The Council follows The Road Traffic Regulations Act 1991(as amended for Scotland) which dictates the process to be followed for collection for Parking Fines. Any cases unrecovered are passed to the Sheriff Officers to pursue the debt.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 69 of 118

QUESTION NO 13 By Councillor Graczyk for answer by the Convener of the Culture and Communities Committee at a meeting of the Council on 3 May 2018

Question A ‘Prison Community Integration Working Group’ motion was passed at Full Council on 23rd November 2017. What action has been taken to implement this??

Answer A report will be submitted for the Culture and Communities Committee on 19 June 2018.

Supplementary This motion was passed 5 months ago and for no action to Question be taken all this time it is completely unacceptable and I think the Administration Convener needs to take responsibility to ensure motions, amendments and addendums which have been passed at full Council are implemented to ensure that that does not happen again, thank you.

Supplementary Can I absolutely assure Councillor Graczyk, that that is not Answer the case, every single element of the motion has been pursued and has culminated in a report that is going to the Community Safety Partnership and is written and will bring together what has been done about each individual element of that report. So it has been done, it has been pursued and it will be reported within two cycles as indeed it says in the motion. So we're on time with that and every element of it has been pursued.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 70 of 118

QUESTION NO 14 By Councillor Laidlaw for answer by the Convener of the Education, Children and Families Committee at a meeting of the Council on 3 May 2018

Question (1) Does the Convener agree that one of the positive outcomes of the South West Schools Consultation was to encourage greater cooperation between the affected schools and for them to come together to share their views and experience?

Answer (1) No

Question (2) Does the Convener therefore agree that the Council should look to re-form ‘The Currie & Balerno Community Schools Partnership’, a programme that was launched in 1998 at the end of the 3-year refurbishment of CCHS, creating a joint programme with a very able manager who split his time between the two schools, this time also incorporating Wester Hailes Education Centre and Woodlands School, allowing greater collaboration and resource sharing while reflecting the distinct identity of the schools?

Answer (2) Unfortunately, the question pre-judges the consultation that is taking place in the South West which will conclude on 22 May.

I will undertake to re-visit the question when the Council has agreed the way forward for secondary schools in the South West.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 71 of 118

Supplementary Thank you Lord Provost, I thank the Convener for his Question answer. I'm a little bit perplexed though about why it's not positive that the different 4 schools affected by the south west consultation are working together and I understand it’s clearly caused him and the Vice-Convener quite a lot of headache, but I still think that we should be supporting these 4 schools working together and I don't think that the question pre-judged the consultation either. I think I'd like some clarity as to why, no matter what the outcome we shouldn't be encouraging these schools to work together because whether or not you amalgamate Wester Hailes and Currie, whether or not you keep the school's individually we still need to have the parents of Woodlands, Balerno, Currie and Wester Hailes Education Centre working together, we need to support and demonstrate our encouragement for the work they've done so far, and so just like a bit of clarity as to why this is not supported in the Convener’s answer, thank you.

Supplementary Because I took your question literally and said if you’d put Answer Parents Council down then I might have answered in a different way. There was no co-operation across the schools with head teachers and various other organisations, so I took it literally. However, you should take comfort from the last paragraph, I said that when all that's been decided we will revisit the question of co-operation and co-ordination with all the schools in the area.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 72 of 118

QUESTION NO 15 By Councillor Webber for answer by the Leader of the Council at a meeting of the Council on 3 May 2018

Question (1) Can the Council Leader ask and actively encourage Conveners to adhere to the original dates listed in the Council Diary and remind them that changing meeting dates at short notice creates attendance issues for Elected Members who have other employment or may have other previously planned constituency or Council commitments, for example the SW Locality APM – 17/4/18?

Answer (1) Yes

Question (2) Also, in the spirit of ensuring equity for all Elected Members in discharging their Committee duties can the Council Leader instruct Conveners to comply with the scheduled diary dates unless there is a valid reason to propose alternative arrangements?

Answer (2) Yes

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 73 of 118

QUESTION NO 16 By Councillor Douglas for answer by the Convener of the Finance and Resources Committee at a meeting of the Council on 3 May 2018

Question Can the Convenor advise when the trial of a so-called ‘Citizen’s Income’ is due to start?

Answer Edinburgh, along with 3 other Scottish Local Authorities (Fife, Glasgow and North Ayrshire) have applied jointly for Scottish Government funding, worth £250,000 over 2 years (between May 2018-March 2020). The decision on the applications is due imminently.

This funding is to conduct initial research into the feasibility of a Citizens Basic Income pilot, which will include evaluating what a pilot might look like and where it might take place. The findings of the final feasibility study will be reported to Council with updates to Council in the interim.

Supplementary Thank you. Can the Convener tell me why he believes it is Question acceptable to push ahead with the trial of systems income when official documents from the SNP Government stated that the policy would see less cash for those who are most reliant on the benefit system and concluded it is not the best route forward due to its high cost the taxpayer and the lack of individual support for those most in need of a safety net? With Finland also abandoning the policy after their own 2 year trial, why can this Administration not look at the clear evidence that is in front of them and abandon this pointless exercise.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 74 of 118

Supplementary I thank Councillor Douglas for his question. I don't think Answer there is such a thing as too much evidence and I think it’s quite reasonable for the four authorities concerned to conduct their own pilot which they will design and to decide on the basis of those results, the results of that pilot, on what they think would be the best way forward. There are obviously arguments for and against and I fully understand that, and obviously aware of them, but I think it's reasonable that the various authorities should go ahead on the basis that’s outlined.

Comments by Just a couple of quick points to elected members. One, can the Lord I remind elected members to speak through the Chair rather Provost than speak to each other and secondly I would remind you that supplementaries are for clarification of the written answer given, not to develop a policy theme.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 75 of 118

QUESTION NO 17 By Councillor Douglas for answer by the Convener of the Transport and Environment Committee at a meeting of the Council on 3 May 2018

Question Will the Convener make freely available all traffic modelling for any proposed restrictions to motorists accessing the city centre?

Answer Modelling is used in both the iterative design process and to provide assessments of formalised proposals that are being put out for consultation or approval.

In the design process, modelling is used to test ideas and proposals and also to help guide the design of transport related projects in order to meet the desired objectives of a scheme.

Once a design has been completed, modelling is used to generate results and predictions on the impact of changes. These results are then added to assessments and reports and are used as part of the consultation and approvals process.

The modelling is then freely available to allow a full, objective assessment to be made of a proposed transport scheme. This would include modelling used in support of any a proposal to introduce restrictions on traffic entering the city centre.

Supplementary Thank you. Can I assume from this answer that the Question proposals that were mentioned by the Administration in the media at the beginning of last month to ban cars from parts of the city centre were made without any traffic modelling having been carried out?

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 76 of 118

Supplementary Thank you for your supplementary Councillor Douglas. I Answer think you'll find that traffic modelling is a key tool that we use in all of the design and processes. You asked in original one will we be making it available, we do anyway in terms of our reports and if you've got a specific question I'd be happy to pick it up with you separately from full Council.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 77 of 118

QUESTION NO 18 By Councillor Graczyk for answer by the Convener of the Finance and Resources Committee at a meeting of the Council on 3 May 2018

Question It has been noted that the SNP & Labour administration have decided that no action will be taken to abolish the no redundancy policy. Please clarify:

a) What is the cost per month to pay for all Council Staff, including middle managers on £50,000 per annum, whom no longer have job roles?

b) How long is being anticipated for this continued payment?

c) What cuts to public services had to be implemented to accommodate this cost?

d) What public benefit does this policy provide to the Edinburgh taxpayers?

Answer a) The total current cost per month of all employees on the redeployment register is £134,128.

b) Individual costs are met until employees secure permanent redeployment.

c) No reductions to public services were set against this cost.

d) The benefits of this policy flow from the Council treating its staff with respect and in making efforts to place them in the most suitable alternative gainful employment possible, either within or outwith the Council. Also, to impose compulsory redundancy would have adverse implications for staff morale and productivity in general as well as for industrial relations and thereby overall Council performance.

In addition, redeployment will incur some level of cost under any staffing policy.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 78 of 118

Supplementary Thank you Lord Provost. I just think that the £134,000 for Question surplus staff for an indefinite period it is a complete waste of money and I really think we should have accepted the Conservative amendment of a six month limited payment at the last budget meeting which would have been more cost effective.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 79 of 118

QUESTION NO 19 By Councillor Graczyk for answer by the Convener of the South West Locality Committee at a meeting of the Council on 3 May 2018

Question (1) It has been noted that minimal or no action has been taken for reported and logged defects within the SW Locality. Why is this?

Answer (1) Road Defects

I am not aware that there has been minimal or no action taken on reported defects within the SW Locality. All areas of the city are treated equally in the way we handle such issues.

Owing to a significant increase in the volume of both Cat 1 and Cat 2 defects as a result of the winter weather, priority is being given to Cat 1 defects and this is impacting on the timescales for Cat 2 and 3 repairs.

There is a team operating in the South West locality daily to deal with the outstanding defects.

Litter and Graffiti

On the whole performance in relation to both of these issues is in line with our targets however I am aware that the number of offensive graffiti incidents in the South West has been challenging to the Waste and Cleansing service.

Question (2) What is the average response time for fixing defects in the SW Locality, especially concerning graffiti, potholes, and litter?

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 80 of 118

Answer (2) Road Defects

The target times for defect repairs are the same for all localities and are categorised as follows:

Cat 1 – 24hrs

Cat 2 – 5 days

Cat 3 – 28 days

Cat 4 – 12 months

In general Cat 1 responses are met within the timeframe (c.>95%).

Litter

For litter, the target time to respond is 3 days for all localities. It is not possible to provide details on the average response times for this however table 1 details the number of enquiries responded to within the target in the South West Locality.

Graffiti

For graffiti, the target times across all localities are 24hrs offensive graffiti and 10 working days general graffiti. It is not possible to provide details on the average response times for this however table 1 details the number of enquiries responded to within the target in the South West Locality.

Question (3) What action is being taken to improve performance?

Answer (3) Roads Defects

Increased resources have been deployed across the city to address the outstanding defects on a priority basis. There are usually four squads dealing with defects across the city but with the recent impact of winter weather of our roads, this has been increased, with up to nine squads working. We also have a ‘static hot box’ at Bankhead depot that keeps hot tar, and the night teams are making use of this to deal with defects through the night.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 81 of 118

Litter

A significant amount of focus has been directed at this issue through the Waste and Cleansing Improvement Plan. This has been regularly scrutinised by Transport and Environment Committee and has led to significant service improvements. However, officers will continue to identify further opportunities for improvement.

Graffiti

Training is being arranged for people recording graffiti to ensure that the correct categorisation is used as a number of the enquiries below were non-offensive but were not re- categorised accordingly. In addition, the Culture and Communities Committee agreed to establish a Graffiti Member Officer working group and this will meet in mid-May for the first time.

I expect this working group will identify a range of measures which will improve this element of our service.

Table 1: Response to Enquiries

% achieved Target Type of Report Total Enquiries Target Missed (target Achieved 85%) Graffiti (non offensive) 66 2 64 97% Graffiti (offensive/racist) 51 27 24 47% Litter 1361 37 1324 97% All street cleansing 5,884 360 5,524 94% service requests in SW

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 82 of 118

QUESTION NO 20 By Councillor Mary Campbell for answer by the Convener of the Education, Children and Families Committee at a meeting of the Council on 3 May 2018

Question (1) How many dedicated Additional Support for Learning staff have been employed in Edinburgh Council Nursery, Primary, Secondary and Special schools over the past 5 years, broken down by academic year, role, and type of education establishment, and with English as a Second Language separated out?

Answer (1) In Edinburgh all staff have responsibilities for supporting learners with additional support needs. The number of Full Time Equivalent Posts allocated centrally to schools for the purposes of Additional Support for Learning is as follows:

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 83 of 118

ASL Staff 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 employed in schools* Primary 245 265 287 283 302 Secondary 90 86 86 86 97 Total mainstream 335 351 373 369 398 Special 349 348 349 335 321 Total all sectors 684 699 722 704 719

* These are full-time equivalents actual numbers are greater allowing for staff employed on sessional contracts

Decisions about the deployment of the posts in terms of the actual number of staff in full and part-time posts are devolved to schools. Schools also have discretion to appoint additional staff within devolved resources, for example, to enhance Support for Learning or support literacy interventions. In addition, schools also recruit volunteers and commission third party organisations who may provide additional support.

More generally as part of an inclusive approach schools will take into account the needs of the school population, for example, it may be a desirable factor that a staff member is bilingual or has experience of autism or adverse childhood experiences. Recruiting and developing staff in areas of particular need will enhance the capacity to meet learners’ needs including additional support needs.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 84 of 118

Question (2) How many dedicated ASL staff have been employed within Edinburgh Council on a central basis to support schools over the past 5 years, broken down by role and academic year, and with English as a second language separated out?

Answer (2) Up until 2014 there was a separate service for English as an Additional Language, however since that date we have adopted an inclusive approach with a focus on supporting schools to meet the needs of all their learners. This takes into account (1.) the most effective inclusive approaches enable the needs of all learners to be met in ways that reduce the need for additional targeted support (2.) approaches that benefit bilingual learners are often of wider benefit to other learners and (3.) Some bilingual learners also have other additional support needs and it is preferable to adopt a whole child approach. ASL Service

13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 Teachers 102 97 94 97 94 PSA's 3 7 6 9 11 Nursery Nurses 10 11 11 14 14 Bilingual Support Assistants & Autism Development Workers 23 24 26 20 21

Total 139 139 137 140 141

Educational Psychologists

13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 Educational Psychologists 29 29 28 26 25

Question (3) What percentage of children within Edinburgh Council Nursery, Primary, Secondary and Special schools over the past 5 years have been reported to have an additional support need, broken down by academic year, and with English as a second language separated out?

Answer (3) Almost half of the children identified as having additional support needs in Edinburgh Schools are designated as using English as an Additional Language.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 85 of 118

2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 Sector Roll ASN/EAL % Roll ASN/EAL % Roll ASN/EAL % Roll ASN/EAL % Roll ASN/EAL % Primary 4975 18.5% 5061 18.1% 6347 22.0% 7092 23.8% 6763 22.2% 26900 28010 28804 29745 30506 Primary EAL 2144 8.0% 2376 8.5% 2831 9.8% 3544 11.9% 3446 11.3% Secondary 3724 20.3% 4034 22.1% 4250 23.4% 4967 27.4% 5421 29.3% 18366 18279 18163 18145 18503 Secondary EAL 963 5.2% 1097 6.0% 1216 6.7% 1656 9.1% 1819 9.8% Special 684 98.4% 659 100.0% 666 100.0% 635 100.0% 628 100.0% 695 659 666 635 628 Special EAL 6 0.9% 9 1.4% 12 1.8% 25 3.9% 29 4.6%

Source: ScotXed Pupil Census

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 86 of 118

Councillor Councillor Campbell is absent this morning, I’m afraid she’s Main ill. I was wondering if it was possible for her to submit a supplementary in writing as we’ve done before.

Lord Provost I think a supplementary in writing is more than acceptable.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 87 of 118

QUESTION NO 21 By Councillor Mary Campbell for answer by the Convener of the Education, Children and Families Committee at a meeting of the Council on 3 May 2018 Catchment projection numbers for Edinburgh Council Schools reported to the December meeting of the Education, Children and Families Committee have many schools in the city predicted to go over catchment by a hundred pupils or more by 2027.

Question (1) By 2027 which schools are the anticipated number of pupils predicted to be more than 100 pupils over current capacity. In each case what is the current capacity and the number of pupils predicted by 2027?

Answer (1) See Table 1 (below)

Question (2) For each of the schools listed in question 1, are the plans to deal with the additional pupils through: catchment reviews, new schools, extensions, some combination of the above, or another method, which should be detailed. What plans are already agreed and in place to cope with additional pupils?

Answer (2) The comments field in Table 1 provides details of any proposals in place to address accommodation pressures at the schools identified under Question 1. In most cases these will be subject to monitoring of intakes through the annual projection process and the rate at which proposed housing developments progress.

Question (3) What assessment has the council made of the staff and other resources needed to plan and implement this programme, including informal and formal consultation, and to what extent do our current resources meet what is required?

Answer (3) The establishment of any new schools through the LDP would be subject to statutory consultation processes. New schools would require additional staff (over and above existing levels). This has not been the subject of assessment of individual projects but estimates of the costs

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 88 of 118

likely to be associated with the provision of new infrastructure required to support the LDP was reported to the Finance and Resources Committee on 23 January 2018.

School expansion as part of the Rising Rolls programme (and the LDP) is delivered following informal consultation processes involving school management and the Parent Council. Working groups will be established at each school to identify the appropriate solution and contribute to the design and delivery of that solution.

Pre-Planning consultation and a statutory Planning consultation would also be part of any build project where Planning approval is required.

Table 1: Primary and Secondary Schools Projected to have shortfalls in capacity of greater than 100 pupils in 2027

Projected Primary School Capacity Roll in Shortfall Comments 2027 Castleview Primary Shortfall to be addressed through new school in 420 586 166 School Brunstane/Newcraighall as part of LDP Corstorphine Primary Shortfall to be addressed through new Maybury 630 784 154 School Primary School as part of LDP Cramond Primary Shortfall to be addressed through new Maybury 434 573 139 School Primary School as part of LDP School capacity extended through Rising Rolls programme (for August 2018) with further phase Currie Primary School 420 669 249 proposed should catchment change not be approved. Shortfall to be addressed through new school as Echline Primary School 315 464 149 part of LDP Gilmerton Primary Shortfall to be addressed through new Station Road 546 776 230 School Primary School as part of LDP Gracemount Primary Shortfall to be addressed through new Station Road 560 688 128 School Primary School as part of LDP School capacity extended through Rising Rolls Kirkliston Primary programme (for August 2019). Monitoring as part 546 928 382 School of Rising Rolls process. Validity of projections to be interrogated (as past growth may skew existing). Shortfall to be addressed through new Newcraighall Primary 140 334 194 Brunstane/Newcraighall Primary School as part of School LDP Queensferry Primary School capacity extended using developers 420 558 138 School contributions (for August 2019). Monitoring as part of Rising Rolls process. Validity of projections to be interrogated (as past growth Ratho Primary School 259 407 148 may skew existing).

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 89 of 118

Projected Secondary School Capacity Roll in Shortfall Comments 2027 Boroughmuir High Options to address shortfall being considered - 1200 1591 391 School expansion site identified. James Gillespie's High Proposals to relocate Gaelic Medium Education 1300 1796 496 School being considered. Expansion proposed as part of LDP. Requirement Liberton High School 850 1201 351 monitored and subject to development coming forward. Options to increase capacity through minor internal Portobello High School 1400 1532 132 alterations being considered. New high school in Craigmillar could reduce out of catchment trends. Queensferry Proposals to realign Kirkliston Primary with new Community High 1000 1493 493 west Edinburgh High School being considered. School Expansion proposed as part of LDP. Requirement St Augustine's RC High 900 1107 207 monitored and subject to development coming School forward. St Thomas of Aquin's 750 949 199 Restrict to baptised Catholic pupils only. RC High School Pressure reduced through delivery of new West The Royal High School 1200 1592 392 Edinburgh secondary (currently Cammo development is within RHS catchment)

Lord Provost The same (written response) as Question 20 if required.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 90 of 118

QUESTION NO 22 By Councillor Jim Campbell for answer by the Convener of the Housing and Economy Committee at a meeting of the Council on 3 May 2018

Question (1) Does the Convener welcome the required intervention of a Scottish Government “improvement team” to help process Building Warrants in the City including those for much needed affordable housing?

Answer (1) Yes.

Our Building Standards service has already met with the Improvement Team to discuss the service improvement plan. I believe that the expertise and advice that the Improvement Team are providing will help consolidate the progress made so far and help us to continue to improve the service.

Question (2) What is the estimated number of affordable housing that are currently being built that still have not been issued with Building Warrants?

Answer (2) To our knowledge no affordable housing developments are being taken forward without building warrants in place. Specific information by different types of affordable and market tenure along with the different types of building warrant issued and at the different stages of development is not collected.

We are aware of one affordable housing development which awaits a full building warrant, however, staged warrants for this development have been issued, and neither the construction nor the practical completion have been held up.

Regular liaison meetings have been offered to developers and housebuilders. Some have taken the service up on this including a regular meeting with housing association developers to identify and escalate issues.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 91 of 118

Question (3) What is the estimated number of affordable housing that are practically completed, which are still waiting for Certificates of Habitation?

Answer (3) None because practical completion is a contractual status rather than a building warrant status and would only be achieved once either Completion Certificates or Temporary Occupation Certificates [also known as Certificates of Habitation] are accepted by the Building Standards Team.

The service is not aware of any affordable housing developments that could be declared as practically complete but that are being held up by the non-issue of Completion Certificates or Temporary Occupation Certificates.

Question (4) Will the Convener make clear to the service that it is imperative lessons are learned from the “improvement team” so that our Capital will provide a planning and building support service that is competitive in international terms, in this area which is key to our future economic development?

Answer (4) Yes, I have already made clear to the service the benefits I see in using the expertise and advice the Improvement Team bring, to help shape the service so that it supports the development we need as a city over the years ahead.

This administration recognises that the delivery of affordable housing is key to the economic development of a well- balanced and internationally competitive capital city.

Supplementary Thank you Lord Provost, I thank the Convener for his Question answer. I wonder if the Convener would agree that not only does an efficient building standards and planning system advantage us in terms of providing much needed affordable housing, but it provides some general benefit to the city in terms of economic efficiency and performance? I'd be grateful if the Convener could make that point clear and I also wondered if the Convener would be seeking cross party support for additional resources for this area should that prove necessary.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 92 of 118

Supplementary I thank the Councillor for his question and yes it was in Answer response to the first part of your question, it was an answer because of the way you had written the question and sent it to the Convener of Housing and Economy whereas it related really to building standards so that's why the second part of the answer was related to affordable housing, that was your question.

So it would be good if questions can be clearer I think maybe to avoid that if you feel there’s any ambiguity. In response to the point you made, yes absolutely, we need an efficient planning and building standards service and we are working with the improvement services in that regard and could you remind me of the third part of your question please.

Councillor Jim Yes certainly. Should it turn out that the feeling is that extra Campbell resources are needed in this area to deliver that benefit to us all, would you be planning to seek cross-party support to provide those extra resources?

Councillor Again absolutely. I don't want to pre-empt what the Gardiner improvement services are looking at and there are improvements already in place which have shown tangible benefit to building standards, as you'll note the performance is improving and I hope, not hope, will improve further with, there's already been meetings with the people have come to Council yesterday included. If the net result that is that we need more resources, yes I would look for and welcome cross-party support in that regard. Thank you for the question.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 93 of 118

QUESTION NO 23 By Councillor Jim Campbell for answer by the Convener of the Finance and Resources Committee at a meeting of the Council on 3 May 2018

Question (1) Can the Convener explain why many radiators controlled by thermostats in the City Chambers do not adjust their output based on the temperature of the room they are located in?

Answer (1) The Chambers building is heated through a network of pipes and radiators that are separated into zones. There are challenges with heat distribution, in part relating to the age of the building, ceiling heights and the large area that some of the zones cover. Consequently, some areas experience insufficient heating. To address this, pump flow rates are increased to deliver more heat in areas which, in turn, increases the dynamic pressure across the radiators that prevents the Thermostatic Radiator Valves (TRVs) from operating.

Historically, there has been some success with reducing pump speeds which allows the TRV to operate effectively. However, in colder weather, this can create an adverse impact where areas don’t receive enough heat.

Property and Facilities Management has commissioned a specialist to review the pump mechanism and recalibrate the pump flow rates. In addition, works will be undertaken to flush and balance the system to improve distribution of heat through the building and the operation of the TRVs will be checked and replaced as required.

These works will be reviewed alongside proposed capital works to replace the boiler at 249 High Street.

Question (2) Can the Convener inform Council when the heating system in the City Chambers will be switch off as we move into summer?

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 94 of 118

Answer (2) The heating in the City Chambers is controlled through a Building Energy Management System (BEMS). The BEMS monitors both internal and external temperatures and will automatically switch off the heating in the building when established set points are met. Adopting this approach ensures that service standards will be met throughout the year.

As stated in answer 1, the City Chambers is an old building and the installed heating distribution system does have limitations. There will be temperature variations across a heating zone and therefore, it may be necessary to heat some areas that have already reached temperature to ensure that areas across the entire zone are adequately heated. The proposed works in answer 1, once complete, should shut off heat to radiators within a room.

Supplementary Thank you Lord Provost and I thank the Convener for his Question very thorough answer. I'm sure if you know, needs must and the Convener is looking for a new role in the future that a heating engineer might well be a calling he should consider.

In light of the answer to the earlier question from Councillor Burgess, I wonder if the Convener could let us know what other buildings in our estate might have similar issues with their aged heating systems thus costing us more to run and potentially creating more pollution than is necessary?

Supplementary Well it very much depends on the age of the building, I Answer mean I can't give you an answer off the top of my head at the moment because I think you're going beyond clarifying your question. When you asked me that sort of thing you're asking for new information, so I'd be happy to provide the answer nevertheless but not in this forum.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 95 of 118

QUESTION NO 24 By Councillor Miller for answer by the Convener of the Transport and Environment Committee at a meeting of the Council on 3 May 2018

Question (1) What was the total tonnage collected in brown bins in 2015- 16, 2016-17 and 2017-18

Answer (1) The total tonnage of garden waste collected in brown bins over the last three years is as follows:

Year Tonnage

2015-16 22,664

2016-17 23,200

2017-18 21,377

Question (2) How many brown bins were collected in 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18

Answer (2) There are currently approximately 124,000 households eligible for a garden waste collection.

Assuming that each of these residents present one bin per collection (three-weekly) this would equate to approximately 2,150,000 collections in 2017/18.

However, the participation levels of the garden waste service can vary with seasonality differences and weather conditions, along with other factors such as the number of bins at each property and whether the resident hires a gardener (therefore becoming trade waste and the responsibility of the gardener to dispose).

The previous system did not capture when a household did/didn’t present a bin(s) in a reportable format. This issue is removed with the introduction of Routesmart Route Management System and will bring the Council in line with other Local Authorities.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 96 of 118

QUESTION NO 25 By Councillor Booth for answer by the Convener of the Transport and Environment Committee at a meeting of the Council on 3 May 2018

Question (1) What assessment has been made of the impact on congestion and parking access of the Easter Monday parking holiday?

Answer (1) There is no record of assessment of the impact on congestion and parking access of the Easter Monday parking holiday

Question (2) What was the loss of income from parking charges and enforcement action on Easter Monday in each of the last three years?

Answer (2) The City of Edinburgh Council have never charged on Easter Monday since the introduction of Decriminalised Parking Enforcement in 1998, so it is not possible to determine a level of lost revenue.

Question (3) What would be the cost of providing free bus and tram travel on Easter Monday each year?

Answer (3) To cover the costs of providing free public transport in Edinburgh on Easter Monday, consideration would need to be given to the extent of coverage; which operators and modes would be covered and how exclusions would be managed, both from a passenger and legal perspective.

Based on the information available to Council officers currently, the estimated cost to the Council of offering free travel on Lothian Buses and Edinburgh Trams on Easter Monday could be in the region of £450,000.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 97 of 118

Supplementary Thanks very much Lord Provost, I thank the Convener for Question her reply to my question which was about the costs and implications of free parking on Easter Monday in particular in the context when public transport users do not benefit from free travel on that day. Unfortunately the answer was not particularly forthcoming so I'd be grateful if the Convener could clarify, when is the Council intending to undertake an assessment of the impact on congestion and parking access of the Easter Monday parking holiday and secondly why has no assessment been done at the loss of income from parking charges and enforcement action on that day given that surely it must be possible to compare with similar Bank holidays. I hope the Convener will assure me that she is able to provide that information in writing?

Supplementary Thank you Councillor Booth for your supplementary Answer question. As you’ll have seen from the written answer to it, there are some issues around gathering the information, there's also an indication that we have never actually charged the Easter Monday anyway since the beginning of 1988 when decriminalised parking enforcement was introduced into the city. I'm happy to undertake further investigations on that and perhaps you and I can discuss in more detail exactly what you're looking for and we'll see what is possible to provide in the context of our record- keeping that we have, thank you.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 98 of 118

QUESTION NO 26 By Councillor Young for answer by the Convener of the Education, Children and Families Committee at a meeting of the Council on 3 May 2018 In the Administration’s budget in February, £250K was allocated to expanding the trial of the holiday hunger programme to help those most in need.

Question (1) Please provide a breakdown of this budget to show what money is being spent in Summer 2018 (showing the split of money directly relating to food provisions, staffing costs, venue costs, administering the programme).

Answer (1) An initial and very broad budget breakdown was produced immediately following the allocation of £250k. This was based on similar projects in other parts of the country. This was only indicative and since then, wider discussions with key staff locally have taken place and are ongoing. As such, a detailed budget is currently being developed but is not yet available as costs are still being gathered and collated.

Question (2) How many meals will be provided?

Answer (2) The early indicative thoughts were that a city total of 8,000 meals may be provided, however work is ongoing to determine exact numbers of eligible children and the numbers of days they may be likely to attend.

Question (3) Please list the location of the venues across the city.

Answer (3) This is still in discussion, however there are likely to be 6 main venues across the city, at least one in each locality. The venues are not finally confirmed as building works in some identified venues may necessitate a change.

Question (4) How many children are expected to attend?

Answer (4) Work is beginning with colleagues in localities, social work and schools to identify the children most in need. However, across the city, there are likely to be up to 50 children in each locality. This is currently only an estimate. The children may not all attend every day of provision.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 99 of 118

Question (5) How many children are eligible for this service across the city (split by ward)?

Answer (5) See above – local information gathered from a range of professional colleagues and partners will determine the numbers.

Question (6) What criteria are going to be used to decide how the programme further develops in 2019 and onwards?

Answer (6) The Scottish Government Child Poverty Action Plan identified groups including children entitled to free schools meals, families experiencing in work poverty, single parents, BME families and children with disabilities. Criteria and processes for targeting those children most in need and most likely to benefit are being drawn up.

This programme is designed to sit as part of holistic, non- stigmatised, longer term plans of work with children, young people and their families. The Holiday Hunger programme will articulate with relevant Schools and Lifelong Learning plans and strategies.

All of the above work is overseen by a representative Steering Group. There are 2 sub-groups – one working on the operational aspects and other is developing the evaluation framework.

The provision this summer holiday (2018) will be monitored and evaluated. The findings will be used to develop the work for future holidays which will include all holidays and not just summer. The steering Group and Evaluation Sub Group will develop the programme in liaison with colleagues, partners, children and their families.

Supplementary Thank you very much Lord Provost and thank you to the Question Convener for the answers. Just when is the additional detail of the programme expected to be available to Councillors and also is this all being done in house using any of the community organisation offers that were put forward to help run these?

Supplementary All that is still to be decided and is under discussion, when Answer it’s been agreed I will inform everyone in the Council.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 100 of 118

QUESTION NO 27 By Councillor Young for answer by the Convener of the Education, Children and Families Committee at a meeting of the Council on 3 May 2018

Question Please provide the number of team teaching arrangements in place across Edinburgh primary schools for each of the years P1 to P7.

Answer Team Teaching Classes Session 2017/18

School Size of Class Stage Balgreen 35 P1 Blackhall 44 P1 Bruntsfield 36 P1 Craiglockhart 33 P1 Davidson's Mains 35 P1 Ferryhill 33 P1 Flora Stevenson's 40 P1 Gilmerton 39 P1 James Gillespie's 38 P1 Kirkliston 36 P1 Queensferry 41 and 33 P1 and P2 Roseburn 33 P1 Sciennes 40 and 33 P1 and P2 South Morningside 38 and 38 P1 and P3 St Peter's 34 P2 Stockbridge 43 P3 Taobh na Pàirce 31 P1 Victoria 38 P3 15 x P1 classes, 3 x P2 classes and 3 x P3 classes

Source: Figures taken from September 2017 Pupil Census

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 101 of 118

QUESTION NO 28 By Councillor Young for answer by the Convener of the Transport and Environment Committee at a meeting of the Council on 3 May 2018

Question Following a public meeting on 8th October, and a petition of over 1200 names asking for road safety measures on Bo’ness Road in South Queensferry, a period of road usage monitoring was carried out. The results of the meant that a decision was taken by the Convener and the Road Safety Team that no measures would be put in place. The Convener was asked on the 20th February if she would attend a follow up public meeting to explain this decision and hear from residents about their concerns.

Despite a verbal reminder to both the Convener (at the March Full Council) and the Administration Councillor, Norman Work (in early April), there is still no response.

Will the Convener agree to attend a public meeting with the South Queensferry Community about this issue?

Answer As you will be aware, there has already been officer follow- up on this matter.

I would note that Councillor Work, Councillor Hutchison and Councillor Young attended a site visit on Friday 6 April with the Chief Executive, Andrew Kerr, Dave Sinclair (North West Locality Transport & Environment Manager), and Peter Strong (North West Locality Manager) to discuss this issue, fully. Councillor Work reported on this to the Queensferry & District Community Council meeting, at which I understand Councillor Young was not in attendance.

I would be happy to attend a public meeting, diary commitments allowing. I would ask that you liaise with appropriate administration support staff to find a suitable date.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 102 of 118

QUESTION NO 29 By Councillor Young for answer by the Convener of the Transport and Environment Committee at a meeting of the Council on 3 May 2018

Question What progress is being made to install the second paper recycling facility at the Tesco Davidson's Mains on Cramond Road South, as confirmed by Officers?

Answer The two 1,280 litre communal paper wheeled bins were installed at Tesco Davidson’s Mains w/c 23 April 2018.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 103 of 118

QUESTION NO 30 By Councillor Booth for answer by the Convener of the Transport and Environment Committee at a meeting of the Council on 3 May 2018

Question (1) What consideration was given to the policies set out in the Council’s Local Transport Strategy, and in particular those in chapter 9, Active Travel, when the proposals for the tram extension to Newhaven were being prepared?

Answer (1) The Edinburgh Local Transport Strategy 2014 to 2019 sets the policy context for the completion of the tram route to Newhaven.

The Strategy notes that Edinburgh City Centre forms the commercial heart of south east Scotland and indeed the entire country. It is a centre for finance and business, retail, entertainment, tourism and leisure. Its World Heritage Site status provides unique opportunities and challenges.

The Strategy notes that one of the key challenges facing Edinburgh is that city centre streets are dominated by motor traffic, and that tram presents a great opportunity to change this.

In preparing the Outline Business Case it was noted that the project taking Trams to Newhaven will facilitate the Council’s plans to:  improve the pedestrian experience in the core city centre area and increase space for pedestrians;  improve access to the city centre;  increase space for other uses (e.g. street cafes, entertainment, markets);  offer dedicated cycle provision in the area; and  reduce the detrimental impact of motor vehicles on the city centre environment.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 104 of 118

Out-with the city centre, the Strategy notes that Edinburgh’s growth is focussed in three areas, West Edinburgh (including Edinburgh Park/Gyle and the Airport area), South East Edinburgh and the Waterfront. The Strategy concludes that to grow in a way that protects the city’s environment, these areas need supporting transport investment focussed on public transport, walking and cycling.

The Strategy also notes that improved transport connections will drive the renewal of Edinburgh’s waterfront and that while much of the required urban infrastructure is already in place, improved connections to the city centre are needed to unlock the area’s sustainable regeneration.

The completion of the tram to Newhaven thus is fully consistent with, and is key to the delivery of the Edinburgh Local Transport Strategy.

Question (2) What changes to the proposals will be made to ensure the transport hierarchy is respected, in other words that minimising demand is prioritised ahead of modal shift, which in turn is prioritised over optimising system efficiency?

Answer (2) The public consultation closed on Sunday, 29 April. Now that consultation has completed the Council will review the consultation responses and thereafter prepare design options for discussion at a series of workshops. The workshops will be held with a range of representatives from local businesses and the active travel community. It is anticipated these will take place in late May or early June and will inform on any re-designs for further engagement later in the summer. The Council cannot give a firm commitment to design changes ahead of that process as to do so would pre-judge both the content of the consultation responses and the opinions of those attending the workshops. Following the workshops the preferred design option will be presented at the All Party Oversight Group.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 105 of 118

Supplementary Thank you Lord Provost. I thank the Convener for her Question response on the issue of the trams to Newhaven and whether the question of whether the detailed designs which went to consultation respect the local Transport Strategy and in particular whether they respect the transport mode hierarchy which puts pedestrians first, cyclists second and public transport users third. I hope she agrees with many of those who’ve responded to the consultation including Spokes, Living Streets, and the Coburn Association that extending the tram to Newhaven presents a substantial opportunity to create much more people friendly streets in Newhaven, Leith and Leith Walk and I hope she can assure us that the revised designs which come back following the consultation will reflect that.

Supplementary Thank you Councillor Booth for that supplementary. Yes I Answer do agree that it is an excellent opportunity and it's something which is developing as we go through the design process. As you'll probably be aware we've had an immensely successful consultation process which completed just recently, we've had over 3,000 responses coming forward and we are very pleased with that. Clearly the content of those responses will be fed into what will happen in the next stage of the design proposals and will be going forward in several workshops that will be dealing with stakeholders in order to further refine those designs based on the consultation responses. So yes there's an opportunity there and I would hope to see that we’ll exploit that to its fullest, thank you.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 106 of 118

APPENDIX 2

(As referred to in Act of Council No 4 of 3 May 2018)

APPOINTMENTS FOR 2018/19 CONVENERS AND VICE CONVENERS OF COMMITTEES

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEES

Corporate Policy and Strategy Convener: Councillor McVey Vice-Convener: Councillor Day

Culture and Communities Convener: Councillor Wilson Vice-Convener: Councillor McNeese- Mechan

Education, Children and Families Convener: Councillor Perry Vice-Convener: Councillor Dickie

Housing and Economy Convener: Councillor Kate Campbell Vice-Convener: Councillor Cameron

Finance and Resources Convener: Councillor Rankin Vice-Convener: Councillor Donaldson

Transport and Environment Convener: Councillor Macinnes Vice Convener: Councillor Doran

OTHER COMMITTEES

Governance, Risk and Best Value Convener: Councillor Mowat Councillor Main

Leadership Advisory Panel Convener: Councillor McVey

Locality Committees Convener: Appointed by each Locality Vice-Convener: Committee Pensions Convener: Councillor Rankin

Planning/Development Convener: Councillor Gardiner Management Sub Vice-Convener: Councillor Child

Regulatory/Licensing Sub Convener: Councillor Fullerton

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 107 of 118

Committee on the Jean F Watson Convener: Councillor Fullerton Bequest

APPEALS

Committee on Discretionary Rating Convener: Councillor Rankin Appeals

Personnel Appeals Committee Convener: Councillor Bridgman

Committee on Pupil/Student Convener: Councillor Perry Support

Placing in Schools Appeals Independent Chairperson

Social Work Complaints Review Independent Chairperson Committee

RECRUITMENT

Recruitment Committee Convener: Council Leader

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 108 of 118

APPENDIX 3

(As referred to in Act of Council No 4 of 3 May 2018)

APPOINTMENTS FOR 2018/19 MEMBERSHIP OF COMMITTEES, BOARDS AND JOINT BOARDS

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEES

Corporate, Policy and Strategy Committee (11 members:- 3SNP, 3C, 2L, 2G, 1SLD) Councillor McVey (Convener) Councillor Day (Vice Convener) Councillor Macinnes Councillor Perry Councillor Rankin Councillor Burgess Councillor Doggart Councillor Main Councillor McLellan Councillor Aldridge Councillor Whyte

Culture and Communities Committee (11 members:- 3SNP, 3C, 2L, 2G, 1SLD) Councillor Ian Campbell Councillor Wilson (Convener) Councillor Howie Councillor Doran Councillor McNeese-Mechan (Vice Councillor Staniforth Convener) Councillor Miller Councillor Brown Councillor Osler Councillor Graczyk Councillor Mitchell

Education, Children and Families Committee (11 members:- 3SNP, 3C, 2L, 2G, 1SLD) Councillor Dickie (Vice Convener) Councillor Griffiths Councillor Bird Councillor Perry (Convener) Councillor Howie Councillor Mary Campbell Councillor Laidlaw Councillor Corbett Councillor Rust Councillor Young Councillor Smith

Added Members for Education Matters Dr Rita Welsh (Church of Scotland) Vacancy (Roman Catholic Church of Rabbi David Rose Scotland) Alexander Ramage (non-voting)

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 109 of 118

Housing and Economy Committee (11 members:- 3SNP, 3C, 2L, 2G, 1SLD) Councillor Kate Campbell(Convener) Councillor Cameron (Vice Convener) Councillor Key Councillor Munro Councillor Work Councillor Miller Councillor Jim Campbell Councillor Rae Councillor McLellan Councillor Lang Councillor Rose

Finance and Resources Committee (11 members:- 3 SNP, 3C, 2L, 2G, 1SLD) Councillor Bridgman Councillor Donaldson (Vice Convener) Councillor Kate Campbell Councillor Watt Councillor Rankin (Convener) Councillor Corbett Councillor Hutchison Councillor Miller Councillor Johnston Councillor Neil Ross Councillor Whyte

Transport and Environment Committee (11 members:- 3 SNP, 3C, 2L, 2G, 1SLD) Councillor Bird Councillor Arthur Councillor Key Councillor Doran (Vice Convener) Councillor Macinnes (Convener) Councillor Booth Councillor Bruce Councillor Burgess Councillor Cook Councillor Gloyer Councillor Douglas

Other Committees

Governance, Risk and Best Value Committee (11 members:- 3 SNP, 3C, 2L, 2G, 1SLD) Councillor Bird Councillor Munro Councillor Bridgman Councillor Watt Councillor Howie Councillor Main (Vice Convener) Councillor Jim Campbell Councillor Rae Councillor Doggart Councillor Lang Councillor Mowat (Convener)

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 110 of 118

Locality Committees

North East Locality Committee Councillor Booth Councillor McNeese-Mechan (Vice- Councillor Ian Campbell Convener) Councillor Child (Convener) Councillor McVey Councillor Griffiths Councillor Munro Councillor Laidlaw Councillor Rae Councillor McLellan Councillor Ritchie Councillor Staniforth

North West Locality Committee Councillor Aldridge (Convener) Councillor Gordon Councillor Barrie Councillor Hutchison Councillor Bird Councillor Lang Councillor Bridgman Councillor Mitchell (Vice Convener) Councillor Brown Councillor Osler Councillor Jim Campbell Councillor Frank Ross Councillor Day Councillor Whyte Councillor Douglas Councillor Work Councillor Gloyer Councillor Young

South East Locality Committee Councillor Burgess Councillor Mowat, Councillor Cameron Councillor Perry Councillor Dickie Councillor Rankin Councillor Doran Councillor Rose Councillor Howie Councillor Neil Ross Councillor Macinnes, Councillor Smith. Councillor Main (Vice-Convener) Councillor Watt (Convener) Councillor Miller

South West Locality Committee Councillor Arthur Councillor Graczyk Councillor Bruce Councillor Henderson (Vice-Convener) Councillor Corbett Councillor Johnston Councillor Dixon (Convener) Councillor Key Councillor Doggart Councillor Rust Councillor Fullerton Councillor Webber Councillor Gardiner Councillor Wilson

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 111 of 118

Pensions Committee (5 members –1SNP, 1C, 1L, 1G, 1SLD) Councillor Rankin (Convener) Councillor Miller Councillor Rose Councillor Neil Ross Councillor Child

External Members John Anzani Richard Lamont

Planning Committee and Development Management Sub-Committee (11 members:- 3 SNP, 3C, 2L, 2G, 1SLD) Councillor Dixon Councillor Child (Vice-Convener) Councillor Gardiner (Convener) Councillor Griffiths Councillor Gordon Councillor Booth Councillor Graczyk Councillor Staniforth Councillor Mitchell Councillor Osler Councillor Mowat

Planning Local Review Body All members of the Planning Committee (other than its Convener) comprising two panels of five.

Panel 1 (5 members) Councillor Gordon Councillor Mowat Councillor Griffiths Councillor Staniforth Councillor Mitchell

Panel 2 (5 members) Councillor Booth Councillor Graczyk Councillor Child Councillor Osler Councillor Dixon

Regulatory Committee and Licensing Sub-Committee (9 members:- 3SNP, 2C, 2L, 1G, 1SLD) Councillor Barrie Councillor Arthur Councillor Dixon Councillor Wilson Councillor Fullerton (Convener) Councillor Burgess Councillor Rose Councillor Neil Ross Councillor Smith

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 112 of 118

Leadership Advisory Panel (5 members of the Council plus 3 statutory representatives, appointed by the committee dealing with education, when considering education business) Leader of the Council (Convener) Green Group Leader Deputy Leader of the Council Scottish Liberal Democrat Group Leader Conservative Group Leader

Administration of Trust Funds

Committee on the Jean F Watson Bequest (8 members - 2SNP, 2C, 2L, 1G, 1SLD) plus one nominee of Friends of the City Arts Centre and two nominees of Executive Director of Resources Councillor Fullerton (Convener) Councillor Doran Councillor McNeese-Mechan Councillor Donaldson Councillor Mitchell Councillor Rae Councillor Mowat Councillor Aldridge

Reviews and Appeals

Committee on Discretionary Rating Relief Appeals (5 members – 1SNP, 1C, 1L, 1G, 1SLD) Councillor Rankin (Convener) Councillor Booth Councillor Hutchison Councillor Gloyer Councillor Day

Personnel Appeals Committee (9 members – 3SNP, 2C, 2L, 1G, 1SLD) Councillor Bird Councillor Cameron Councillor Bridgman (Convener) Councillor Doran Councillor McNeese-Mechan Councillor Rae Councillor Jim Campbell Councillor Lang Councillor Rose

Committee on Pupil Student Support (5 members and one religious representative –1SNP, 1C, 1L, 1G, 1SLD) Councillor Perry (Convener) Councillor Mary Campbell Councillor Smith Councillor Young Councillor Dickie

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 113 of 118

Placing in Schools Appeal Committee (3 persons drawn from three Panels as described in Committee Terms of Reference and Delegated Functions no.17)

Panel 1 – All members of Council and religious representatives on the committee dealing with education business

Social Work Complaints Review Committee

3 persons drawn from a panel approved by the Council (including all Councillors who are not members of the committees dealing with social work business)

Recruitment Committee

Leader of Council (Convener), Deputy Leader of the Council, Convener of the Finance and Resources Committee and the appropriate Executive Committee Convener and relevant opposition spokespersons (or nominees)

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 114 of 118

APPENDIX 4

(As referred to in Act of Council No 4 of 3 May 2018)

APPOINTMENTS FOR 2018/19 MEMBERS OF NEIGHBOURHOOD PARTNERSHIPS

ALMOND Councillor Hutchison Councillor Work Councillor Lang Councillor Young

CITY CENTRE Councillor Doran Councillor Mowat Councillor Miller Councillor Rankin

CRAIGENTINNY/DUDDINGSTON Councillor Ian Campbell Councillor McLellan Councillor Griffiths Councillor Staniforth

FORTH Councillor Bird Councillor Day Councillor Jim Campbell Councillor Gordon

INVERLEITH Councillor Barrie Councillor Osler Councillor Mitchell Councillor Whyte

PENTLANDS Councillor Arthur Councillor Henderson Councillor Bruce Councillor Rust Councillor Doggart Councillor Webber Councillor Gardiner LEITH Councillor Booth Councillor Munro

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 115 of 118

Councillor Donaldson Councillor Rae Councillor McNeese-Mechan Councillor Ritchie Councillor McVey

LIBERTON/GILMERTON Councillor Cameron Councillor Macinnes Councillor Howie Councillor Smith

PORTOBELLO/CRAIGMILLAR Councillor Kate Campbell Councillor Child Councillor Mary Campbell Councillor Laidlaw

SOUTH CENTRAL Councillor Burgess Councillor Perry Councillor Cook Councillor Rose Councillor Dickie Councillor Neil Ross Councillor Main Councillor Watt

SOUTH WEST Councillor Corbett Councillor Johnston Councillor Dixon Councillor Key Councillor Fullerton Councillor Wilson Councillor Graczyk

WESTERN EDINBURGH Councillor Aldridge Councillor Douglas Councillor Bridgman Councillor Frank Ross Councillor Brown Councillor Gloyer

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 116 of 118

APPENDIX 5

(As referred to in Act of Council No 4 of 3 May 2018)

APPOINTMENTS FOR 2018/19 JOINT COMMITTEES AND BOARDS, THE LICENSING BOARD

Lothian Valuation Joint Board/Lothian Electoral Joint Committee (9 members – 3SNP, 2C, 2L, 1G, 1SLD) Councillor Gordon Councillor Doran Councillor Key (Convener) Councillor Henderson Councillor Work Councillor Booth Councillor Doggart Councillor Gloyer Councillor Rust

Licensing Board (10 members) Councillor Fullerton Councillor Mowat Councillor Key Councillor Cameron Councillor Work (Convener) Councillor Day Councillor Cook Councillor Mary Campbell Councillor Laidlaw Councillor Gloyer

Integration Joint Board (5 members) Councillor Aldridge Councillor Henderson (Convener) Councillor Ian Campbell Councillor Main Councillor Webber

Integrated Children’s Services Joint Board (Appointed March 2018) (3 members)

Councillor Dickie Councillor Perry Councillor Laidlaw

SEStran (South East of Scotland Regional Transport Partnership) (5 members – 2SNP, 1C, 1L, 1G) Councillor Key Councillor Doran Councillor Macinnes Councillor Booth Councillor Cook

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 117 of 118

SESPlan Joint Committee (South East Scotland Regional Joint Committee – Planning) (2 members) Councillor Gardiner Councillor Child

Shadow Joint Committee for Collaborative Road Services

Substantive Member Substitute Member

Councillor Macinnes Councillor Doran

Hawes/Longcraig Piers User Committee (2 members) Councillor Work Councillor Hutchison

Pentland Hills Regional Park Joint Committee (3 members) Councillor Gardiner Councillor Bruce Councillor Henderson

Pentland Hills Regional Park Consultative Forum (2 members) Councillor Gardiner Councillor Henderson

The City of Edinburgh Council – 3 May 2018 Page 118 of 118

Item no 5.1

QUESTION NO 1 By Councillor Mary Campbell for answer by the Convener of the Education, Children and Families Committee at a meeting of the Council on 31 May 2018

Question (1) For each of the schools built or substantially refurbished under i) PPP1 contracts and ii) PPP2 contracts, please list the dates at which the contracts come to a scheduled end?

Answer (1)

Question (2) What steps are planned and in what timescale to ensure that buildings are handed over in good condition, without need for catch-up repairs or life-cycle works?

Answer (2)

Item no 5.2

QUESTION NO 2 By Councillor Corbett for answer by the Convener of the Finance and Resources Committee at a meeting of the Council on 31 May 2018

Question (1) Which councillors have passes for i) the APCOA parking at Waverley Court? ii) any other parking in the vicinity of the City Chambers?

Answer (1)

Question (2) Are those passes provided free?

Answer (2)

Question (3) Of those councillors listed in a) which of them also receive a free bus pass?

Answer (3)

Question (4) Of those councillors listed in a) how many have declared their parking pass as a benefit and so declared on the register of payments in the same way as a bus pass?

Answer (4)

Question (5) What criteria have been used to determine which councillors have access to parking permits?

Answer (5)

Item no 5.3

QUESTION NO 3 By Councillor Jim Campbell for answer by the Convener of the Culture and Communities Committee at a meeting of the Council on 31 May 2018

Question (1) Please provide the number of local police officers per 10,000 of the population for each Council area accepting the best fit to the Divisions of Police Scotland for the years 2013 to 2017, as set out in Motion 9.6 agreed by March Council, now that the 2017 mid-year population data has been published?

Answer (1)

Question (2) Confirm that in 2017 the number of local police officers serving the City of Edinburgh, on a population basis, has fallen again, for the fourth year in a row, to a new low of 22.5 per 10,000 citizens.

Answer (2)

Question (3) Update Council on what measure of additional local police numbers, relative to population size, he will demand are included as part of the service level agreement with the Police Scotland in return for the Council making good its £2.6M contribution towards local policing in 2018, at a time when other local authorities have ceased to make any payments for a basic service that should be deployed on the basis of need?

Answer (3)

Item no 5.4

QUESTION NO 4 By Councillor Mowat for answer by the Convener of the Transport and Environment Committee at a meeting of the Council on 31 May 2018

Question Given the reports that the assessing of road defects has changed from a simple measurement of depth could she detail the process of how Grade 1, 2 and 3 road defects are assessed?

Answer

Item no 5.5

QUESTION NO 5 By Councillor Johnston for answer by the Convener of the Finance and Resources Committee at a meeting of the Council on 31 May 2018

Question Will the administration commit to providing extra resources to the building warrants team to enable them to tackle the backlog of existing applications and process new applications within agreed timescales?

Answer

Item no 5.6

QUESTION NO 6 By Councillor Rose for answer by the Leader of the Council at a meeting of the Council on 31 May 2018 In April 2014 a parent of a child requested assessment by the City of Edinburgh Council (CEC) for a co-ordinated support plan (CSP) in terms of Section 2 of the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004. Subsequent proceedings were raised in respect of a failure to provide a CSP, and the tribunal issued a direction to Edinburgh Council to produce a CSP no later than 6th January 2016. On that date the Council issued a finalised CSP. A second tribunal hearing found the CSP inadequate and that CEC had discriminated against the child in terms of Section 85(2)(a) of the Equality Act 2010.

Question (1) After failing to provide a CSP as requested, why was the CSP instructed by the tribunal produced at the last possible minute and how was it that an inadequate CSP was produced?

Answer (1)

Question (2) When it did eventually produce a CSP what caused CEC to produce an inadequate CSP?

Answer (2)

Question (3) Why was the legal advice given on behalf of the Council found to be unsuccessful on three occasions?

Answer (3)

Question (4) How much has it cost to defend the Council’s position unsuccessfully on these three occasions? Please include internal and external costs.

Answer (4)

Question (5) How is it proposed to review the apparent failing within the Education Department?

Answer (5) Question (6) How is it proposed to review the quality of the legal advice followed by CEC?

Answer (6)

Question (7) Is there a strategy document which guides the circumstances when CEC defends claims made against it? If so, how does it weigh principled considerations? If not, what principles does CEC follow?

Answer (7)

Item no 5.7

QUESTION NO 7 By Councillor Miller for answer by the Convener of the Housing and Economy Committee at a meeting of the Council on 31 May 2018

Question In light of the physical assault on 3 May on a Syrian man housed in temporary accommodation, which left him hospitalised, can the Convener outline the processes and safeguards in place to ensure secure and safe accommodation for refugees in Edinburgh?

Answer

Item no 5.8

QUESTION NO 8 By Councillor Lang for answer by the Convener of the Transport and Environment Committee at a meeting of the Council on 31 May 2018

Question (1) What discussions have taken place with local residents regarding the long term parking of commercial advertising vehicles on the north side of Queensferry Road near the Cramond Brig?

Answer (1)

Question (2) What decisions have been taken to extend the parking restrictions in this area to address the problems identified?

Answer (2)

Question (3) If decisions have been taken, what timetable exists to consult on a draft traffic regulation order to progress any changes?

Answer (3)

Item no 5.9

QUESTION NO 9 By Councillor Lang for answer by the Convener of the Transport and Environment Committee at a meeting of the Council on 31 May 2018

Question What plans exist to make the double yellow lines within the Ingliston Park and Ride legally enforceable?

Answer

Item no 5.10

QUESTION NO 10 By Councillor Lang for answer by the Convener of the Transport and Environment Committee at a meeting of the Council on 31 May 2018

Question At the Council meeting of 14 December 2017 and in response to question 5.10, the Convener said "it is intended to consult with the local community and other stakeholders over possible improvements to the Davidson's Mains roundabout in spring next year." Can the Convener provide an update on this work?

Answer

Item no 5.11

QUESTION NO 11 By Councillor Jim Campbell for answer by the Convener of the Planning Committee at a meeting of the Council on 31 May 2018

Question City of Edinburgh Council has previously made a call for sites for housing to the house building community, prior to the Main Issues Report, when compiling its Local Development Plan. Neighbouring Councils have already made such a call in preparation for their new Local Development Plans. The house building community value the opportunity to engage with Councils at an early stage to try and identify the widest possible range of potential sites, to maximise the supply of much needed homes.

When does the City of Edinburgh next plan to make a call for sites?

Answer

Item no 5.12

QUESTION NO 12 By Councillor Rose for answer by the Convener of the Planning Committee at a meeting of the Council on 31 May 2018

Question (1) How many planning applications have been subject to Section 75 legal agreements since 1st May 2017?

Answer (1)

Question (2) In each case how long did it take to conclude the agreement? Include how many are outstanding?

Answer (2)

Question (3) In the last three years has there been any change in policy or practise in drawing up the legal agreement in relation to the relative responsibilities of the applicant and the landowner?

Answer (3)

Question (4) Are such legal agreements drafted up by the City of Edinburgh Council, by the applicant or by a third party?

Answer (4)

Item no 5.13

QUESTION NO 13 By Councillor Jim Campbell for answer by the Convener of the Planning Committee at a meeting of the Council on 31 May 2018

Question (1) Since May 2017, how many planning applications have been withdrawn and re-submitted?

Answer (1)

Question (2) What are the comparative figures for the previous 5 years?

Answer (2)

Question (3) Since May 2017, how many of these withdrawals and re- submissions been made at the request or suggestion of the Council Officers?

Answer (3)

Question (4) Of applications withdrawn and re-submitted since May 2017, what was the average duration from the validation of the original application to it being withdrawn?

Answer (4)

Item no 5.14

QUESTION NO 14 By Councillor Jim Campbell for answer by the Convener of the Housing and Economy Committee at a meeting of the Council on 31 May 2018

Question Can the Convener provide a table, detailing how many housing units have been completed, started, or permission granted since the 4th May 2017 broken down ownership tenure (including, but not limited to, Council, Housing Association, other affordable and private market).

Answer

Item no 5.15

QUESTION NO 15 By Councillor Doggart for answer by the Convener of the Education, Children and Families Committee at a meeting of the Council on 31 May 2018

Question (1) Could the Convener please list the dates of meetings he, or his Vice Convener, has had with the Education Minister?

Answer (1)

Question (2) Could the Convener summarise the outcome of those meetings?

Answer (2)

Question (3) Could the Convener confirm whether the Scottish Government will provide additional funding for schools in Edinburgh?

Answer (3)

Item no 5.16

QUESTION NO 16 By Councillor Booth for answer by the Convener of the Transport and Environment Committee at a meeting of the Council on 31 May 2018

Question What analysis has been carried out of average pedestrian waiting times at signalised crossings on Leith Walk and at other points along the proposed route?

Answer

Question (2) Has the Council taken the view that zebra crossings are incompatible with safe tram operation? If so, when was this view adopted and why? Will this view be reviewed in light of international best practice?

Answer (2)

Question (3) The Council’s Street Design Guidance, published January 2015, states that “pedestrian crossing points (controlled or uncontrolled crossings)” should be provided “every 50- 100m”. Do the proposed designs for the tram extension to Newhaven comply with this guidance? If not, why not?

Answer (3)

Question (4) Has an equalities impact assessment been done on the proposals? If not, when will this be carried out?

Answer (4)

Question (5) What lessons have been learned from the original Edinburgh tram project?

Answer (5)

Question (6) Has bilingual Gaelic / English signage been considered for the tram extension to Newhaven? If not, why not?

Answer (6)

May 2018

Your subscription

As of today (25 May), new data protection regulations (GDPR) come into effect, setting out the framework for how the Council handles personal information. Under the new rules, we must check that we have your correct email address and ask whether you still wish to receive my report each month.

If you wish to continue subscribing, and you haven’t already done so, please complete this short online form by 31 May. Thank you!

Residents loving life in Edinburgh

I know how much I enjoy living and working in Edinburgh, and so, I’m glad to report, do the vast majority of our residents.

According to the latest Edinburgh People Survey, 95% of respondents said they were satisfied with life in the Capital, with 89% content with their neighbourhood as a place to live. Meanwhile, 69% said they were satisfied with the way the Council manages the city – up 3% on last year.

That 84% of respondents reported feeling safe in their neighbourhoods after dark is particularly encouraging, as well as the fact that 86% were satisfied with our beautiful parks and greenspaces – while it can only be a good thing that people walk more frequently than any other mode of transport – 5.6 days a week.

Every year this survey gives us a real insight into the public’s perception of Edinburgh and the services we provide – and the areas in which we can improve. Thanks to participants’ feedback, these results will prove invaluable to our work on prioritising services as we move forward.

Building the case for a TVL

Very much with the above in mind, particularly residents’ views on our thriving tourist economy, we are continuing to build a case around securing powers to introduce a transient visitor levy (TVL). We believe this is in the best interests of our residents, our tourism industry and ultimately also those who visit our beautiful city.

I think it is important to point out that this would not be a tax on business; rather a small contribution by tourists towards the services they use during their stay with us. Edinburgh welcomes millions of visitors each year who bring investment, diversity and energy to our city but they also bring a cost in terms of the impact on our core services.

Our research, published today, demonstrates that not only is a TVL unlikely to adversely affect Edinburgh’s hotel industry, but that handled correctly, it can help to secure the ongoing sustainability and health of tourism in the city. The additional revenue could be invested into local services to the benefit of residents, visitors and the tourist industry itself, such as investing in parks, public spaces, clean streets and reduced ticket prices for cultural attractions.

I understand that there are those who remain to be convinced but I can assure them that this is only the beginning of a considered, thoughtful and professional engagement with our partners across the tourist and hotel industry, the people of Edinburgh and the tourists who would ultimately pay the levy.

New approach to Health and Social Care

Last week’s meeting of the Edinburgh Integration Joint Board welcomed Judith Proctor in her role as Chief Officer. Her first major piece of business was the approval for outgoing chief Michelle Miller’s Plan for Immediate Pressures and Longer-Term Sustainability, which highlights areas of investment that will deliver continued and lasting improvements for the IJB and the people it supports. Michelle described how we should fundamentally change our approach to delivering services; rebalancing them to ensure we have the right level of specialist community services, such as reablement, as well as mainstream homecare and care home places. This will also help develop our approach to housing solutions and models that can support people to live independently, or with minimal support, for longer.

Some of these approaches have been adopted on a trial basis since March and the results are hugely encouraging, with the backlog of assessments reducing steadily month on month.

I would like to thank Michelle for her valuable work on this during her time as interim Chief Officer and wish her a long and happy retirement from the Council. Taking trams to Newhaven

During the first stage of public consultation on our plans to take Trams to Newhaven, we gathered thousands of comments from a wide range of residents, businesses and organisations. We are very grateful to everyone who took the time to give us their views.

A number of key themes emerged during the six-week conversation – ranging from public realm improvement to active travel consideration, the location of the Balfour Street stop to parking and loading. We are very aware of these issues and will be working closely with local stakeholders to explore how we can resolve these together during a series of community workshops planned for next month.

We will share the outcomes of these later this summer as we carry out further public engagement on our updated plans. We expect to make a final decision on whether to proceed with the project by the end of the year.

Support for our Suffragette City

As Council Leader, I know all too well the power of one single vote and, of course, the responsibility that comes with it as a voter and as an elected member. But what can sometimes get lost in the noise of a heated election is just how precious a fair and democratic vote is. For generations, people have had to fight to win their right to do so.

With that in mind, it will be a proud sight when thousands of people march through Edinburgh on Sunday 10 June, wearing the suffragette colours of green, white and violet. They will be celebrating the achievements of those first women who won the right to vote 100 years ago.

The Council has already unanimously agreed to close parts of Princes Street to allow the event to take place on the same streets women marched as suffragettes. I never fail to be impressed by how people in Edinburgh constantly stand up for what they believe in, and I am so glad that the echoes of those who stood up for their rights 100 years ago will be heard loud and clear here in the Capital. Women and girls of any age can take part in the mass PROCESSIONS walk.

Get on your bike

Last week we were delighted to help Transport for Edinburgh announce their exciting partnership with Serco to introduce and operate the city’s innovative cycle hire scheme later this year.

This project has long been an ambition of ours, in line with other major, modern cities around the world, so it was fantastic to see first-hand some of the brand new bikes and e-bikes which will soon be available for hire around Edinburgh.

We want to make cycling and active travel as easy and accessible as possible here in Edinburgh and this scheme will offer everyone – whether it’s residents, visitors or commuters – the chance to try it out and to feel the associated benefits.

This, in tandem (pun intended) with our commitment to develop cycling opportunities across the city – developing new routes, enhancing cycle safety and improving infrastructure – will be pivotal to encouraging more people to explore the Capital on two wheels.

Nominate someone for the Edinburgh Award

Finally, with just over a week left until votes close on 4 June, make sure you don’t miss your chance to nominate someone for the Edinburgh Award 2018. As one of the most prestigious honours we can bestow, the Edinburgh Award is presented to people who make an outstanding contribution to the city.

Previous recipients include household names like J.K Rowling, Sir Chris Hoy and Professor Peter Higgs, but it has also been presented to some of the city’s biggest community champions, such as the city’s generous veteran Tom Gilzean and philanthropist Sir Tom Farmer, each of whom have been rewarded with a cast of their handprints set in stone outside the City Chambers and a Loving Cup presented by the Lord Provost.

There are plenty of deserving citizens who could join them, so please do nominate someone now.

Get involved

Keep up to date with all council news via our news section online. You can watch live council and committee meetings via our webcast service and join the debate on Twitter using #edinwebcast. If you wish to unsubscribe, please email us. Follow us on twitter Follow us on Facebook

The City of Edinburgh Council

10.00am, Thursday, 31 May 2018

The EDI Group Ltd - Transition Strategy

Item number Report number Executive/routine Wards All Council Commitments 1, 2, 10, and 50

Executive Summary

This report provides an update on the progress made to date in closing down EDI Group Ltd and its subsidiary companies and bringing its development activities and land holdings into the Council. It follows the approval of the EDI Transition Strategy by the Housing and Economy Committee on 2 November 2017 and seeks approval for financial elements of the strategy and the governance arrangements moving forward.

Report

The EDI Group Ltd - Transition Strategy

1. Recommendations

1.1 Council is asked to: 1.1.1 Note the EDI Transition Strategy as agreed by the Housing and Economy Committee and the progress made to date in its delivery; 1.1.2 Agree the governance arrangements, as proposed, for the next stages of transition and instruct CEC Holdings Ltd Board to proceed on this basis. 1.1.3 Agree the revisions to the Shareholder Agreement in respect of CEC Holdings and EDI Group Ltd. 1.1.4 Agree to the pension liability being taken forward by the Council on an ongoing basis rather making a cessation payment; and, 1.1.5 Agree to the setting aside and potential use of up to £1m from the Council’s City Strategic Investment Fund to cover any cash flow issues that may arise over the remainder of the transition period. 1.1.6 Agree to the Parc Craigmillar Ltd Loan Book being transferred to the Council.

2. Background

2.1 The Economy Committee and the Finance and Resources Committee considered reports on 7 February 2017 and 23 February 2017 respectively setting out the options available to the Council regarding the operating model for its property companies, including issues arising and proposed transitional arrangements. These reports were considered by members under a ‘B’ agenda at both meetings. 2.2 The outcome was an instruction to the Chief Executive and the Board of CEC Holdings, EDI, PARC Craigmillar, Waterfront Edinburgh and Shawfair Land Limited to commence consideration and where possible the implementation of Option 3 (In- House Model) as set out in those reports. 2.3 On the 2 November 2017 the Housing and Economy Committee approved the Transition Strategy for closing down EDI and moving projects in-house.

3. Main report

The City of Edinburgh Council – 31 May 2018Page 2

Progress to Date 3.1 Since the report on 2 November 2017 Council Officers have continued to work with EDI to implement the Transition Strategy.

3.2 EDI staff have prepared handover packages and have been working through these with Council officers. Good progress is being made in this regard and it is anticipated that this process will be complete by the end of May 2018. By this point in time, the majority of EDI projects will have been moved into the Council and will subsequently be moved forward under normal Council project management and approval processes.

3.3 There will also be work remaining within EDI although this will be significantly reduced and it is unlikely that this will be sufficient to justify the number of staff currently employed within EDI. This will be a matter for the EDI Board to consider.

3.4 Council officers have been identified as lead officers for each of the projects that are transferring into the Council and officers have also been identified to manage to the areas of work that will remain within the EDI Group Ltd and to provide support to the EDI Board in the running of the company as and when EDI staff are made redundant. The EDI Board has been advised that the Council is ready to provide the staff resource necessary to support the ongoing business of the company.

3.5 As part of the transition process the value of work undertaken by EDI on project development will be assessed by the Council based on the Council’s intended development approach. Value will be attributed as appropriate with an element of the cost incurred being written off.

Governance 3.6 The current governance arrangements are set out in Appendix 1 and are designed to facilitate joint working between Council officers and EDI staff, while also respecting the role of Council Committees and the EDI Board in decision making.

3.7 The governance arrangements that will be put in place once EDI staff have left the company, or transferred into the Council, are shown in Appendix 2. In the light of the decision to bring the work of EDI ‘in-house’ the following key changes are considered appropriate:-

• The EDI Board should be made up of elected members only; • The Chief Executive of the Council (or delegated senior officer) will prepare the reports for the consideration of the EDI Board and take forward the resulting decisions; and, • The staff resource required to take forward the work of the company will be provided by Council staff.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 31 May 2018Page 3

3.8 In the absence of an Executive Director the EDI Board may wish to agree a scheme of delegation to allow day to day decision making to take place without recourse to the Board.

Shareholder Agreement 3.9 The Shareholder Agreement between the Council, CEC Holdings and EDI Group Ltd, is provided in Appendix 3. It is appropriate to revise the agreement at this stage to reflect the strategy that the Council as Shareholder has asked the EDI Group Ltd to take forward and to reflect the changes in governance arrangements. The key changes proposed are as follows:-

• At Section 3 Business of the Company – text should be inserted to reflect that the business of the company will continue but that this will now be pursuant to the transition strategy and ultimately the closure of the company.

• At Section 4 Directors – this would be amended to remove the requirement for an Executive Director and non-elected Non-Executive Directors to be appointed to the Board leaving only Elected Members as Board Members.

3.10 These changes are intended to give clear direction to the Company directors regarding the wishes of the Council. Following approval of this report the final terms of the revised Shareholder Agreement will be agreed with the directors of CEC Holdings and EDI Group Ltd.

Pension Liability 3.11 The approach being taken in managing the cash and assets within EDI during the closing down period, allows for the cost of the pension liability within the company to be met through a one off payment to buy out this liability and this remains the case.

3.12 Council officers have taken forward discussions with Lothian Pension Fund to assess whether it would be possible, and preferable, to take forward the liability on an on-going basis. The outcome of this exercise is that taking on the pension liability on an on-going basis is the preferred approach. The financial implications of this approach are set out in the Financial Impact section below.

City Strategic Investment Fund (CSIF) 3.13 In agreeing the strategy for the transition of EDI activities into the Council, the Housing and Economy Committee agreed in principle the use of up to £1 million from the CSIF to ensure that any cash flow issues within EDI can be resolved should such an issue arise. Although this is not anticipated and there should not be any need for a cash injection from the Council, it is considered prudent to set aside money for this purpose to avoid unexpected pressure on Council budgets. The CSIF will only be used if necessary and any expenditure will be recovered from EDI in due course. The City of Edinburgh Council – 31 May 2018Page 4

Shared Equity 3.14 PARC Craigmillar Ltd owns shared equity in 19 properties in Craigmillar. During the close down period, the approach previously assumed was for Council staff to administer the loan book on behalf of PARC Craigmillar. However, as the Council also owns shared-equity in Craigmillar, it is proposed that the Council purchase the loan book and manage the loans alongside its portfolio. This would be less administratively cumbersome and provides a long-term solution for the affected property owners.

3.15 The cost of the loan book purchase can be met from writing down loan stock of an equivalent value and the price will be established through valuations obtained for the properties.

4. Measures of success

4.1 The measures of success are that the transition strategy is delivered:

• In accordance with the objectives set; • On time and within cost parameters; and, • That projects continue to be effectively delivered in line with the Council’s housing and economic objectives.

4.2 Progress against these measures will be tracked in six monthly reports to Housing and Economy Committee.

5. Financial impact

5.1 In November 2017 it was reported to Housing and Environment Committee that the Council would receive a total of £21.657m from the wind down of EDI. This was to take the form of cash and land receipts resulting in the repayment of all outstanding loan stock and share capital, along with an estimated dividend of £4.4m. In addition, it was noted that the Council was expected to receive a further £7.5m in profit share from developments at Market Street and Brunstane. 5.2 The original modelling was carried out based on the balances sheets of August 2017 and reflecting the then estimates of land sales values. The modelling has been redone during February 2018 based on the latest December 2017 year-end balance sheets and revised estimates for land sales and pension liabilities. The latest modelling now shows the cash and land receipt increasing to £25.767m, resulting in repayment of all outstanding loan stock and share capital together with an estimated dividend of £8.5m. In addition, anticipated profit share from Market Street and Brunstane has increased to £9.158m.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 31 May 2018Page 5

5.3 As stated in paragraph 3.14, the purchase of PARC Craigmillar’s shared equity loan book can be met from the repayment of loan stock. These loans will in turn be repaid by current home owners in accordance with the legal agreements in place. 5.4 The financial implications of this process for the EDI Group Ltd have been modelled by EDI staff and checked by Council staff. In addition, the taxation implications of the strategy have been reviewed by EDI’s external tax advisers, to minimise the risk of any unintended adverse impact on either EDI or the Council. The audited accounts for EDI are available for public viewing and show a healthy financial position with sufficient funds and assets available to allow the transition strategy to proceed as intended. However, given the nature of property market in which EDI operates, these forecasts are likely to change. The financial modelling will therefore be rerun on a regular basis. 5.5 EDI will remain solvent throughout this transition process and the financial strategy is designed accordingly. Notwithstanding this, it is prudent to set aside £1m from the City Strategic Investment Fund (CSIF) to cover any cash flow issues that may arise. There are sufficient funds available to cover this potential expenditure and regular reports are provided to the Housing and Economy Committee on use of the CSIF. This money, if spent, will be repaid to the Council by EDI and as set out above there are sufficient proceeds from the closing down of EDI activity to cover this potential expenditure. 5.6 As stated in paragraph 3.11, EDI’s pension deficit on cessation of its activities has been calculated on an ongoing basis. It is expected that it will terminate its membership of Lothian Pension Fund on 31 October 2018, when the last staff member has been made redundant. A one-off cessation valuation will be calculated by the Fund’s Actuary on EDI’s exit. This will assess the net deficit of assets against liabilities, thus crystallising the pension debt as far as EDI is concerned. Since the Council is providing a guarantee encompassing the full scale and duration of EDI liabilities, the “ongoing” rather than the more prudent “gilts basis” is appropriate for the cessation valuation. In future actuarial valuations, assets and liabilities will be included with those of the Council.

6. Risk, policy, compliance and governance impact

6.1 Risk – As stated above the Council is the parent company of EDI. The proposed closedown of EDI is a managed process and while land and projects will transfer directly to the Council the financial and corporate elements of this process will remain within EDI. There is not considered to be any significant additional risk to the Council as a result of this strategy. 6.2 Reputational Risk – Some of the EDI companies have been in existence for over 20 years and there may be reputational issues with winding them up at this time. However, there has been significant change during this period with the Council in under unprecedented finance pressure. These reasons alone will mitigate against any reputational issues arising.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 31 May 2018Page 6

6.3 Policy - The risk around loss of momentum in key areas of regeneration such as Craigmillar, Granton and Fountainbridge is mitigated by the way in which this strategy is phased and planned. There are arrangements in place to ensure a smooth transition and the continued delivery of projects in line with Council policy objectives. 6.4 Compliance – The processes in place will ensure that financial, legal, and employment rules are observed throughout this process. 6.5 Governance – The governance (existing and proposed) and control measures in place, both within the Council and EDI, are considered to be appropriate.

7. Equalities impact

7.1 There are not considered to be any negative equalities impacts arising from this report.

7.2 Any equalities or rights issues arising in relation to development projects will continue to be assessed through existing arrangements within EDI and the Council.

8. Sustainability impact

8.1 The impact of this report in relation to the three elements of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 Public Bodies Duties have been considered, and the outcomes are summarised below. 8.2 There are not considered to be any sustainability impacts arising from this report.

8.3 Any sustainability impacts in relation to development projects will continue to be assessed through existing arrangements within EDI and the Council.

9. Consultation and engagement

9.1 The CEC Holdings and EDI Boards have been advised of the proposed governance arrangements and revisions to the Shareholder Agreement. Council officers will continue to consult with the Board members in finalising and implementing the new working arrangements. 9.2 Consultation in relation to EDI staff has be undertaken and will continue to be undertaken by the Executive Director of EDI supported by Council officers where appropriate. 9.2 Consultation and engagement with local communities and investment/development partners will continue to be taken forward in relation to individual projects, for example the Fountainbridge Sounding Board in relation to India Quay.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 31 May 2018Page 7

10. Background reading/external references

10.1 Report to the City of Edinburgh Council on 13 December 2012 entitled Council Companies; 10.2 Report to Finance and Budget Committee on 21 February 2013 on 4 to 8 Market Street: Proposed Disposal; 10.3 Report to Council on 27 June 2013 on Rationalisation and Restructure of Council Arm’s Length Companies – Progress Report; 10.4 Report to Council on 6 February 2014 on Rationalisation and Restructure of Council Arm’s Length Companies – Progress Report: 10.5 Report to Economy Committee on 22 May 2014 (B Agenda) on Fountainbridge: Disposal/Development Options; 10.6 Report to Finance and Resources Committee on 4 June 2015 (B Agenda) on Fountainbridge – Transfer of land to the EDI Group Limited 10.7 Report to Economy Committee on 7 February 2017 (B Agenda) on Council Property Companies – report by the Chief Executive 10.8 Report to Finance and Resources Committee on 23 February 2017 (B Agenda) on Council Property Companies – referral report from the Economy Committee 10.9 Report to Economy Committee on 2 November 2017 (B Agenda) on EDI Transition Strategy. 10.10 Link to EDI Website and Company Accounts - http://www.edigroup.co.uk/information 10.11 Shareholder Agreement – CEC Holdings and EDI Group Ltd

Paul Lawrence Executive Director of Place Contact: David Cooper, Service Manager - Development E-mail: [email protected] | Tel: 0131 529 6233

11. Appendices

Appendix 1 – Current Governance Arrangements Appendix 2 – Proposed Governance Arrangements Appendix 3 – Financial Plan

The City of Edinburgh Council – 31 May 2018Page 8

Appendix 1 – Current Governance Arrangements

Appendix 2 – Proposed Governance Arrangements

The City of Edinburgh Council – 31 May 2018Page 10

Appendix 3 – Financial Plan

Financial Plan Cost Receipt Received by Council £'000s £'000s

Land & buildings 3,895 Cash 21,872

Total 25,767

Offset against

Intercompany Loans 1,229 Loan Stock 7,538 Share Capital 8,500

Total 17,267

Net Financial Position

Net amount received from EDI 8,500

In addition the Council is contractually entitled to a profit share from Market Street and New Brunstane estimated at £9.158m spread over ten years.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 31 May 2018Page 11

City of Edinburgh Council

10.00am, Thursday, 31 May 2018

Fair Fringe and Fair Hospitality Charter Guidelines

Item number Report number Executive/routine Wards All Council Commitments 46

Executive Summary

This report sets out a response to the amended Council Motion by Councillor Cameron on 24 August 2017 calling for a report ahead of the 2018 summer festivals and Fringe on how the ten aims of the Fair Hospitality Charter can best be promoted, and adhered to, by employers hiring Council-owned Festival and Fringe venues for the purposes of running Fringe events and hosting food and beverage venues. In response to this, Officers have developed an Edinburgh Festivals Workers’ Welfare Commitment. This report asks Council to approve the Edinburgh Festivals Workers’ Welfare Commitment.

The

Report

Fair Fringe and Fair Hospitality Charter Guidelines

1. Recommendations

1.1 It is recommended that Council: 1.1.1 approve the Edinburgh Festivals Workers’ Welfare Commitment.

2. Background

2.1 The Fair Fringe campaign is an alliance of Fringe employees and Edinburgh-based campaign groups working to improve the pay and conditions of Fringe workers. The campaign is calling upon Festival employers to sign up to Unite’s Fair Hospitality Charter. 2.2 The Fair Hospitality Charter contains ten practices to be implemented by Festival employers: • Pay workers the real living wage; • Give workers rest breaks; • Equal pay for young workers; • Minimum hour contracts for workers; • Adopt clear policies which prevent sexual harassment; • Paid transport after 12am; • Consult workers on rota changes; • Ensure 100% of tips are paid to workers; • No unpaid trial shifts; and • Allow Trade Union access to represent and organise staff. 2.3 Two reports to the Housing and Economy Committee on 18 January 2018 and 22 March 2018 highlighted the work undertaken in identifying the impact on the Council of adopting the Fair Hospitality Charter. The report on 22 March 2018 requested further time to assess the impact of implementing the Charter on the Council as it would affect many different service areas. 2.4 Given the wide scope of the Council services impacted by the introduction of this Commitment, it was recommended that a report be prepared for the Council meeting of 31 May 2018.

City of Edinburgh Council – 31 May 2018 Page 2

3. Main report

3.1 The Fair Fringe campaign has been working to highlight any unfair employment practices that may be in place during the Fringe. It should be noted that the campaign specifically focuses on the Fringe, rather than all the summer Festivals. However, the Council motion calls for the Fringe and all summer Festivals to be addressed. 3.2 The Council’s terms of employment and UK employment law already address a number of the points contained within the Fair Hospitality Charter; indeed, many of the Council’s policies extend further than those in the Charter. However, there are areas where clarification of the Council’s policy would be helpful in demonstrating its commitment to the welfare of workers and the expectations that the Council has on those using its venues or operating during the Festivals. 3.3 Further, the Council has a leadership role within the City and should demonstrate good practice so that its own standards can be applied to others. 3.4 In response to this, officers from across the Council have developed an Edinburgh Festivals Workers’ Welfare Commitment, which is attached at Appendix 1. 3.5 A workshop with representatives from the Festivals, Trades Unions and Council officers was held to discuss the Commitment and to produce the final seven commitments. 3.6 These are: 3.6.1 Payment of the Scottish local government living wage; 3.6.2 Protection of rest breaks; 3.6.3 No uncertainty of contracted hours; 3.6.4 Prevention of harassment and discrimination; 3.6.5 Safety for journeys to and from work; 3.6.6 Worker welfare and no unpaid trial shifts; and 3.6.7 Clarification on worker tips.

3.7 A number of references to the ‘living wage’ are made within the Fair Hospitality Charter and the Council’s Commitment. For clarity, there are a number of different levels of ‘living wage’; the Council pays the Scottish Local Government Living Wage of £8.51 per hour, not to be confused with the UK Government National Living Wage of £7.83 per hour. This rate varies depending on the age of the worker. 3.8 A table demonstrating the alignment of each Commitment to the Fair Hospitality Charter is included below:

City of Edinburgh Council – 31 May 2018 Page 3 Unite ‘10 Fair Hospitality Charter ‘Edinburgh Festivals Workers’ Welfare Practices’ Commitment’

1. Pay workers the real living See ‘Commitment 1’ wage 2. Give workers rest breaks See ‘Commitment 2’

3. Equal pay for young See ‘Commitment 1’ workers 4. Minimum hour contracts for See ‘Commitment 3’ workers 5. Adopt clear policies which See ‘Commitment 4’ prevent sexual harassment 6. Paid transport after 12am See ‘Commitment 5’ on safe journeys to and from work.

7. Consult workers on rota See ‘Commitment 3’ changes 8. Ensure 100% of tips are See ‘Commitment 7’ paid to workers 9. No unpaid trial shifts See ‘Commitment 6’

10. Allow TU access to See introduction ‘Our commitment’ and represent and organise staff ‘Commitment 4’

3.9 While the Council meets all elements of the Commitment through its existing practices, some organisations may not be able to immediately meet all the pointss contained within the Edinburgh Festivals Workers’ Welfare Commitment. In this case, the Commitments should be viewed as aspirational and a target to be reached, establishing a minimum standard for workers within the city’s Festivals and what the Council expects for Festival workers, helping others to identify areas for improvement.

4. Measures of success

4.1 The success of the Commitment will be measured by its adoption and promotion. 4.2 The programme contributes to the delivery of the following Culture Plan objectives: • Support greater partnership working in the cultural and creative sectors and maximise resources available to help them thrive all year round; and • Ensure that everyone has access to world class cultural provision.

City of Edinburgh Council – 31 May 2018 Page 4 5. Financial impact

5.1 There is no direct financial impact associated with this report. The Commitments contained within the report are already in place or are existing policy.

6. Risk, policy, compliance and governance impact

6.1 There are no risk, policy, compliance or governance impacts arising from this report.

7. Equalities impact

7.1 The outcome of this report and the Fair Fringe campaign will ensure that workers are treated equally and without exploitation or discrimination where this exists. The report itself has a positive equalities impact.

8. Sustainability impact

8.1 The impacts of this report have been considered in relation to the three elements of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 Public Bodies Duties, and the outcomes are summarised as follows: the proposals in this report will have no significant impact on carbon emissions; be neutral in relation to climate change; and will help achieve a sustainable Edinburgh through the promotion of the city nationally and internationally, positive economic impact and contributions to the quality of life and well-being of residents.

9. Consultation and engagement

9.1 The Council has engaged with the relevant partners, Trades Unions and Festivals bodies to deliver and implement relevant findings.

10. Background reading/external references

10.1 City of Edinburgh Council – 24 August 2017 10.2 Housing and Economy Committee – 18 January 2018 10.3 Housing and Economy Committee – 22 March 2018 10.4 Fair Fringe Campaign

City of Edinburgh Council – 31 May 2018 Page 5 Paul Lawrence Executive Director of Place Contact: David Waddell, Senior Events Officer E-mail: [email protected] | Tel: 0131 529 4929

11. Appendices

11.1 Appendix 1 - Edinburgh Festivals Workers’ Welfare Commitment

City of Edinburgh Council – 31 May 2018 Page 6

Edinburgh Festivals Workers’ Welfare Commitment

The City of Edinburgh Council

June 2018

Edinburgh Festivals Workers’ Welfare Commitment

Our commitment

Our Commitment sets out what we as a Council expect for Festival workers and where we would like others to follow.

The Council has a clear vision for Festival workers in Edinburgh and we want to make sure that fair work practices are adopted and complied with.

We have a reputation as the world’s leading festival city, it is a dynamic city which makes a vital contribution to the community and economy of Scotland and we want to set high standards for those Festival workers who support the city.

We, as a Council, promote high standards of performance, accountability, and a culture based on strong values. We ask others to do the same.

The objective of this Commitment is to promote a responsible and credible Festival worker environment for Edinburgh, while encouraging all festival organisations to work in partnership with trade union colleagues.

The Leader, Depute Leader, Councillors, Senior Management and all Staff commit to the provision of effective and sound governance at all levels and we call upon those engaging our Festival workers in Edinburgh to follow the worker commitments.

Andrew Kerr, Chief Executive June 2018

Commitment 1

The Scottish local government living wage

The Council is committed to and pays its own employees no less than the Scottish Local Government Living Wage, a wage which is currently £8.51 per hour.

The Council expects those engaging festival workers to adopt pay policies which comply with fair work practices.

The Council expects engaging organisations to align to the same commitment where possible to ensure fair pay, to no less than the UK Government national living wage level for those aged 25+, irrespective of age (currently £7.83, per hour).

Fair pay is a positive factor and one of the clearest ways in which engaging organisations can demonstrate that they adopt fair work policies.

Engaging organisations can also demonstrate this through a variety of policies including, recruitment, remuneration, terms of engagement, skills utilisation, job support and worker representation.

Commitment 2

Rest breaks

The Council is committed to ensuring that all of our employees have appropriate rest.

The Council expects those engaging festival workers to adopt the following standards:-

For workers over the age of 18:

• when festival workers are working for more than 6 hours, 20 minutes rest;

• rest of 11 consecutive hours in each 24-hour period;

• uninterrupted rest of not less than 24 hours in each 7-day period.

For workers over age 16 but under 18:

• when festival workers are working for more than 4.5 hours, 30 minutes rest;

• rest of 12 consecutive hours in each 24-hour period;

• uninterrupted rest of not less than 48 hours in each 7-day period.

Engaging organisations should demonstrate their commitment to protecting and regulating workers’ hours of work, rest breaks and holiday entitlements, the aim of which is to protect the health and safety of festival workers.

Commitment 3

No uncertainty of contracted hours

The Council sometimes engages individuals who are on a contract which does not guarantee a minimum number of hours work, however, there is no obligation on the individual to accept work that is offered.

While the Council is unlikely to be able to eliminate such arrangements entirely, we would encourage festival engaging organisations to provide a minimum of 24 hours’ notice where work needs to be undertaken. This notice is reciprocal in that workers are also asked to provide 24 hours’ notice if they are unable or unwilling to work.

Council contracts of this nature are typically used to provide short term supply staffing cover, such as theatre staff, to provide staff where hours cannot be guaranteed. The individual is free to work for different organisations and there is no obligation for them to accept work, if offered. These contracts do not include any obligations/restrictions around working for other employers. The Council ensure such individuals receive an employment contract for the relevant period of work and associated benefits such as service related annual leave, special leave and sickness allowance - such arrangements ensure that relevant employment benefits are conferred as rightly appropriate.

Engaging organisations should demonstrate their commitment to certainty for festival workers by agreeing to no less than those arrangements which the Council keep.

Commitment 4

Prevent harassment and discrimination

The Council is committed to protecting its staff from all forms of harassment and discrimination, including sexual harassment and discriminatory behaviour, whether it originates in the workplace or from the Council’s clients, service partners or customers.

The Council will not tolerate or condone such behaviours and it is a breach of our open commitment to encourage and maintain an anti-discriminatory culture. The Council is committed to eliminating harassment or discriminatory behaviour on any of the following grounds:

• sex; • sexual orientation; • age; • disability; • gender reassignment; • marriage or civil partnership; • pregnancy and maternity; • race; and • religion or belief; • Trade Union membership.

The Council expects festival engaging organisations to align to the same attitudes and behaviours, including a positive demonstration of this through policies which protect their workers.

Festival workers should have access to mechanisms to deal with any grievance concerning harassment or discrimination that they may have.

Commitment 5

Safety for journeys to and from work

Tackling violence, harassment and safeguarding the safety of Council and festival workers is critical.

We would encourage all Council and Festival workers who are travelling late:-

• to wait for a bus, tram or train in a well-lit place near other people;

• if threatened make as much noise as possible to attract the attention of the driver;

• know where you are going and when you need to get off and check departure times, especially last services;

• if travelling at night try to arrange for someone to meet you at your end destination;

• carry extra money in case you get stranded and need different transport;

• have your money ready so your purse or wallet is out of sight.

We also encourage employers to take into consideration, start and finish times, which take account of public transport available.

Commitment 6

Worker welfare & no unpaid trial shifts

The Council is committed to protecting its staff from unpaid trial shifts.

The Council will not tolerate such behaviours and expects festival engaging organisations to also protect their staff from unpaid trial shifts.

Organisations engaging workers should follow best practice recruitment and assessment guidance, which do not include unpaid trial shifts.

Commitment 7

Worker Tips

The Council does not encourage or promote tipping within its venues. Where tips are given, the Council encourages Festival organisers to ensure that tips are distributed fairly and equally between all staff who have contributed to the provision of the service, including those who are ‘back of house’.

Tips should not be used to replace or top up wages and will not count as wages for the purposes of paying the minimum government living wage.

For guidance, a Code of Best Practice on Tips has been produced by the Department for Business Innovation and Skills.

Council Leader, Councillor Adam McVey …………………………….………………..

Council Depute Leader, Councillor Cammy Day …………………………….………………..

Chief Executive, Andrew Kerr …………………………….………………..

Director of Culture, Lynne Halfpenny …………………………….………………..

The City of Edinburgh Council

10.00am, Thursday, 31 May 2018

Edinburgh Transient Visitor Levy

Item number Report number Executive/routine Wards Council Commitments

Executive Summary

This paper relates to the Council Commitment to progress the Edinburgh Transient Visitor Levy (TVL). This paper outlines some of the findings from a comprehensive desk based research into an Edinburgh Transient Visitor Levy and notes further activities related to the Edinburgh TVL.

Report

Edinburgh Transient Visitor Levy

1. Recommendations

1.1 Agrees that the current research paper on the Edinburgh TVL will form the basis of further engagement work involving visitors, residents, and the business community on the Edinburgh TVL. 1.2 Note plans for future engagement over the Summer as set out in paragraph 4.1. 1.3 Note that a report will come back to Council once this further engagement has taken place.

2. Background

2.1 The City of Edinburgh Council has a long-held belief that a Transient Visitor Levy is in the best interests of our residents, our tourism industry and ultimately also those who visit us. There is a current council commitment “to continue to make the case to the Scottish Government for the introduction of the Edinburgh transient visitor levy.” In the Council Business Plan and the Scottish Government have been clear that they are open to hearing from Edinburgh City on this but want the council to engage with the tourist and hotel industries on any proposal. 2.2 Edinburgh residents are increasingly recognising both the positive and negative impact of a thriving tourist economy. In the 2017 Edinburgh People’s survey, citizens of Edinburgh volunteered TVL as a possible solution for some of the challenges the city is faced with in meeting the demands for public services and responding to the impact of a strong tourist sector on key public services. 2.3 With tourism and the number of residents in the city both projected to continue to grow, and in an environment where public spending continues to shrink across the piece, we need to consider more sustainable ways of securing long term investment that are fair and balance the interests of all. To make progress on this issue it is essential that we have an open and balanced discussion with those who would be affected by it. 2.4 It should be noted that COSLA have also started to campaign for LAs to have the legal power to implement a TVL, subject to consultation with stakeholders. This national activity is targeting national stakeholders, the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament.

City of Edinburgh Council - 31 May 2018 Page 2

3. Main report

3.1 Comprehensive desk-based research into transient visitor levy was conducted in early 2018. This looked at the Edinburgh accommodation sector, the policy context, and examples of a similar TVL in other cities. The research that we have done shows that it could bring substantial revenue into our city; a small charge of £1 per person per night could generate over £11 million per annum. Estimates on the additional income that could be generated from an Edinburgh TVL range from £5 million to £29 million. This resource would help to improve the offer to residents and enhance the quality of the visitor experience; securing the long-term appeal of Edinburgh. 3.2 The research into other cities which have implemented a form of TVL illustrate a complicated relationship between price changes to accommodation and subsequent changes in visitor demand. Visitor demand is influenced by a complex mix of factors; the destinations overall appeal; relative and overall prices; and the overall quality of the tourist experience, cultural and other attractions. 3.3 The research also shows ways in which the revenue raised from the Edinburgh TVL can be invested into services that will improve the quality of the tourist experience and create positive benefits for the industry and the city. These may include, but are not limited to: investing in parks, public spaces, clean streets, improved marketing of the city, reduced ticket prices to cultural attractions, and hosting additional cultural events. Next Steps 3.4 While the Chief Executive has been, as part of normal business, informally raising the question of a TVL with key stakeholders, the Council plans to deliver further formal engagement/research activities as well as ongoing politically led engagement with elected members and the industry. These include 3.4.1 A specific piece of research into the views of residents and visitors on the TVL which will be done in partnership with Marketing Edinburgh. This research will require consideration by, and a response from, the Council which reflects upon some of the future challenges we may also have with resident and tourist numbers both expected to grow. 3.4.2 A roundtable discussion with industry stakeholders in June to discuss the details of what an Edinburgh Scheme could reasonably look like and options for implementing it. 3.5 Upon the completion of this engagement activity we propose coming back to Council with a further report outlining a formal consultation on the introduction of a specific Edinburgh TVL proposal based on the outcome of the feedback received. 3.6 Once this formal consultation has concluded we propose bringing a final report back to Council seeking a formal decision to back the introduction of an Edinburgh TVL and if Council agrees, to seek the legislative ability to implement the policy.

City of Edinburgh Council - 31 May 2018 Page 3

4. Measures of success

4.1 The measures of success in terms of the work specified in this report relate to securing the right to introduce a transient visitor levy. 5. Financial impact

5.1 There was no immediate financial impact other than officers time. 6. Risk, policy, compliance and governance impact

6.1 The recommendation in this report is consistent with existing policies and aspirations of the Council. 7. Equalities impact

7.1 There are no immediate equalities impact from the recommendations related to this paper. An Integrated Impact Assessment will be undertaken for the development of the Transient Visitor Levy when potential options/policies have been formed. 8. Sustainability impact

8.1 The proposals in this report will have no immediate sustainability impact but should the Edinburgh Transient Visitor Levy be introduced there would be some related sustainability outcomes related to the decision on the additional income choices, but these are beyond the scope of this paper and are conditional on the TVL being implement in Edinburgh 9. Consultation and engagement

9.1 Further consultation with other partners and users will be undertaken where appropriate. 10. Background reading/external references

10.1 Edinburgh People Survey 2017 Results 10.2 2018/19 Resident Budget Engagement 10.3 City of Edinburgh Council Commitments

Andrew Kerr Chief Executive Contact: Laurence Rockey, Head of Strategy and Insight E-mail: [email protected] | Tel: 0131 469 3493 11. Appendices

Appendix 1 – CEC Transient Visitor Levy research paper

City of Edinburgh Council - 31 May 2018 Page 4

CEC TRANSIENT VISITOR LEVY RESEARCH RESEARCH PAPER

MAY 2018

Transient Visitor Levy Research, May 2018

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. INTRODUCING A TVL 2. POTENTIAL IMPACT OF AN TVL 3. BENEFITS OF AN TVL 4. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF TVL 5. NEXT STEPS

APPENDIX 1: STAKEHOLDER VIEWS APPENDIX 2: VISITOR LEVY IN OTHER COUNTRIES TABLES APPENDIX 3: HOTEL VAT RATES IN OTHER COUNTRIES APPENDIX 4: PRINCIPLES OF LOCAL TAXATION APPENDIX 5: PUBLIC SECTOR POSITION ON TVL APPENDIX 6: COUNCIL FUNDING MECHANISM

Transient Visitor Levy Research, May 2018 Page 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Government. However, to make progress on this issue it is essential that we have an open and balanced discussion with all who would be affected by the TVL.

SUMMARY This research paper hopes to contribute to that debate by providing a summary and analysis of relevant evidence and information available. It looks at other cities that This research paper seeks to understand the potential impacts and benefits of introducing currently operate a similar mechanism, reviews studies that assess the potential impact or a transient visitor levy in Edinburgh in such a way that is fair to tourists, residents and price on demand and includes modelling using Edinburgh data to estimate what revenue businesses. streams could be generated. This paper also seeks to stimulate debate by suggesting ideas Edinburgh is a vibrant and dynamic city which has a strong tourist sector. The volume of on the structure and mechanism of a levy and how revenue could be spent. visitors to Edinburgh is growing every year. Despite this, Edinburgh needs to work hard to The key findings from this research are highlighted below: retain global competitiveness as a city by continuing to invest in the city and the tourism sector. Key findings:

The hospitality sector in Edinburgh benefits greatly from the growth in visitors. Evidence • The evidence from existing studies on the relationship between price changes shows that the hotel accommodation sector is expected to grow by a further 1,960 rooms and visitor demand suggest that more factors than the cost of accommodation between 2017 and 2020. The hotel occupancy rate in Edinburgh is also very high at affect the choice of destination. around 82% on average throughout the year, which is larger than most cities in Europe. The growth of new accommodation models such as Airbnb, rising from around 6,300 to • Edinburgh‘s overall appeal and tourist experience would influence visitor 9,700 listings from July 2016 to September 2017, represents further evidence of a growing demand alongside cost. and successful industry. • It can be shown that Edinburgh would remain globally competitive in terms of However, tourism also produces added demand on the city’s core services from the taxation even if a TVL is adopted when compared with the overall taxation temporary increases in population size. This can have a detrimental effect on residents prevalent in other cities such as Venice, Rome, Budapest and Florence. and on the visitor experience if high standards with in the city are not maintained. • The charge option: percentage of accommodation cost; has less impact on It is clear that in an environment of reducing public funding and declining National Lottery budget tourists, or off-season trade when compared to other charge options. funding, something needs to be done to ensure that the council and our partners can continue to invest in, and benefit from, tourism to the city. The current levels of • The administration burden in collection and operation can be managed by design investment and support for those things that make a city attractive – from clean streets to and principles that offer clarity on the levy. historic and cultural activities – will be more challenging unless alternative ways of raising • Estimates on the potential income that could be generated from an Edinburgh resources to target investment into the future are progressed. TVL range from £5 million to £29 million depending on the design type selected. In the 2017 Council elections most of the political parties specifically referenced the need to consider a visitor levy for Edinburgh. Implementing the transient visitor levy in Edinburgh would require support and action from the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish

Transient Visitor Levy Research, May 2018 Page 3

SECTION 1: INTRODUCING A TVL The City of Edinburgh Council have looked at alternative mechanism to the Edinburgh transient visitor levy.2 However, in addition to the strong political priority towards the compulsory Edinburgh transient visitor levy3, the TVL would ensure a consistent and INTRODUCTION sufficiently large revenue stream, so the benefits would outweigh the costs. The The accommodation sector is a crucial sector for the tourism industry in Edinburgh, consistency of the fund would also ensure the ability to put long term planning in place. tourism however, creates additional pressures on the industries sustainability and places a demand on public services from the increase in population. Those against the transient 1.2 COSTS AND BENEFITS OF TOURISM 1 visitor levy seek to show that the imposition of extra taxes can be counterproductive, but Tourism benefits Edinburgh, it contributes to the mixed socio-cultural environment, there is also a need to ensure continued investment in the sector. encourages diversification, investment in transport and housing infrastructure, and provides jobs and opportunities to people and businesses. However, tourism also This section covers: produces external effects, such as congestion, pollution, higher prices, and other • 1.1 Background of the Edinburgh Transient Visitor Levy perceived inconveniences to residents.

• 1.2 Costs and benefits of tourism It is from these perceived costs that a case for a visitor levy is made: tourists and the industry that serves them bear a proportion of the cost for maintaining the environment • 1.3 Investment from additional revenue and infrastructure that enhances the tourist experience and ensures the competitiveness of Edinburgh as a tourist destination of choice. • 1.4 Tourism in Edinburgh The Perceived Costs of Tourism

1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE EDINBURGH TRANSIENT VISITOR LEVY After a certain level of population size, locals start to compete with tourists for resources Edinburgh is Scotland’s capital, and its second most populous city. It is well-known for its such as space, parks, transportation, visiting, shopping lines, or even for spots for viewing unique topography and historic architecture. It is also a major tourist destination for those scenery. The inconvenience caused by an increased tourism volume can become more domestically and overseas, despite its own population size of around half a million people. tolerable from the perspective of the residents when ‘compensation’ or some sort of benefit from investment is offered to the locality. Edinburgh draws in more overseas visitors per year than any other UK city outside of Source: Young (1973) Tourism: Blessing or Blight? London. Tourism makes heavy use of the location’s resources such as nature, transport, and culture experiences. To sustain Edinburgh’s position as an attractive place to visit, the city must continue to invest in maintaining and protecting its resources.

3 1 A transient visitor levy is defined as charges levied on short term paid accommodation. The City of Edinburgh Council made 52 Commitments in 2017 and number 48 includes a commitment to “make a case to the Scottish Government for the introduction of a Transient Visitor Levy”. Additional public sector 2 Cultural Heritage Fund and Tourist Business Improvement District. These would have operated as a surcharge positions on TVL from COSLA, the Scottish Government, and the Local Government Political Parties are noted on customers levied by businesses voluntarily participating in the scheme. in Appendix 5.

Transient Visitor Levy Research, May 2018 Page 4

1.3 INVESTMENT FROM ADDITIONAL REVENUE this question will no doubt differ if asked of Edinburgh visitors, it does highlight the range of ideal preferences modern visitors are looking at overall, and not being guided by the Introducing a TVL would allow Edinburgh to raise additional revenues to support the headline price of the accommodation, proving that many value the quality and range of tourism and the visitor sector in a variety of ways. These may include, but not be limited different service options. to: offering reduced entry to cultural attractions for visitors and residents, improving the public realm, investing in protecting the local environment, improving marketing of the city, funding enhancing the cultural infrastructure and for showcase cultural events. SUMMARY Since the mid-2000s, Edinburgh has regularly explored the introduction of a visitor levy. It The income raised would also extend the fiscal base for Edinburgh, and this could has remained a priority for the Council, this commitment was again reinforced in 2017, potentially support more options in the management of other taxes, such as council tax after the local government elections, when the City of Edinburgh Council agreed to and business rates in high volume tourist locations. continue to make a case to the Scottish Government for the introduction of an Edinburgh transient visitor levy. Sustainability is a key strand in the Scottish Government’s Tourism Scotland 2020 Strategy, any investments in improving Edinburgh as a tourist destination would also In 2017, cities such as Bath, Hull and London have publicly announced they are ensure the well-being of current and future generations. undertaking feasibility or option appraisals for introducing a similar visitor levy or city tax. Some Scottish Cities such as Aberdeen, Glasgow and Highland Council have also started 1.4 TOURISM IN EDINBURGH similar work. Ensuring Edinburgh’s continued success and reputation as a world-class Visitors to Edinburgh follow a seasonal and event driven calendar cycle. Figure 1, around vibrant, modern, well-connected and cultural city requires investment. 42 percent of visitors come to Edinburgh over the summer season July to September. This The argument from local authorities is that the local tourism industry benefits from the compares to an average of around 30 percent from other UK cities. The high spread of extended services local authorities provide such as transportation, landscaping, cultural visitors in the off-season months should be further encouraged. The design of an events, increased capacity, security, safety, and convention centres, there should be some Edinburgh visitor levy could address this by charging higher rates during peak season form of compensation available. times and removing the levy entirely or reducing it over the off-season trade. The high volume of visitors, the need to ensure its position and competitiveness as a city Many businesses and jobs in Edinburgh are reliant on and benefit from the visitor through destination development and promotion, and the importance of tourism for economy. While Edinburgh is outwardly seen as a successful visitor destination. Edinburgh many businesses elevates the transient visitor levy as an option for Edinburgh. regularly succeeds with high hotel occupancy rates relative to some major cities in Europe, see Figure 3. Edinburgh is often outwardly seen as an expensive destination to visit for tourists, but is far from the most expensive city in Europe for overnight stays, as measured by the average daily room rate, see Figure 2.

According to Visit Scotland’s survey of visitors to Edinburgh, among the top reasons for people visiting Edinburgh include its history, culture, scenery and landscape, with over 60% of all respondents selecting this option. The main factor people consider the most important when deciding where to stay in Scotland includes location (77%) followed by value for money (56%) and the availability of free wifi (28%). Although the responses to

Transient Visitor Levy Research, May 2018 Page 5

Figure 1. Proportion of overseas visitors to Edinburgh and UK cities by season 2014 to 2016 Figure 4: Visitor Survey responses on Edinburgh and aspects important to accommodation choice

What attracted you to come to Edinburgh?

History and culture 65% Scenery and landscape 61% Always wanted to visit 50% To visit a particular attraction 40% To visit cities 33% Wanted to re visit 33% Friendly people 25% Visit family / friends 22% To get away from it all 20% Easy to get to 16% Something else 15% Activities on offer 14% Climate and weather 8% Figure 2: Average Daily rate in European cities Figure 3: Average annual occupancy rates in Closeness to home 4% projected for 2017 (euros) European cities projected for 2017 What aspects were important in choosing your accommodation (Scotland) location 77% value for money 56% free wifi 28% quality star grading 23% previous experience 18% specific room arrangements 12% specific facilities 11% restaurant / quality of food 8% other 7% pet friendly 6% accessibility provisions 5% childcare provisions / facilities 3%

Source: Visit Scotland – Visitor Survey 2015 and 2016

Transient Visitor Levy Research, May 2018 Page 6

SECTION 2: POTENTIAL IMPACT OF A TVL from visitors, which could result in one of three or a combination of different actions as highlighted in the logic chain for reduced visitor demand.

INTRODUCTION Figure 5: Logic chain for reduced visitor demand Change destination choice Introducing the transient visitor levy, requires a balanced and thoughtful debate looking Transient Provider Visitor at the merits and disadvantages. This section covers the common themed issues that are Visitor passes on Change duration choice response raised by those opposed to introducing a transient visitor levy in Edinburgh. To provide a Levy to visitor balanced assessment, the next section which cover the benefits of the transient visitor Change expenditure amount levy. This section covers the following proposed issues opposed to the introduction of a The size of the reduction in visitor demand depends on visitor’s sensitivity to transient visitor levy in Edinburgh: accommodation price changes, this is often referred to as the price elasticity of demand. Studies to date often do not take account of the direct impacts on other tourism sectors, • 2.1 Visitor demand reduction other competing tourist destinations, or on the impact on the visibility of such levies or • 2.2 Factors influencing destination choice taxes on visitor demand.

• 2.3 Tourism taxation in the UK Overall cost is just one of the factors that influence a choice of destination, and occupancy prices are also just one of the many different prices facing tourists. The overall price of the • 2.4 Visitors to Edinburgh paying more holiday is important, such as the roundtrip transport fares and prices, and the price of goods and services at the destination. • 2.5 Singling out only part of the tourist sector UK Studies assessing the impact on demand from price changes 2.1 VISITOR DEMAND REDUCTION There is little available evidence on Edinburgh-specific price elasticities of demand for The issue: There is a significant risk of further damaging Scotland’s appeal as a tourism tourism. Fluctuations in the exchange rate can be considered a proxy for price changes. destination by applying a further cost to visitors.” Some more detailed research on price elasticities of demand exists at a national level. In a When introducing a tax or levy of any form, due consideration needs to be given to the report for the CBI, Durbarry and Sinclair (2000) looked at the sensitivity of tourism potential effects on visitor demand, which is defined not just by the number of visitors to demand in the UK to changes in prices, exchange rates and expenditure. The study Edinburgh but also by the length of stay, and spending decisions. At the margin, a tourism assumes that if all other variables are held constant and don’t change, and if effective levy on visitors would be expected to increase the price of staying overnight in Edinburgh prices in the UK relative to the origin country price then, an increase of 1% would lead to a and reduce demand. decrease in tourism expenditure in the UK of around 1%. This suggests that tourism expenditure is sensitive to an overall price change.4 Tourism taxes have both advantages and disadvantages. Taxes may have distortionary effects in visitor demand choices. This in some part depends on the extent to which the Research on the price elasticities of demand for tourism show a mixed picture. For levy is passed on in the form of higher prices to the consumer. The extent of the response example, London & Partners5 looked at the depreciation of the pound against the dollar

4 Durbarry and Sinclair (2000) “Tourism taxation in the UK” 5 London and Partners (forthcoming?) Trends in Exchange Rates and ‘Tourism for London.’ Transient Visitor Levy Research, May 2018 Page 7 and the euro, which could be considered a proxy for price changes. They found that Summary exchange rate fluctuations did not have a significant impact on visitor numbers to London from the US, France and Germany and that other factors such as changes in income of the International tourism demand is influenced by a range of different factors including: source country may be a more influential factor. income, currency exchange rates, prices in the host country, substitute prices in competing destinations, marketing, and one-off events. The potential impact on visitor Research by the University of Nottingham for Department for Culture Media and Sport demand from price increases in Edinburgh also depend on how Edinburgh is viewed suggests that UK tourism is less sensitive to price changes with a 1% increase in price against other cities. In economic theory, the existence of close substitutes as one of the producing only a 0.61% fall in demand.6 They also found that business visitors were most important factors that influences the price elasticity of demand for a destination.9 significantly less responsive to price changes than holidaymakers, and tourists from Spain and Ireland were more price sensitive markets and tourists from Germany and the United The decision on what constituents a close substitute is subjective and would vary States were the least sensitive to changes in prices. depending on the preferences of the individual. What this means is that Edinburgh could be considered by some to have a special offer in terms of its history, culture and events International studies on the impact from price changes that an extra charge would not deter them from visiting Edinburgh against other location. Others less familiar with Edinburgh as a destination might consider the other major Some international studies have supported the idea that the demand for travel is only European cities such as London, Dublin, Paris and Rome to be close substitutes. influenced by large exchange rate fluctuations. A study looking at tourism in Hawaii, Investment in Edinburgh’s destination promotion, improving the quality of offer, or observed the significant effect of exchange rate depreciation of the US dollar against the targeting emerging markets are just some of the initiatives that would help to protect Japanese yen in the mid-1980s. This cut the price of vacation to Hawaii by half and Edinburgh’s status and can improve Edinburgh’s position against other cities. increased the share of visitors to Hawaii from Japan from 29.6% to 36.4%.7 According to the inbound tourism figures provided from Visit Britain between 2014 to In the same study, the effect of the hotel room tax was found not to have a significant 2016 Edinburgh draws in around 1.6 million overseas visitors a year which is more than negative impact on hotel rental receipts. The finding was not surprising since a 5 percent other UK cities outside of London. Most of these visitors come from the US and Germany increase in accommodation expenditure represents less than 1.5% of the total cost of a (over 200,000 a year each), and there are sizeable numbers from France, Australia, Spain typical vacation in Hawaii inclusive of round trip airfare. While this may not be true of and Canada, see graphic on next page. The addition of a small modest charge for travel to other destinations, it highlights that those making shorter distances to Edinburgh accommodation would only represent a small proportion of the overall travel cost to could feel more of any price change in accommodation compared to other visitors. Edinburgh. Some argue that tourists, whether international or domestic, frequently have above average incomes and can afford to pay taxes without undue hardship.10 A study on Tourism in Balearic Islands showed that this destination was very sensitive to prices and the costs of travel. The study suggested some policy recommendations Edinburgh also receives many visitors from the UK, estimated to be around 7.4 million including: diversifying the promotion of tourism to different countries to limit nights per year. This compares to around 6.9 million nights per year from overseas vulnerability to the evolution of economic conditions in a small market, and focus on visitors. The two groups are therefore broadly similar in size. countries with different seasonal patterns to smooth the monthly profile of arrivals.8

6 Blake, A and Cortes-Jimenez (2007) ‘The Drivers of Tourism Demand in the UK’ Christel Dehaan Tourism and 8 Garin-Munoz and Montero-Martin (2007) Tourism in the Balearic Islands: A dynamic model for international Travel Research Institute, University of Nottingham for Culture, Media and Sport. demand using panel data, Tourism Management, 1224-1235 7 Bonham, Fujii, Im, and Mak. (1992), The Impact of the hotel room tax: an interrupted time series approach. 9 Options for a tourism levy for London, Working Paper 83, (2017) GLAEconomics. 10 M McMahon (1999), Tourism Taxation: No Such Thing as a Free Lunch? Transient Visitor Levy Research, May 2018 Page 8

Figure 6: Annual average number of overseas visitors to UK cities 2014-16

Figure 7: Estimated annual overseas visitors to Edinburgh by country of residents 2014-2016

Edinburgh 1,605,900

Manchester 1,112,200

Birmingham 1,055,200

Glasgow 648,200

Liverpool 625,500

Bristol 514,200

Leeds 333,500

Sheffield 159,200

Bradford 98,000

Edinburgh’s has a strong overall appeal for visitors, who are willing to travel far and incur The population sizes of Netherlands-Belgium and Australia-New Zealand Edinburgh has broad appeal across high costs to visit the city are both around 28 million, but there are an extra 18,000 or 20% more many countries including the emerging visitors from the combined area of Australia and New Zealand. number of new visitors from countries like China, UAE, and Brazil.

Note: From Visit Scotland, UK visitors accounted for 2.47 million visits in 2015 compared to 1.54 million from overseas. However, as overseas visitors Source: Edinburgh by Numbers 2017 typically stay longer in Edinburgh, the total number of nights stayed per year are almost equal: UK 7.4 million nights, Overseas 6.9 million nights.

Transient Visitor Levy Research, May 2018 Page 9

2.2 FACTORS INFLUENCING DESTINATION CHOICE Edinburgh tourism offer can be further enhanced through continued investment in the factors that contribute towards Edinburgh’s comparative and competitive advantage. The The issue: “With political and economic uncertainty increasing it is more important than revenue from an Edinburgh visitor levy would create a pot of money that’s ring-fenced for ever to ensure UK tourism can compete. such improvements. Continuing to invest in Edinburgh’s world-leading reputation and Factors that influence destination choice are broadly dependent on prices and the status is critical to the ongoing economic health of the city. locations comparative and competitive advantage. To achieve comparative and Figure 8: factors influencing destination choice competitive advantage for its tourism industry, any destination must ensure that its overall ‘appeal’, and the tourist experience offered, must be superior to that of the alternative destinations open to potential visitors. Destination Choice

For a tourism destination, comparative advantage would relate to inherited or endowed resources such as climate, scenery, and richness of culture and heritage, while Effective Comparative Competitive prices advantage advantage competitive advantage would relate to such created items as the tourism infrastructure (hotels, attractions, transport network), festivals and events, friendliness, customer 11 service, skills of workers such as language skills, and national government policy. Not all cost of Prices at history and attractions festivals and climate visitors would consider all of these factors, but a combination of many of these would travel destination culture and hotels events influence an individual’s eventual choice.

exchange Prices at heritage and transport customer scenary Many of these factors under the competitive advantage section relate to situation factors rates home architecture network service such as National Government Policy, which for example relates international relations, general quality of life, and helping the poor, and other factors that influence the tourists’ national image of the city. friendliness policy Visitors to Edinburgh may be more sensitive to price changes the less familiar they are with the destination and all that it offers. If this is the case these visitors could see other skill of security and major European cities as alternative places to visit, often referred to as the presence of workers safety close substitutes.

Given some of the challenges ahead for the tourist sector taking no additional action to Source: adapted from Dwyer and Kim (2003): Destination Competitiveness: Determinants and maintain Edinburgh’s overall attraction may cause more harm than good. Investing in Indicators, Current Issues in Tourism Edinburgh’s overall quality of offer – it’s attractions, and culture would help to maintain its position as a destination choice, making it stronger and less vulnerable to changes and shocks.

11 Dwyer and Kim (2003): Destination Competitiveness: Determinants and Indicators, Current Issues in Tourism Transient Visitor Levy Research, May 2018 Page 10

2.3 TOURISM TAXATION IN THE UK Examples of city taxes (hotel VAT and visitor levy) The issue: “The UK already imposes more tax on visitors than most of our competing destinations through VAT and APD [air passenger duty].” Germany charges 7% VAT on hotel rooms, but in cities like Berlin a further 5% is added The UK historically has a highly-centralised taxation system and the delegation of to the inclusive of VAT rate. The addition of the city tax increases the effective tax additional powers to tax businesses to local authorities would be a significant change to charge to 12%. In similar conditions, the effective combined charge would be 15% in the existing regime. The VAT rate in other countries can be as low as 3% and as high as Dortmund. 25% for hotel accommodation across cities in Europe. See Appendix 3 for further detail. Italy charges 10% VAT on hotel rooms, but in cities like Rome with the addition of the While the average hotel accommodation VAT rate is 11% in the 28 EU countries, many city tax of €6 per person per night increase the effective tax charge to 26%. In similar countries in Europe top this up with an extra charge or visitor levy. Out of the 28 EU conditions, the effective combined charge would be 20% in Turin, and 22% in Venice countries 19 have in place a visitor tax. This means that although the UK is amongst the and Florence, and 21% in Milan. highest VAT rates they are not significantly higher than other countries when you consider that many countries narrow the gap by charging an additional tourism tax. Greece charges 13% VAT on hotel accommodation, but in cities like Athens staying at a 4-star hotel and paying €100 per night for two people, with the addition of the city tax Evidence of the narrowing of the gap, from the use of the tourist tax or visitor levy, is of €3 per night increase the effective tax charge to 17%. shown in the box opposite. Cities like Rome, Venice, Florence and Budapest have a combined tax rate of over 20% when you include both the VAT rate and visitor levy. These Hungary charges 18% VAT on hotel accommodation, but in Budapest with the addition calculations are based on an average €100 per night for two people in a four-star hotel for of the 4% city tax increases the effective tax charge to 22%. up to four nights. Combined tax rate (VAT on hotels plus visitor levy) by City The bundle of taxes – is the UK the highest taxed? 26% 22% 21% 21% 20% 20% 20% 17% The tax of VAT on hotels and the occupancy tax, or visitor levy are only two of a bundle of 16% 15% 13% taxes accommodation providers are exposed to. The analysis opposite is not a complete 12% picture, but does illustrate that many cities although claiming to have very low initial tax rates have adopted local measures to substantially increase their tax base.

Accommodation providers such as hotels, motels, shared accommodation providers and campsites are typically subject to a range of general and tourism-specific taxes. A Transient visitor levy or ‘tourist tax,’ which the accommodation providers collect from guests and remit to the (usually local or municipal) tax authority. Accommodation Source: EY (2017) The Impact of taxes on the competitiveness of European Tourism; and providers may also be directly affected by VAT, real estate taxes, and corporate and Booking.com for live visitor levy charges. personal income taxes. Cities like Rome, Venice, Florence and Budapest narrow the observed high VAT gap in the UK with large ‘tourist tax’ add-ons, see examples in box Note: calculations are based on an average €100 per night for two people in a four-star opposite. hotel for up to four nights

Transient Visitor Levy Research, May 2018 Page 11

2.4 VISITORS IN EDINBURGH PAYING MORE 2.5 SINGLING OUT ONLY PART OF THE SECTOR The issue: “it’s the customers that are going to pay for it which is a shame.” The issue: “hotels would oppose being singled out as the only tourism segment to be The price for accommodation in Edinburgh, like many modern cities, varies considerably. faced with another additional cost imposed on them” The variability in prices is not only based on type of accommodation offer, but also varies by location, the time of the year, and day of the week. Many accommodation companies The hotel accommodation sector in Edinburgh is expected to grow by a further 1,960 offer seasonal discounts, and short break discounts to encourage further trade. The rooms between 2017 and 2020. The hotel occupancy rate in Edinburgh is also very high assumption that marginal price rises would price people out of visiting is challenged by around 82% on average throughout the year, which is larger than most cities in Europe. As observing the seasonal differences in hotel accommodation prices by month. in many cities there is also a steadily growing number of short term let platforms, such as Airbnb. In Edinburgh, the latest count was around 9,600 rooms.12 Figure 9: Average daily rate in Edinburgh hotels (2015 data adjusted to 2017 prices) The transient visitor levy is defined as charges levied on short term paid accommodation. January £65 The options to include a broader definition of the tourism, including: tour operators, retail February £72 units, transport companies, restaurants and bars were not considered. While many March £74 businesses and activities depend on the tourist sector, the industry that primarily serves April £77 them is the accommodation sector. May £91 June £101 The accommodation sector is mutually dependent on the success of tourism. They have a July £111 symbiotic relationship. The introduction of the transient visitor levy has been used to August £141 ensure that tourists and the industry that serves them bear some of the cost for September £99 maintaining the environment that enhances the tourist experience and the October £83 competitiveness of the destination. November £76 December £81 In many cases from other cities, the ‘tourist tax’ also applies to B&B and apartment stays, not just hotels. For example, travelers staying in Airbnb accommodation in Paris and Source: Edinburgh Council / Essential Trends and HM Treasury GDP deflators Rome are required to pay a ‘tourist tax’ per day per adult. This brings the owner-direct booking service in line with hotels in the city and other providers. Prices are also influenced by the market forces, where prices for a room are on average much higher in August and over the new year period. The average price for a room in an It is recommended that the scope of a transient visitor levy should be equitable across the Edinburgh hotel is around £74 in March and is almost double this rate in August. Within range of accommodation options and include hotels, service apartments and this competitive environment with the varied options available, it can reasonably be B&B/guesthouses and Airbnb type properties. assumed that visitors would be able to find accommodation offer in Edinburgh suitable for their own budget.

12 There are approximately 9,638 listings throughout Edinburgh: 5,474 whole properties and 4,126 private rooms at September 2017. Inside Airbnb Transient Visitor Levy Research, May 2018 Page 12

SECTION 3: BENEFITS OF A TVL The potential benefit of the TVL is that it would further strengthen at a greater pace this new local approach to improving outcomes for Edinburgh, and with it, the opportunity to rebuild trust and participation in local democracy. INTRODUCTION There are other policy developments, some proposed, others more certain, that all run Introducing the transient visitor levy requires a balanced and thoughtful debate looking at towards the same purpose of ensuring more local level decision making and greater local the merits and disadvantages. This section covers the benefits of introducing a transient democracy. A selection of issues related to the tourist sector in Edinburgh are illustrated visitor levy. This section covers: in the diagram and further details for each of them are provided. • 3.1 More local decision making Figure 10: Developments affecting the tourist sector supporting local decision making • 3.2 Potential income from an Edinburgh TVL

New financial • 3.3 Other potential benefits of a TVL powers - Scotland Act 2016 3.1 MORE LOCAL DECISION MAKING

Air Introducing the transient visitor levy would quicken the pace of change to greater local Business Passenger Improvement Duty (tax) decision making and a more visible local accountability. Districts in devolved to Edinburgh Local Scotland The ability to set and collect local taxation is a key component of an effective local decision democracy, and is central to the accountability relationship between councils and the making communities that they serve. This relationship has been slowly eroded over the decades, and whilst new local approaches are beginning to emerge, not least of all through, the

Cities Deals, and the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015, more needs to be Local South East Democracy of Scotland done. Bill city deal

Reform Scotland have campaigned for greater local taxation and are critical of the current system. They claim that the taxes collected by local authorities, council tax, and non- domestic rates or business rates, are perceived as being ‘local’ but are heavily centralised. New Financial powers to Scotland Act 2016 As a result, this constrains local democracy because councils have almost no control over Scottish Parliament’s financial powers are changing substantially, with new local taxation and are therefore not genuinely accountable to local voters.13 In Scotland responsibilities for taxes, social security and borrowing. This period of greater devolution the Government provides around two-thirds of the total of local government funding of income raising powers for Scotland runs parallel with the Council’s agenda for more from Grant in Aid Funding, and revenue collected from business rates or non-domestic local decision making. rates and adjust these contributions when allocating local authorities budgets.14

13 Reform Scotland, (2017) Blueprint for Local Power 14 Audit Scotland (2017) Local Government in Scotland Financial Overview 2016/17 Transient Visitor Levy Research, May 2018 Page 13

In the period up to 2021, the amount of devolved spending in Scotland met by money Business Improvement Districts in Edinburgh raised directly will increase from around ten per cent prior to the Scotland Act 2012, to over 50 per cent once the Scotland Act 2016 powers are implemented.15 Under the Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) have proved to be effective support networks in Scotland Act 2016, the Scottish Government will be assigned a share of the VAT raised in four areas of the city: Queensferry, Greater Grassmarket, West End and City Centre. Initial Scotland from 2019. stakeholder consultation is taking place with Greater Grassmarket and traders in the Old Town to assess the appetite to extend the Grassmarket BID to include the Old Town and Air Passenger Duty devolved to Scotland Royal Mile. This would include key cultural venues and visitor attractions.

The Scottish Government have been clear in their support of the tourism sector. The A new Edinburgh Old Town BID could raise between £750,000 to £1 million annually to be Government obtained legislation to change Air Passenger Duty to an Air Departure Tax used exclusively to support business growth and provide additional services to improve from 2018. This means that the Government can determine their rate of tax at Scottish the visitor, resident and business owners’ experience in the area.17 Further expansion of airports. The Air Departure Tax (Scotland) Bill was formally approved by Parliament on the business improvement districts across Edinburgh, would mean that the visitor levy could 20 June 2017.16 complement and be more targeted at city wide issues.

The Scottish Government has set a clear aim to reduce the overall burden of Airport tax Local Democracy Bill by 50% and eventually abolish the tax when resources allow. The Government believes that these plans will boost Scotland‘s air connectivity and economic competitiveness, The Local Governance review sets out the initial stages for developing new legislation for encouraging the establishment of new routes which would enhance business connectivity the Local Democracy Bill. The Bill is provisionally scheduled to be introduced to the and inbound tourism and help generate sustainable growth. Scottish Parliament in April 2020. It will involve dialogue with communities to explore if and how reconfigured powers, accountabilities, functions and ways of working could South East of Scotland City Region Deal better deliver local outcomes. It will also a review of place-specific alternative approaches to governance, powers, accountabilities and ways of working which have the potential to This is an agreement between the Scottish Government, the six local authorities, the UK improve local outcomes and drive inclusive economic growth. Government and regional partners. Both governments are committed to jointly investing £600m over the next 15 years and regional partners have committed to adding up to £500m, overall representing a deal worth £1.1bn. In addition, the deal is expected to 3.2 POTENTIAL INCOME FROM AN EDINBURGH TVL generate over £5bn worth of Gross Value Added (GVA) over the same period. Provisional estimates of the annual income from a transient visitor levy in Edinburgh Some of the key commitments include improved transport infrastructure for visitors to depends on design considerations. The results of 12 different charges are presented in Edinburgh from the South (£140m for crucially needed A720 city bypass at the Sheriffhall the following page. These are initial estimates to the potential annual revenue that could Roundabout and transport improvements across west Edinburgh) and a new concert hall be generated from Edinburgh based accommodation providers. In appendix 6, the council to be based in Edinburgh (£25m capital funding), as well as funding for new housing stock current funding mechanism is summarized. For the Edinburgh Transient visitor levy to in strategic development sites. operate effectively it needs to be separate from this arrangement rather than be redistributed from the Scottish Government central fund.

15 Audit Scotland, Scotland’s New Financial Powers, Key issues for the Scottish Public Finances, September 2016 17 City of Edinburgh Council, Economy Committee Feb 2017 16 Scottish Government Air Departure Tax Transient Visitor Levy Research, May 2018 Page 14

The levels of funding that could be raised from the sector are challenging to project, but duration of the tax at 10 nights for example, the effect would be negligible, as the average an estimate of £17.4 million could be raised from a 3% charge, and £13.6 million could be overnight stay in Edinburgh is 4.0 nights (2.8 nights for domestic visitors and 5.0 nights for raised from a flat rate of £2 per room per night. overseas visitors), and around 95% of domestic visitors stay less than 7 nights in Edinburgh.19 In these estimates, the levy has applied only to the accommodation providers (hotels, self-catering apartments, Airbnb, guest houses and B&Bs in Edinburgh). This does not Where possible a conservative approach has been taken in the estimation process, this capture the full visitor economy as day visitors and those staying overnight with family includes discounting the total used rooms and visitors by 25% to account of single and friends are not included. Hostels and campsites have also been excluded. occupancy use. Overall these results are illustrative of the broad income potential and the variety of income from the different options that could exist. Methodology The share of revenue raised from the different accommodation providers This estimates for Edinburgh transient visitor levy revenues make a series of assumptions for estimating the average occupancy rate, average room rate for the different Given the relative size of the hotel market in Edinburgh it is no surprise that they would in accommodation types including Hotels, apartments, Airbnb, B&Bs and guesthouses. financial terms raise around or over a half of the revenue total. This does vary depending on the model used from 48% to 59%. The Airbnb market would raise around one-fifth or These hotel accommodation figures are based on survey data from Visit Scotland Tourism one-quarter of the total revenue from an TVL depending on the model adopted. Service in Scotland’s Regions and Scotland’s Visitor Survey 2015 & 2016 to calculate the number apartments and self-catering apartments are also relatively large in Edinburgh and of hotel nights per nights per year. It also uses previously published STR hotel data for because of this would contribute around the same of the overall revenue total as Airbnb. Edinburgh in 2015. The hotel room occupancy rates and average daily rates in pounds used in this estimate are based on a sample of 10,600 rooms in Edinburgh, which is about Sensitivity analysis on the Edinburgh levy models 85% of the available stock at that time. To assess the fairness of the different design models the three different charge types The Airbnb data was accessed from Inside Airbnb, and the self-catering apartments, B&Bs were set to generate the same revenue total. This meant for example comparing how and guesthouses from desk based research carried out by officers looking at three models (3% of room rate; £2.56 per room per night, £1.51 per person per night) was accommodation websites. Models estimating the revenue from an Edinburgh Transient felt by three different types of visitor (the Single visitor, Couples, Adult group 3+). The visitor levy were prepared for the city deal family group would be represented by either the “Couples” category, if the children are under the age of 16 years, and would also be represented in the Adult group 3+ if one of Some of the models, such the marginal rate option (e.g. the Percentage of the room rate more of the children was aged over 16 years. cost) includes in its calculation of the potential revenue amount the monthly variation in Edinburgh occupancy rates and hotel prices. For example, the average hotel room price is Only two variables influence the relative position of the three different levy options for more than double the price in January, and the number of people staying in Edinburgh is the visitor were price paid per room and number of visitors per room. The results up to 41% higher in August than in January.18 concluded that the most favourable option for visitors would be the percentage room cost option; as it would have had less impact on budget tourists, or off-season trade when These calculations are estimates and no assumptions have been applied to account for compared to other charge options. any exemptions or caps to the length the tax would apply. In terms of capping the

18 Edinburgh Council / Essential Edinburgh occupancy rates in Edinburgh hotels by month 2015 19 Visit Scotland, Scotland Visitor Survey Transient Visitor Levy Research, May 2018 Page 15 Findings from relative analysis of different TVL charge options on Figure 11: Estimated revenue from an Edinburgh Transient Visitor Levy different traveler types (single, couple, and multi-adult groups)

$1 ~ 0.72p per room per night £4.9M The per person per night Edinburgh TVL benefits: Single travellers if price of room is over £50-55 per night. €1 ~ 0.89p per room per night £6.1M Couples and adult groups three+ if over £85 per night. £1 per room per night £6.8M

$1 ~ 0.72p per person per night £8.3M The per room per night Edinburgh TVL benefits: Single travellers if price of room is over £50-55 per night. 1.5% of room cost £8.7M

€1 ~ 0.89p per person per night £10.3M The percentage room cost Edinburgh TVL benefits: £1 per person per night £11.5M Single travellers if price of room is under £50-55 per night; Couples and adult 2% of room cost £11.6M groups three+ if under £85 per night.

£2 per room per night £13.6M

3% of room cost £17.4M

£2 per person per night £23.1M 5% of room cost £29.1M

Figure 12: Estimated annual revenue by source from “per Figure 13: Estimated annual revenue by source from “per Figure 14: Estimated annual revenue by source from person per night Edinburgh TVL” room per night Edinburgh TVL” “percentage of room cost Edinburgh TVL” Guesthouses/ Guesthouses/ B&Bs Guesthouses/ B&Bs B&Bs, 4% Serviced 4% 3% apartments Airbnb /self- 18% Airbnb, catering 21% 18% Hotel, 48% Hotel Serviced Hotel Serviced 52% apartments 59% apartments /self- Airbnb /self- catering 27% catering, 19% 28%

Source: Edinburgh Council

Transient Visitor Levy Research, May 2018 Page 16

3.3 OTHER POTENTIAL BENEFITS FROM A TVL bodies the Scottish Ballet, Scottish Opera, Royal Scottish National Orchestra, Scottish Chamber Orchestra and the National Theatre of Scotland. Funding from the public sector has been in decline over successive years and this has placed pressure on supporting Scotland’s infrastructure and tourism. As reported by Audit Figure 15: Scottish Government Budget allocation to Culture 2016/17 to 2018/19 Scotland in 2014, since 2009/10, public sector budgets have fallen each year with the Creative Scotland and Arts Scottish budget decreasing by nine per cent in real terms to 2014/15.2021 £68.4 million £52.6 million £51.3 million The financial situation remains challenging for public bodies which are operating in an environment that anticipates further reductions. Some of these national public bodies have a presence in Edinburgh, such as Creative Scotland, the National Performance Companies, and the National Museums and Galleries. 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19

National Lottery funding is decreasing, Scottish Government budget funding is uniformly Cultural collections (Museums & Galleries) increasing, and Edinburgh public funding on destination marketing compares poorly over £78.7 million time and compared to other cities. The introduction of an Edinburgh Transient Visitor levy £75.8 million could offer a specific action to ensure the sustainability of the culture and tourism sector. £71.2 million

Context: Reduction in National Lottery income 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 In the period between 2015/16 and 2016/17 declining income from the National Lottery amounted to a 14% reduction, with a further 4% cut in the first half of 2017/18. National National Performing Companies Lottery income makes up nearly 40% of Creative Scotland’s total income. In 2017/18 the Scottish Government allocation increased from £52.6 million to £68.4 million between £22.9 million £22.5 million 2016/17 to 2018/19 (2016/17 constant prices). £22.2 million

Context: Scottish Government budget allocations 2016/17 to 2018/19 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 The Scottish Government budget allocations will not produce an accurate full picture of the financial health of the sector given other many income sources, such as from National Source: Scottish Government Draft Budget 2018/19 Lottery funding or commercial revenue. They may however, confer a level of expectation and in the short term indicate a trend of increasing or decreasing trend from a base year.

Overall the Scottish Government’s funding to Culture increased from 2016/17 to 2018/19. Much of this increase was to Creative Scotland. There were small reductions however in Cultural Collections and the National Performing Companies. The later consists of five

20 This figure is the Departmental Expenditure Limit (DEL) budget. 21 Audit Scotland 2014, Scotland’s Public Finances – Progress in meeting the challenges. Transient Visitor Levy Research, May 2018 Page 17

Funding for Destination Marketing Some caution should be used when comparing the totals presented in the table as they could reflect specific events being held at the city, such as the Glasgow Commonweath Marketing Edinburgh is an organisation tasked with promoting the city for domestic and Games in 2014 (£12.0M), or it could reflect historical or other one-off investments in international visitors, and to enhance the reputation of the city through marketing and destination promotion when comparing the across European cities in 2016. The gaps in destination promotion activities. The private sector now delivers more than 50% of all of the table reflects no available data rather than no spend for that year. Marketing Edinburgh’s revenues. The financial pressures towards these activities have been challenging and there is some evidence that funding for destination promotion Edinburgh’s relative position, in terms of public funding for destination marketing. activities against competitor cities has been eroding over time. against a broader range of cities is low. Out of the 45 cities that took part in a 2016 European Cities Marketing Survey regarding funding, only 7 cities had a lower budget for Marketing Edinburgh’s budget is significantly lower than competitive cities both in the UK destination marketing than Edinburgh. These were Belgrade; Bratislava; Dijon; Genova; 22 and in Europe. This is illustrated in the Figure 16, where Marketing Edinburgh’s budget Opatija; Tallin; and Vilnius. from public sector has been eroded considerably over the last few years, and where the UK competition are increasing their support to equivalent organisations. The table shows selected cities, some of which are closer to home, UK competitors, like Glasgow and Manchester, and European cities such as Amsterdam and Prague. Vienna, Figure 16: Destinations Marketing Organisations public funding (£ millions) Amsterdam and Prague all charge a ‘tourist tax’. In Amsterdam the ‘tourist tax’ has Location 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 recently increased in 2018 from 5% to 6% of the accommodation costs excluding breakfast, it reportedly generates around €80 million (£70.9 million) per year. Edinburgh £1.3M £1.1M £1.0M £0.98M £0.91M £0.91M Investment to incentivise cultural activity Glasgow £4.5M £5.0M £5.0M £12.0M £6.0M £7.1M One of the benefits of introducing a transient visitor levy is that the revenue could be Manchester £6.8M £4.8M £5.3M £6.2M £7.3M used to incentivise residents and visitors to engage in more cultural activities and support Birmingham £4.7M £8.9M £10.6M the cultural and tourist sector. For example, a possible mechanism to achieve this could be a resident discount card, like Aberdeen’s Accord Card. This is free to people living in Belfast £1.7M £2.6M £5.1M the area, but is available for visitors at a charge of £10. It entitles the card holders to Aberdeen £1.0M £2.5M discounted facilities at cultural buildings, memberships and subscriptions to receive further discounts.23 Amsterdam £19.0M The possibility of investigating an Edinburgh resident discount card for use in city Copenhagen £6.0M amenities is beyond the scope of this paper. This could however, become a potential Prague £3.8M investment option from the revenue raised from an Edinburgh Visitor Levy. The discount card could entitle holders to discounted entry to local monuments, galleries and other Stockholm £9.0M attractions off-season or throughout the year. Vienna £21.4M

22 Marketing Edinburgh Annual Review 2016-2017 23 Aberdeen City Council, Resident Scheme Offers Transient Visitor Levy Research, May 2018 Page 18

SECTION 4: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF TVL In other cities and towns primarily in Italy, Spain and in Central and Eastern Europe the charge is payable by cash when checking out of the hotel. The tax can include a variety of options such as off-season reduced discounts, extend to only a limited length of stay exclusions for children, and can vary depending on the quality of accommodation. Edinburgh is not alone in looking at the options for implementing a transient visitor levy. Review of different visitor levies in other cities. The idea has been used in many cities and countries, including Paris, Rome, Budapest, Prague and Berlin, as well as global cities like New York and Dubai. This section highlights This section will look in detail at three different types of visitor levies. These are the some of the options that could be available for Edinburgh should they introduce a visitor progressive tourist tax model, the tax liability model and the flat or fixed rate model. levy. The progressive visitor levy option To understand the global context of the transient visitor levy and the lessons to be learned from other cities this section will cover: A progressive visitor levy is a charge that varies by size on the type of accommodation. This means that it varies by hotel grade or price band, so staying in a more expensive or • 4.1 Cities with a Transient Visitor Levy or similar better-quality establishment would incur a higher charge. An example of this visitor levy type applies in Rome, guests staying in a 3-star hotel are required to pay between €4 per • 4.2 Exemption options for an Edinburgh TVL person per night, and €7 per person per night if they are staying in a 5-star hotel.

• 4.3 Administration of an Edinburgh TVL Figure 17: Example of cities with a progressive visitor levy

• 4.4 The non-service accommodation sector Location 5-star 4-star 3-star Notes

Per room per night 4.1 CITIES WITH A TRANSIENT VISITOR LEVY OR SIMILAR Athens €4 €3 €1.50 Many cities have tourism taxes which are levied at the accommodation sector. Tourism Per person per night taxes in these countries are usually a devolved issue and are determined and Paris €3.30 €2.48 €1.65 administrated locally by the municipal authority. Hotel taxes can therefore vary by city within the same country. Per person per night Rome €7 €6 €4 The UK is one of only nine countries from the EU-28 that does not charge a ‘tourist tax’ as Per person per night of 2018. See Appendix 2 for list of cities with ‘tourist taxes.’ Florence €5 €4 €3

Several cities around the world have what's called a visitor levy, also known as a tourist The city tax in Rome is one of the highest in Europe and this in part reflects the many tax, city tax, occupancy/lodging tax. Some of the taxes are more visible in the booking tourists that visit this large city every year. Other selected cities that adopt a similar process that others which affect the perception of cost. For example, in Germany, Austria, approach are noted in the table. This option may appear as the fairer option for visitors as Switzerland, the Netherlands and Greece, and the city of Paris visitors don't often realise it charges more for those that can afford to pay more. it is in place because the fee is usually incorporated into their accommodation price and paid at the time of booking. Transient Visitor Levy Research, May 2018 Page 19

The progressive visitor levy option, carries a disadvantage of being more complex to The tax liability visitor levy option administer, the classification of apartments, non-service accommodations of different quality would need to be determined. One way around this is to adopt the price band In Brussels, every accommodation under scope is classified with a tax liability per room approach similar approach used in Vicenza, Italy whereby the progressive charge varies by per year depending on size (e.g. number of rooms) and type of accommodation (e.g. hotel the value of the room rate. For example, a room rate per night of between €25 and €70 is category or apartment hotel). An extract of the table is copied in Figure 19. charged €2.00 per person per night and rooms costing over €130 are charged the highest This option has the advantage of easy to administer once the liability values are fee of €3.00 per person per night. calculated. It would offer a certain amount of revenue, and give some flexibility to hotel The fixed rate or flat fee visitor levy option accommodation provider to better respond to the market condition of visitor demand. For example, the charge could be applied evenly throughout the year or varied to suit The fixed rate visitor levy is a standard fee applied equally across all types and grades of their individual business needs such as charging a higher rate over peak seasons. This accommodation. It is used in cities like Lisbon, Prague, Dubrovnik a fixed fee is charged would mitigate any potential reduction in visitor demand, charging the tax at the peak per person per night. This charge is no more than €1 per night. The influence of this tax season. This option gives the accommodation provider more control and flexibility to the would arguably be felt more from visitors who stay in budget or cheaper accommodation introduction of the transient visitor levy. as the fixed fee would make up a larger proportion of the overall occupancy expense. It also relatively advantages small accommodation provider over larger scale hotels. Figure 18: Example of cities with a modest fixed fee visitor levy Smaller accommodation providers are charged less per room relative to the larger and higher star rated establishments. The disadvantage of this scheme is that it is not very Location Fixed fee value Notes transparent to visitors as different accommodation provider vary the price by location reducing the visibility of the tax for the visitor. This visibility issue however, could be Per person per night (higher in peak season) Dubrovnik €1.00 or €0.80 overcome by the accommodation providers including the city tax within its room cost at the time of booking. Per person per night Gent €2.50

Per person per night Lisbon €1.00

Per person per night Prague €0.60

This option is the most transparent for visitors in the way it is universally applied across all types of accommodation options. Many of these cities mentioned above also include caps to the duration of the tax, for example, the charge applies to only the first four nights or first seven nights.

Transient Visitor Levy Research, May 2018 Page 20

Figure 19: extract of tourism levy charges in Brussels 4.2 EXEMPTION OPTIONS FOR A TVL Many cities operate some exemptions on equity grounds. Usually children are exempt, Hotel category or type Number of rooms Tax liability per room per year however the age limit varies from 10 years in Rome to 16 years in Barcelona or Lisbon.

"Unclassified" 1-99 rooms €400.00 Those taking up temporary accommodation for emergency reasons such as homelessness, personal safety or for health reasons may also be exempt. In Scotland, there is a statutory "Unclassified" 100 rooms and over €720.00 duty on local authorities to find permanent accommodation for all applicants who are Category "1" or "H1" 1-99 rooms €672.00 unintentionally homeless or threatened with homelessness.24 There are different types of Temporary Accommodation available, these include: furnished flats; supported Category "1" or "H1" 100 rooms and over €884.80 accommodation; Council staffed units; bed and breakfast; and hostels. In March 2017, there were 1,246 households in temporary accommodation in Edinburgh.25 Category "2" or "H2" 1-99 rooms €931.20 Duration of visit is another option that is aimed at not disadvantaging long stay visitors, Category "2" or "H2" 100 rooms and over €1,272.00 who are more likely to be visitors on business. Cities like Lisbon and Florence, have a Category "3" or "H3" 1-99 rooms €1,363.20 capped charge of 7 nights, and Venice and Verona cap the levy at the first 4 nights only. In Edinburgh, the average stay from visitor to Edinburgh is around 4.0 nights, with 95% of Category "3" or "H3" 100 rooms and over €1,507.20 domestic visitors not staying longer than 1 week.26

Category "4" or "H4" 1-99 rooms €1,536.00 Some cities like Rome also exempt residents, the argument being that they already contribute to the cost of local tourism through council tax charges, income taxes and Category "4" or "H4" 100 rooms and over €1,718.40 other levies. Other cities like Hamburg and Berlin exempt business travelers who need to stay overnight for essential professional or business-related reasons. Some European Category "5" or "H5" 1-99 rooms €2,419.20 cities such as Venice and Dubrovnik, choose to set different rates of tax for high and low Category "5" or "H5" 100 rooms and over €2,880.00 seasons. This could have benefits in terms of smoothing the impact of demand over the popular festival and event seasons in Edinburgh over summer. However, clearly the more Category "Aparthotel" 1-99 apartments €1,017.60 exemptions there are the more complex the administration of the levy becomes to administer. Category "Aparthotel" 100 apartments and over €1,526.40

Source: ETOA, Belgium city taxes

24 Comparison of homelessness duties in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, House of Commons 26 Visit Scotland, Scotland Visitor Survey Library, 2017 25 Scottish Government, Homelessness in Scotland 2016-17 Transient Visitor Levy Research, May 2018 Page 21

Case study: Tourist tax in Italy Overseeing the implementation Tourist taxes charged in the most popular Italian towns and cities. The tariffs vary from one location to another. The Olbia resort in Sardinia, charges zero, and there is a €1.5 at To oversee the implementation access to necessary information would need to be made Aeolian islands in Sicily. The cities of Venice, Milan, Florence, Siena and Rome charge top available to validate the returns. In the case of discrepancies, the accommodation rates of up to €7 per person per day. There is considerable discrepancy in the number of provider would have to provide a reason to the authority. Further, the visitor levy days for which the tourist tax is applied: in Lucca, it is only applied to the first three days administering body would reserve the right to conduct financial audits of returns and of your stay while in some Puglian towns, it can be charged for up to ten days obtain access to accommodation providers’ occupancy rates information in the same way as assessors have access to this when assessing rateable values of hotels. This would be 4.3 ADMINISTRATION OF THE TVL included in any legal process. If a visitor levy materialised, accommodation providers would be required to register with Potential administrating costs the local authority and would be responsible for collecting the levy and transferring it to the relevant body. Depending on the model used they would be required to maintain Aberdeen City Council consulted with the Hague, Netherlands and identified the potential appropriate records of rooms occupied, or number of eligible people staying overnight, cost to the administrating body in terms of staff time and cost. This was estimated at room rate charged and the amount of levy paid. around 0.75 FTE (around £18,000 per annum) of an employee to administer the tourism levy for the Council. Keeping the visitor levy simple would reduce the burden of information required from accommodation providers. For example, a charge per room is more straightforward than The main costs to accommodation providers from the visitor levy would be the upfront a charge per person, as the latter would require the accommodation providers to collect costs of making required changes to billing and accounted systems to enable the money details on all visitors who stay. to be collected and deposited. It would be difficult to directly evidence loss of business Method of collection from the introduction of the visitor levy, given the many complex interactions of factors that influence visitor demand. At a certain frequency, accommodation providers would be required to make their Including the payment of the levy fee into the accommodation price at the time of tourism levy payment, and for simplicity this would be done electronically into a tourism levy body account. To ensure compliance, the following information would be required: booking could reduce administration costs over the long term. Airbnb collects the taxes centrally rather applying to the host of the accommodation listing. This is already in places • the accommodation providers that are liable for the tourism levy in a few cities such as Amsterdam, Portland and San Francisco, yet in other cities the

• the number of rooms occupied during the period for payment

Transient Visitor Levy Research, May 2018 Page 22 process varies, with the owner collecting the fees at the end of the stay, such as in on accommodation providers and those tasked with collecting the tax is minimised. It Rome.27 would also aim to reduce any negative impact on tourists and being clear on what they are being charged. The ease of forecasting future revenue would also ensure more longer- Example from Vienna (collection process) term certainty in investment proposals. The scope of the tax is broad it includes temporary stay in an accommodation (e.g. hotel, inn, guesthouse, holiday house, apartment, guest room, apartment, private room, apartment, extra bed in an apartment, camping, caravan or mobile home places). 4.4 THE NON-SERVICE ACCOMMODATION PROVIDERS Edinburgh has a history of short stay letting due to its popularity as a tourist destination The owner of the accommodation is obliged to collect and pay the local tax. The payment and the presence of the festivals. This sector involves people renting out property such as date is until the 15th of the month following the lodging and the submission of the annual spare rooms or second homes on short lets. It is a relatively new model facilitated by new tax return is until the 15th February of the following calendar year for the tax liability incurred in the previous year. technologies and is live and growing rapidly in many cities around the world including Edinburgh. For reasons of legal certainty and economic fairness, private accommodation has been included in the local tax obligation since 1 January 2013. Many of the individuals renting out their property are likely to be below the VAT threshold in the UK and so would be more likely to declare the income through income self-assessment. As of April 2016, the ‘rent a room’ tax relief scheme means they receive Principles for a TVL tax relief on the first £7,500 earned each year. If a visitor levy does not apply to non- In 2015, as part of the submission to the Commission on Local Tax reform, COSLA serviced accommodation in the same way as traditional hotels, then the market could be established a set of principles to be used as a baseline against which any funding distorted and disadvantage the accommodation types that are charged. framework can be tested. These were developed by COSLA’s funding review and endorsed The data shows 9,638 properties in Edinburgh listed through Airbnb as at September by COLSA convention (See Appendix 4 for further information). From this submission four 2017. Of these, 5,474 (56.8%) are for entire properties, of which 3,515 (64.2%) were principles for a transient visitor levy could apply: rented out frequently for an average of 188 days per year. The number of properties • Principle 1: A TVL should be fair and easy to understand. listed in September 2017 represents an increase of 54% from July 2016, where only 6,272 properties were listed in Edinburgh. Figure 20 illustrates Edinburgh relative size of Airbnb • Principle 2: A TVL should be administratively efficient and difficult to avoid. listings against the top ten cities.

• Principle 3: A TVL easily allows forecasting future revenue based on projections of the Internationally there is evidence that in some cities Airbnb has been included in the scope underlying tax base (e.g. rooms, people, price paid). of the visitor levy with other accommodation providers in terms of a visitor levy. For example, in Amsterdam, Airbnb agreed with the authorities to simplify the collecting and • Principle 4: A TVL must be developed collaboratively. remitting of these charges on behalf of the hosts.28 In August 2017, a similar duty was placed on the operator of online platforms for Vienna accommodation. These principles above should be used to assess the options of any structure and mechanism of the transient visitor levy proposals. This would ensure the burden placed

27 Airbnb occupancy taxes 28 Options for a tourism levy for London, Working Paper 83, (2017) GLAEconomics. Transient Visitor Levy Research, May 2018 Page 23

Figure 20: Airbnb presence in Cities, top 10 plus Edinburgh required for the Summer Festivals. The inclusion of these providers could also be a consideration for any TVL. Airbnb represents the changing accommodation market in many modern cities

City Number of Airbnb listings Population

London 62,141 9.94 million

Paris 57,051 9.53 million

New York 38,745 16.3 million

Rio de Janeiro 33,705 6.45 million

Rome 25,635 2.64 million

Barcelona 23,174 2.91 million

Tokyo 19,649 33.6 million

Sydney 18,630 4.23 million

Berlin 18,599 3.47 million

Los Angeles 17,358 17.7 million

Edinburgh 9,638 0.52 million

Source: Airbnb listings Sept 2017 Statista, and city population estimates in 2014 OECD.Stat

The rise of private properties available for short lets in many cities has generated calls for tighter regulation. This could be a difficult sector to regulate and has been looked at before by a City of Edinburgh Council committee. In March 2017, the CEC Corporate Policy and Strategy Committee considered a report on Short Term Lets in the City. The Committee agreed to call on the Scottish Government to increase the powers available to local authorities to manage these, by introducing a licensing system or strengthening planning restrictions.

Edinburgh, due to its festival season also has purpose-built student housing available to let during the summer months. These are mainly located outside the city centre in the Southside, Leith and Fountainbridge. The use of these student residences in summer equates to 35 buildings and provides a combined number of 8,479 beds. The lease of student accommodation over the summer is used for many purposes including: students who remain in Edinburgh over the summer; and providing additional accommodation

Transient Visitor Levy Research, May 2018 Page 24

SECTION 5: NEXT STEPS charge less to those visitors paying less than the average room rate price in Edinburgh against the other two options that would generate the same income.

INTRODUCTION The “per room per night” option would deliver better balance across the results of sensitivity analysis to certain types of visitors and meet the principles well. This option This section summarises the detailed options for a transient visitor levy and an overview adheres strongly the principles of “fair and transparent” and “administratively efficient of the potential implementation stages. and difficult to avoid.”

WHAT FORM COULD A TVL TAKE? Who should it apply to? Each option for the TVL have their own merits. The three main questions that need to be • Hotels all category types (1 star to 5-star accommodation) addressed on the TVL are: • Self-catering apartments • Non-service apartments (e.g. Airbnb) • How would a transient visitor levy be charged, • B&Bs and guest houses • Who should it apply to? • Hostels • What exemptions could apply to it? • Campsites or boat hotels

The list of different types of accommodation providers in Edinburgh tourist are listed How should the levy be charged? above. • Per person per night (e.g. Lisbon, Prague) • Per room per night (e.g. Athens, Belgrade) What exemptions could apply to it? • Proportion of total accommodation fee paid (e.g. Amsterdam, Berlin) The exemptions that could apply to the visitor levy, in the effort to reduce complexity • Liability per room (e.g. Brussels) could include: children under 16 (to align with the most common exemption in other • One off charge (e.g. €1.5 at Aeolian islands in Sicily) cities), an exemption on temporary accommodation for homelessness (to align with UK Under the principles of the local tax the Liability per room mechanism would be the most legislation). The only exemption type that could benefit from consultation and “administratively efficient and difficult to avoid” (principle 2) and would also give great engagement would be defining the most suitable duration for the visitor levy. For local discretion and flexibility for the accommodation providers to charge what they need example, around 95% of domestic visitors to Edinburgh stay less than 7 nights.29 Setting a to cover the room liability. It would not however, be the most transparent for the visitor cap on the duration at around 7 nights would therefore cover most domestic visitors to who could witness different rates being charged at different establishments. the City.

From the sensitivity analysis completed on the three options in section 3.2, the percentage of total accommodation fee is the preferred option. This is because it seems fairer to those looking to pay less for their accommodation. In other words, it would

29 Visit Scotland, Scotland Visitor Survey Transient Visitor Levy Research, May 2018 Page 25

EXPENDITURE OPTIONS FOR THE TVL Exploring visitor’s perceptions on how to spend the revenue from the levy would help in Case Study 1: What to spend the revenue on lessons from Barcelona determining both fair levy rate and fair allocation. The visitor levy is also more likely to Barcelona City Council assigns 50% of each transfer received to the Turisme de Barcelona receive acceptance from the all stakeholders if the income generated leads to investment Consortium and reserves the other 50% for municipal management projects. There are that maintains the environment and enhances the tourist experience and the many different motivations behind this, including the need to co-ordinate services competitiveness of the destination. In other cities these have included: offering reduced specifically at visitors, adjust municipal services to meet demands from visitors and to entry to cultural attractions, encouraging more out-of-season visitors, improving the decentralise tourism in various neighbourhoods and districts. public realm, investing in parks, public spaces, clean streets, improved marketing of the “Local authorities are ensuring enjoyment of the city with quality and security, by taking on a large city, and hosting additional cultural events. In most cities, local government has regarded part of the costs associated with tourist visits or by coordinating services specifically aimed at taxes from tourism as revenue to be spent on services not directly supporting tourism. visitors, such as resizing general services to meet the demand of a floating population.”

For example: “These measures do not have to be seen as a tax-raising instrument but need to be understood as a tool for managing the tourist city,” • Barcelona City Council assigns 50% of each transfer received to the Turisme de Barcelona Consortium and reserves the other 50% for municipal management Source: Barcelona Tourism for 2020 projects. Further detail is given in the first case study box. Case Study 2: What to spend the revenue on lessons from Istanbul • The City of Antwerp will use this revenue for clean streets, information services, the maintenance of museums, improved mobility, safety and urban renewal. General infrastructure: Tourism Superstructure Items that include improvements in services Improvements in signage in foreign • Istanbul: visitor ideas were captured and analysed in a study conducted in late that are both used by locals and tourists. languages, the restoration and 2016. The ideas for the allocation of tax revenue was split into four categories: This theme includes such items as public maintenance of tourist attractions and old transportation, cleanliness, congestion, general infrastructure; tourism superstructure; tourist services; community buildings, improving airport capacity and traffic, safety and security. welfare. Further detail is given in the second case study box customs services, extended closing times for

touristic attractions Tourist Services

Items that improve the overall experience in Community Welfare

the destination include: Information Improvements in the foreign language skills

provision services, additional recreational of locals, helping the poor, and observed

facilities (e.g., parks, theme parks), events quality of life situation factors that

and festivals, Wi-Fi services for tourists, influence the tourists’ image of the city.

quality improvements in accommodation services, and the availability of guide books.

Source: Willingness to Pay for Tourist Tax in Destinations Empirical Evidence from Istanbul (2017)

Transient Visitor Levy Research, May 2018 Page 26

GOVERNANCE AND ADVOCACY FUNCTIONS FOR A TVL acceptance from the industry, residents and tourists that this income is considered as However, earmarking a set amount of revenue through a local committee might also additional funds. create the investments that would yield larger returns for the hospitality industry and local government in the long run, as well as creating more democratic decision-making. Figure 21: Example of possible Visitor Levy Expenditure

Taxes collected from tourism-related activity at a destination should ensure long-term growth in revenues. The underlying logic is that spending on projects that can, directly or indirectly, improve the tourism product (e.g. infrastructure, preservation, promotion, Support for accommodation providers tourist experience, local tourism events), which would have a positive effect on demand and increase tax revenues even further, creating a self-reinforcing cycle.30

Involving industry stakeholders in spending decisions requires careful consideration of the Maintain Invest in tourism and governance arrangements. our quality of offer culture infrastructure VISITOR LEVY EXPENDITURE EXAMPLE Improve tourist Improve tourism Careful consideration would need to be given to the detail of any scheme and its experience events governance. However, an example of how revenue could be allocated is set out below by Festival Grants way of illustration. The allocation of the total revenue could for example be split into Preservation of Destination sections with a portion allocated for local festivals, a portion to support the tourism city assets Promotion infrastructure and a portion allocated for the hotels and accommodation providers affected in city. Sustaining Festivals by funding festival bodies This would ensure continued funding of cultural services; new investment in culture infrastructure; and supports accommodation providers to enhance quality and encourage more off season from visitors. The support for accommodation and allocation to the Festival Grants may align with local tourism strategy priorities. For example, sustaining the success of the festivals and rebalancing the seasonality of visitors.

The allocation of the revenue for tourism and culture infrastructure could include maintenance of museums and galleries, discounted entry to attractions, improved mobility investments, clean streets, and local cultural events. It is crucial that to gain

30 Cetin, Alrawadiech, Dincer, Dincer Ioannides, (2017), Willingness to Pay for Tourist Tax in Destinations Empirical Evidence from Istanbul Transient Visitor Levy Research, May 2018 Page 27

1.5 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TVL Member Bill option (Primary Legislation)

Critically, for a compulsory TVL to be introduced, a new legislative framework or a revision Another route to implement via primary legislation would be to pursue the Member’s Bill to legislation is needed. The Scottish Government have on record stated in the process. The process is governed by Chapter 9, Rule 9.14, of the Parliament’s Standing Parliamentary chamber (logged 19 Nov 2016, Question S5O-00343) that despite having no Orders. This is an option for non-Government Bills. It can only be introduced by a member plans to introduce a tourist tax or visitor levy, they are open to discussion with any local who is not a member of the Scottish Government. The process for a Member’s Bill is authority, See Appendix 5: Public Sector Position on TVL. outlined below:

The introduction of a visitor levy requires support from the Scottish Government and or • A draft proposal is lodged the sufficient Members of the Scottish Parliament to legislate either through primary or • This draft proposal is sent out for consultation. secondary legislation. The likely timescale to eventual implementation would take many • After consultation, all the responses would be analysed and a final proposal is months.31 lodged to the Parliament, along with a summary of those responses. Support from Scottish Ministers to Legislate • The member then has the right to introduce a Member’s Bill provided that: o The final proposal secures the support of at least 18 other MSPs from at The necessary support from Scottish Ministers would need to be in one of two forms. One least half the political parties or groups represented in the would be in the form of the Scottish Government making a new law through primary Parliamentary Bureau, legislation. o the Scottish Government does not indicate that it intends to legislate in the area in question. Primary Legislation Once introduced, a Member’s Bill follows the same scrutiny and approval process, where Primary legislation can take a while to get through, as it is subject to additional scrutiny it may be amended or rejected outright. If it is passed at the end of the process it and consultation periods. The longest part of the process may be encouraging Scottish becomes an Act. Parliament to make the law. Once persuaded, the law then needs to be drafted before going through various stages of scrutiny and consultation. Summary

Secondary Legislation One way to introduce the visitor levy would be for Scottish Ministers to vary the legislation and repeal or amend Local Government (Scotland) Act 2003 around the limit There is an alternative way for the Scottish Ministers to legislate with secondary on local authorities to raise money by a levy, other than Council tax and rates. If Scottish legislation. Under section 57(1) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 2003, Scottish Ministers can be persuaded to do so, they would have to lay down a Scottish Statutory Ministers have the power to make an order to “amend, repeal, revoke or disapply” any Instrument (SSI). This would need to be approved by the Scottish Parliament. If the law enactment to which the section applies to. This applies to “any enactment which the was amended by Ministers, it would also need to be specific enough to include Scottish Ministers consider prevents local authorities from exercising their power under organisations, such as Airbnb, and not be limited to just hotels, guest houses and B&Bs. section 20(1)” (the power to advance well-being).

31 Scottish Parliament: http://www.parliament.scot/visitandlearn/Education/18641.aspx

Transient Visitor Levy Research, May 2018 Page 28

APPENDIX 1: SUMMARY OF COMMENTS ON TVL Selected Comments on introducing an Edinburgh Visitor Levy

These comments taken from various press releases over the period 2016 to 2017.

There are a broad range of stakeholders with views and interest in the introduction of a “Continuing to invest in “The compulsory tourist levy was Edinburgh transient visitor levy, with arguably varying interests and opinions regarding maintaining our world- widely considered in 2011-12 and the impact of taxation towards tourist activity. leading reputation and ultimately dropped as it was not deemed a fair, suitable and efficient status is critical to the Many of the comments highlighted in the figure show the commonly reflected views from ongoing economic health way to raise additional funding.” politicians, business leaders, the hotel and hospitality industry, and people working in the of Edinburgh.” tourism sector. These were taken from various press articles over 2016-2017 and selected broadly to reflect a balanced account of the opinions represented. “There is a significant risk of further damaging Scotland’s appeal as a tourism “if people can afford The common argument against the levy centered around the Edinburgh losing its appeal destination by applying a further cost to Edinburgh’s hotels, and competitiveness in the global tourism market, disadvantaged from paying relatively visitors.” they can afford the higher VAT taxes, and they also mention the potential of reduced visitor demand arising tax.” from higher costs particularly to customers or visitors. Most of the comments raised in support of the visitor levy, argue that the tourism sector is important to Edinburgh and “In terms of peak demand, I Scotland and continued investment is needed to bring more improvements. don’t think it would present a “The UK already imposes great barrier compared to the more tax on visitors than considerable charges already most of our competing being levied, and it creates a destinations through VAT and APD [air passenger pot of money that’s ring-fenced duty].” “it’s the customers that are going for visitor improvements.” “we do need to find a sustainable to pay for it which is a shame.” mix of funding sources. There's lots

of different solutions.” “With political and economic “Introducing the levy was about “Critical to the debate is uncertainty increasing it is more more than investing in festivals maintaining competitiveness important than ever to ensure UK and cultural activity. It’s also whilst being recognised as an “Edinburgh’s hotels would tourism can compete. The UK about day-to-day living – good international city… . In the end, oppose being singled out as the continues to have on average twice pavements and good roads, or only tourism segment to be faced it’s excellence and quality that the tourism VAT rate across extra bins to keep streets clean wins the day, but this requires with another additional cost Europe.” during the festivals.” investment and innovation.” imposed on them”

Transient Visitor Levy Research, May 2018 Page 29

APPENDIX 2: ‘TOURIST TAX’ IN OTHER COUNTRIES TABLE SHOWING OCCUPANCY TAX RATES IN THE EU-28

The UK is one of only nine countries from the EU-28 that does not charge a tourist tax as of 2018.

MEMBER STATE TAX BASE TAX RATE NOTES / SPECIAL FEATURES

Austria Per person, per night €0.15 to €2.18 Varies by municipality

Varies by city. In Brussels, hotels must pay annual fees for each room (which vary by Belgium Typically, per person €0.53 to €7.50 type) this is passed to guests on a per person per night basis.

Varies by municipality. In some locations an €8 tax is applied per person per Bulgaria Per person, per night €0.10 to €1.53 stay, in seaside resort

Varies by municipality. Revenues are retained by local tourist boards to fund their Croatia Per person, per night €0.27 to €0.94 activities.

Cyprus No occupancy tax

Czech Republic Per person per night Up to €1.00 Varies by location

Denmark No occupancy tax

Estonia No occupancy tax

Finland No occupancy tax

Varies by municipality. Tax can be applied on actual visitor nights, or a flat rate due France Per person, per night €0.22 to €4.40 by the accommodation providers based on capacity. Revenues are hypothecated to be used on activities to encourage tourism. Per person per night or based €0.25 to €5.00, or 5% Varies by city. VAT is applied on top of this tax. In some spa towns this allows access Germany on the room rate of the room rate to certain facilities (spas, attractions, transportation)

Greece Per room per night Up to €4.00 Varies by hotel quality rating

Transient Visitor Levy Research, May 2018 Page 30

Hungary Percentage of room rate 4% of room rate Applies to room rate before VAT is added.

Ireland No occupancy tax Per person per night, or per Italy Up to €7.00 Varies by city, and by accommodation type. stay Latvia No occupancy tax Varies by city. In Palanga, proceeds are used to fund improvement of the city’s Lithuania Per room, per night €0.30 to €0.60 infrastructure and marketing of tourism

Luxembourg No occupancy tax

Malta Per person per night €0.50, capped at €5.00 No regional variation. Proceeds are used for the maintenance of touristic zones.

Per person per night, €0.55 to €5.75 or up to Netherlands Varies by municipality Percentage of room rate 6% of room rate. Varies by city. In Warsaw the Hotel tax is not compulsory, money is to support the Poland Per person per night €0.37 to €0.55 Warsaw Destination Alliance.

Portugal Per person per night €1.00, capped at €7.00 Applies to Lisbon

Romania Percentage of room rate 1% Varies by municipality

Slovakia Per person per night €0.5 to €1.65 Varies by municipality

Slovenia Per person per night €0.60 to €1.25 Varies by city.

Spain Per person per night €0.45 to €2.25 Varies by city and/or region. Up to a maximum of 7 nights.

Sweden No occupancy tax

UK No occupancy tax

Source: EY (2017) The Impact of taxes on the competitiveness of European Tourism

Transient Visitor Levy Research, May 2018 Page 31

TABLE SHOWING OCCUPANCY TAX RATES IN OTHER COUNTRIES

All domestic currencies are expressed in euros (€). This keeps it consistent with the table above.

COUNTRY TAX BASE TAX RATE NOTES / SPECIAL FEATURES COP 3,000 to 15,000 Colombia Per person per night Varies by city and by hotel grade. Domestic currency is the Colombia peso (COP) (c€0.88 to €4.41)

$1.50 to $2.50 Ecuador Per room per night Applies to Guayaquil. Domestic currency is the US dollar. (c. €1.23 to €2.04)

MYR 10.00 to 15.00 Varies by area and by hotel grade. Domestic currency is the Malaysian Ringget Malaysia Per room per night (c.€2.07 to €3.10) (MYR)

MXN 20.00 Mexico Per room per night Applies to Riviera Maya. Domestic currency is the Mexican peso (MXN) (c. €0.44) MAD 21.00 to 50.00 Applies to Casablanca and Marrakech, varies by hotel grade. Domestic currency is Morocco Per person per night (c.€1.86 to €4.43) the Moroccan Dirham (MAD)

Serbia Per room per night Up to €1.50 Applies to Belgrade.

From CHF 2.50 to 6.50 Switzerland Per person per night Varies by location and hotel grade. Domestic currency is the Swizz Franc (CHF) (c.€2.13 to €5.53) TND 1.00 to 3.00 Applies to Tunis, varies by hotel grade. Domestic currency is the Tunisian Dinar Tunisia Per person per night (c.€0.33 to €1.00) (TND)

Ukraine Percentage of room rate 1% Applies to Kiev.

AED 7.00 to 20.00 Applies to Abu Dhabi, and Dubai. In Dubai charge varies by hotel grade. In Abu United Arab Emirates Per room per night (c.€1.56 to €4.45) Dhabi charge is fixed at AED 15.00 (c.€3.33) Varies by location. The United States do not have centralised tax system, hotel tax Percentage of room rate, or per varies by state and city from 11%-17%, in addition to the city tax it can also include USA Variable room per night separate property service charges. City tax in selected US cities NYC $3.50 per room per night, Atlanta $5.00 per night, Los Angeles 1.7%, and Boston 6%.

Uzbekistan Per person per night $2.00 (c€1.63) Applies to Tashkent.

Source: ETOA 2017

Transient Visitor Levy Research, May 2018 Page 32

APPENDIX 3: VAT TAX ON HOTELS IN OTHER COUNTRIES

VAT is applied to the sale of most products and services across the EU including goods and services in the tourism sector. The standard VAT rate adopted across countries in the EU ranges from 17% (in Luxembourg) to 27% (in Hungary). The average standard VAT rate is 21%, with 20 countries in the range of plus/minus two percentage points of this. The UK VAT is currently at 20%.

Many countries apply a reduction to key goods and services relating to the tourist sector. The hotel accommodation is one of the most discounted category. The average across the EU-28 countries is a rate of 11%, with rates as low as 3% in Luxembourg and as high as 25% in Denmark. Those countries in blue presented below have no ‘tourist tax’ in place.

VAT rates in hotel accommodation and presence of ‘tourist tax’ by country

25%

20% 20%

18%

15%

13% 13% 13%

12% 12%

10% 10% 10% 10%

10%

9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9%

7% 7%

6% 6% 6%

Italy

Spain

Malta

Latvia

France

Cyprus

Poland

Ireland

Austria

Greece

Croatia

Estonia Finland

Sweden

Belgium

Bulgaria

Slovakia

Slovenia

Hungary

Portugal

Romania

Denmark

Germany

Lithuania

Netherlands Luxembourg Czech Republic Czech

Transient Visitor Levy Research, May 2018 Page 33

APPENDIX 4: PRINCIPLES FOR LOCAL TAXATION (COSLA)

In 2015, as part of the submission to the Commission on Local Tax reform, COSLA established a set of principles to be used as a baseline against which any funding framework can be tested. These were developed by COSLA’s funding review and endorsed by COLSA convention. COSLA’s principles of local taxation are set out below:

• Principle 1: Local taxation should be fair and easy to understand.

• Principle 2: Local taxation should be administratively efficient and difficult to avoid.

• Principle 3: Local taxation should have regard to the stability and buoyancy of the underlying tax base.

• Principle 4: Local taxation should be determined locally to establish and maintain democratic local accountability. This includes the local setting of rates (levels).

• Principle 5: Local government should have the discretion to determine whether rates and reliefs are set nationally or locally.

• Principle 6: Local taxation should allow for local flexibility, empowering local authorities to raise local funding for local priorities. Specifically, individual local authorities should be empowered to introduce local taxes, at their discretion, to raise additional resource.

Source: COSLA submission to the Commission on local tax reform, 2015

From this submission we establish three principles for the transient visitor levy:

• Principle 1: TVL should be fair and easy to understand.

• Principle 2: TVL should be administratively efficient and difficult to avoid.

• Principle 3: TVL easily allows forecasting future revenue based on projections of the underlying tax base (e.g. rooms, people, price paid).

Transient Visitor Levy Research, May 2018 Page 34

APPENDIX 5: PUBLIC SECTOR POSTION ON TVL SCOTTISH POLITICAL PARTY POSITIONS FROM COUNCIL ELECTIONS 2017 In the local government elections of 2017 in Scotland, all four main political parties listed COSLA POSITION ON A TRANSIENT VISITOR LEVY the Edinburgh transient visitor levy as a policy commitment. Despite minor differences in In April 2017, COSLA submitted evidence to a Consultation on the Future of the Scottish the name of the levy there was a consensus in advancing this policy. It was mentioned Planning System. directly in four of the five Edinburgh Election 2017 Manifestos. These are copied below for reference: “We recognise that the options open to councils could include exploring shared services and cooperating with neighbours as part of regional partnerships. Likewise, if we are to Scottish Greens, page 19, pursue an infrastructure levy then this must be a tool at the full disposal of local “Press the Scottish Government to give Edinburgh the power to introduce a tourist levy to authorities, perhaps as part of a suite of new tax and revenue raising instruments e.g. a invest in cultural services and in the city centre.” ‘tourism tax’.” Scottish Liberal Democrats, page 4, Source: COSLA Response to People, Places and Planning: A Consultation on the Future of the Scottish Planning System, April 2017. “Liberal Democrats believe Edinburgh should have the power to levy a modest tourist hotel bed tax, to help meet the costs of our festivals and events so that they maintain SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT POSITION ON A TRANSIENT VISITOR LEVY their reputation as world leaders.” Question S5O-00343: Jeremy Balfour, Lothian, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party, Date Lodged: 09/11/2016 Scottish Labour, Page 10,

“To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on how the proposal by Edinburgh “Give councils powers to choose to raise additional revenue if needed… A ‘hotel bed levy’ City Council to introduce a tourist tax could impact on the number of visitors to the city.” could be used to provide skills training for Edinburgh residents in the hospitality and tourist business, and help fund the Festivals…” Answered by Fiona Hyslop (16/11/2016): Scottish National Party, page 27, “The Scottish Government has no plans to introduce a tourist tax. The Scottish tourism industry currently subject to UK Government VAT rates which are the seconds largest in “The SNP will work with the Scottish Government to deliver the Transient Visitor Levy. By the EU. However we are open to discussions with any local authorities that are interested, introducing a levy on hotel stays, we’ll help fund our cultural infrastructure, promote the recognising that potential impacts and implications would need to be carefully city as a tourist destination and provide additional support to ease the strain placed on considered. Council services during busy festival periods”

More widely we continue to engage with COSLA around making local taxation fairer and Scottish Conservatives and Unionist Party, page 11 < ensuring local authorities continue to be properly funded while becoming more “If we want our councils to be the engines of growth, such a system also has to provide accountable.” for a degree of local control and provide clear incentives to broaden the tax base” Source: Scottish Parliament

Transient Visitor Levy Research, May 2018 Page 35

APPENDIX 6: COUNCIL FUNDING MECHANISM and Discretionary Housing Payments are added to the Distributable Revenue Funding which makes up the Councils total allocated funding. The Scottish Government allocates grants to local authorities considering both the relative Within the Scottish Government’s estimate of councils’ TEE in any year, the largest spending need of each authority, and the revenues raised from council tax and non- element (69% of the total estimated expenditure) is Grant Aided Expenditure (GAE). This domestic rates income. Ideally, for the TVL to work effectively we would want it to count has remained broadly the same since 2008/09. GAE is based on an estimate of their as “additional” rather than displace total funding. This means in practice it should not be relative spending needs across 89 elements, with reference to one or more indicators. The subtracted from the total estimated expenditure, like the council tax, or centralised and size of the GAE is mostly determined by population profiles, along with other factors to redistributed from the Scottish Government like non-domestic rates. reflect rurality and deprivation. An outline of the stages taken in the councils funding mechanism is discussed below. The Illustration of Edinburgh Council Funding mechanism first step in the grant allocation system is to calculate the ‘total estimated expenditure’ (TEE), and the main elements of TEE are: Total Estimated Expenditure

• an assessment of spending needs, based on the Grant Aided Expenditure (GAE) Grant Additional Council tax Loan Non- assessments combined with a Special Islands Needs Allowance (SINA) Aided funding freeze charges specific Expenditure PPP / LPFS changes • a series of additional revenue grants – such as the funding used in the past to (69% of TEE) support the council tax freeze. Main Floor: redistributes funding so no council • a series of further non-specific changes to grant allocations loses more than 4.5% a year • local authorities’ commitments in respect of certain historic loan charges - Assumed Council tax contribution The sum of these elements is then adjusted by a ‘floor’ to ensure that no local authority experiences particularly large swings in support from one year to the next. Total revenue funding

General Non-domestic Gaelic Having calculated TEE, an adjustment is then made based upon an estimate of what each = Revenue Grant rates (ring fenced) local authority is expected to raise from council tax, the revenues forecasted to raise from non-domestic rates, and their allocation of ring-fenced Gaelic funding. Councils collect Non-Domestic Rates and pay this into a central pool, which is redistributed back to 85% Floor: to ensure that no council received less than 85% of the council average councils by the Scottish Government. +

A further ‘85% floor’ calculation is applied to ensure that no local authority receives less than 85 per cent of the Scottish average on a per capita basis. In 2016/17, this was applied Distributable Revenue Funding to funding for Aberdeen and Edinburgh councils, the top up amounted to a combined = total of £25 million. Other grants and payments such as the Teacher Induction Scheme Source: Audit Scotland (2017), Local Government Finances 2016/17

Transient Visitor Levy Research, May 2018 Page 36

The City of Edinburgh Council

10.00am, Thursday, 31 May 2018

Report of Pre-Determination Hearing – 1 Riccarton Mains Cottages, Riccarton Mains Road, Currie (Land 320 Metres Southeast Of) – referral from the Development Management Sub-Committee

Item number Report number Executive/routine Wards Council Commitments

Executive Summary

To consider the recommendation of the Development Management Sub-Committee on a planning application which was the subject of a pre-determination hearing under the procedures set out on the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedures) (Scotland) Regulations 2008.

Terms of Referral

Report of Pre-Determination Hearing – 1 Riccarton Mains Cottages, Riccarton Mains Road, Currie (Land 320 Metres Southeast Of) – referral from the Development Management Sub-Committee

1. Terms of Referral

1.1 In December 2009, the Council approved procedures for dealing with planning applications requiring to be considered by means of a pre-determination hearing. 1.2 On 25 April 2018, the Development Management Sub-Committee conducted a pre- determination hearing in respect of an application for planning permission in principle submitted by H & H Properties Plc for a residential development (class 9), flats (sui generis) (including affordable housing provision, university halls of residence), neighbourhood centre inc. retail (class 1), services (class 2), food and drink (class 3), non-residential (class 10) and assembly and leisure (class 11) with associated access, parking, open space, public realm and infrastructure works (inc. demolition of overhead and relaying of power lines) at land 320 metres southeast of 1 Riccarton Mains Cottages, Riccarton Mains Road, Currie. 1.3 The Sub-Committee received:  a presentation on the report by the Chief Planning Officer (Appendix 1)  a presentation by Dr Keith Symington and Vivien Granton - Currie Community Council  a presentation by Martin Hall and Michael Reid Thomas – Davidson Robertson Rural  a presentation by the applicant’s agent in support of the proposals.

Report by the Chief Planning Officer 1.4 The Chief Planning Officer provided details of the application and the planning considerations involved for planning permission in principle. 1.5 The site lies east of the Murray Burn and Heriot Watt University's Riccarton campus. It curves round Riccarton Mains Cottages on the north, to the south of a roundabout accessing the campus. There is agricultural land to the north east and east. To the south east is the Shotts Glasgow Central to Edinburgh railway line and

The City of Edinburgh Council – 31 May 2018 Page 2

Whitelaw Crossing Cottage. The site boundaries are hedges, post and wire fences, stone walls and the east bank of the Murray Burn. There are trees along part of the site boundary, notably on the west. A narrow road, Donkey Lane, runs along the north east boundary and gives access to the east part of the site. A partially derelict section of the old Riccarton Mains Road lies within and gives access to the west part of the site. The site is within the Edinburgh Green Belt. 1.6 The application site, covering approximately 11.94 hectares, is undulating agricultural land, roads and woodland. Riccarton Mains Road splits the site into a smaller area on the west and a larger area on the east. Crossing the site are two sets of high voltage electricity lines on pylons and one low voltage line on wooden poles. 1.7 This application seeks planning permission in principle for a mixed-use development of houses, flats, university halls of residence, a neighbourhood centre including retail, services, food and drink, non-residential and assembly and leisure uses, with associated access, parking, open space, public realm and infrastructure works, including demolition and relaying of overhead power lines. 1.8 In preparing the Local Development Plan (LDP), the selection of greenfield housing sites for release went through a systematic and evidenced process. The Council has set out the evidence of its housing site assessment in the LDP Environmental Reports. The Second Proposed Local Development Plan - Revised Environmental Report, Volume 2, June 2014(pp 200-203) (originally under John Swan Sons plc) assessed the site and concluded that its development would not be in keeping with the character of the settlement and surrounding area as it would introduce large scale urban residential development into rolling farmland to the north of the railway line and east of Heriot Watt campus and would impact adversely on the overall open rural character of the landscape to the west of Edinburgh. 1.9 The site was outwith the West Edinburgh Strategic Development Area (SDA) as defined by the Strategic Development Plan (SDP). As such, its development would be inconsistent with the SDA's spatial strategy which seeks to prioritise in the first instance, the development of brownfield land and land within identified SDAs. 1.10 The Chief Planning Officer considered that the development of the site for residential purposes was not supported by the Edinburgh Local Development Plan (LDP) and was contrary to the provisions of LDP Policy Env 10 (Development in the Green Belt and Countryside). 1.11 The proposal was contrary to LDP Policy Hou 1 (Housing Development). Using the method described in the Housing Land Audit 2017 to assess unconstrained housing land with support, there is a five-year effective housing land supply in the Council's area. Even if there was a deficiency in the five year housing land supply, and considering the proposal against LDP policy Hou1 and the wide aims of the development plan, the proposal was not acceptable. It would have an adverse impact on the landscape setting of the city, would not provide suitable green belt boundaries and would not be in keeping with the character of the settlement and

The City of Edinburgh Council – 31 May 2018 Page 3

local area. It has poor public transport accessibility for pedestrians and there is no guarantee that this could be improved. 1.12 Insufficient information had been submitted to fully assess the transport impacts of the proposal and whether the pylons could be removed and the overhead powerlines successfully redirected or buried. 1.13 In summary, the proposal was unacceptable in principle, in terms of sustainable location, impact on city setting and area character and setting, and in terms of sufficiency of information and is contrary to the development plan and there are no material considerations which would justify approval. 1.14 The Chief Planning Officer requested that the Sub-Committee recommend to the Council that the application be refused for the following reasons: 1.14.1 The proposal is contrary to the provisions of Policy Env 10 (Development in the Green Belt and Countryside) of the Edinburgh Local Development Plan (LDP) as does not meet any of the criteria a) to d) for inclusion and it would detract from the landscape quality and the rural character of the area; 1.14.2 The proposal is contrary to the Edinburgh Local Development Plan Policy Hou 1 (Housing Development) as it does not satisfy any of the criteria in Hou 1 Part 1 and does not satisfy Hou 1 Part 2 because it is not in keeping with the character of the local area, would undermine Green Belt objectives, has not fully demonstrated what additional infrastructure is required and that it can be provided within a relevant timeframe, and is not sustainable, to the detriment of the overall objectives of the Local Development Plan policy; 1.14.3 The proposal is contrary to the provisions of the Edinburgh Local Development Plan Policy Tra 8 (Provision of Transport Infrastructure) as it has not fully demonstrated the cumulative effects of the proposal and that it can be addressed within a relevant timeframe. The proposal was contrary to Edinburgh Local Development Plan Policies Des 1 and Des 4 as the development will not have a positive impact on its setting, the wider landscape and views; 1.14.4 The proposal is contrary to the provisions of the Edinburgh Local Development Plan Policy ENV 22 (Pollution and Air, Water and Soil Quality) as insufficient evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that there will be no significant cumulative adverse effects on local air quality and that noise from overhead pylons will not have a detrimental impact on future resident amenity; 1.14.5 The proposal is contrary to the provisions of the Edinburgh Local Development Plan Policy Hou10 (Community Facilities) as it has not demonstrated that facilities, including healthcare, are available; 1.14.6 The proposal is contrary to the provisions of Scottish Planning Policy (2014) section 80, as it would result in the non-essential and permanent loss of prime agricultural land; and

The City of Edinburgh Council – 31 May 2018 Page 4

1.14.7 The proposal is inconsistent with the spatial strategy of the Strategic Development Plan as it would introduce development to greenfield land outwith the identified Strategic Development Areas.

Presentation by Currie Community Council 1.15 Dr Keith Symington and Vivien Granton gave a presentation on behalf of the Currie Community Council. 1.16 Dr Keith Symington outlined the strategic context, the transport links, education and healthcare and environmental considerations associated with the proposals as follows: 1.16.1 Strategic Context  Riccarton Mains Village (RMV) was one of many applications that were not in the Local Development Plan (LDP).  The Community Council believed that an overarching plan was essential.  RMV is, therefore, not a sustainable development. 1.16.2 Transport Links  RMV was poorly integrated into transport infrastructure  There was no cycleway to Currie, the consequence of this would be a reliance on cars.  Lack of integration and transport links outweighed the benefit of development. 1.16.3 Education and Healthcare  Currie and Nether Currie primary schools were nearly at capacity.  The four surgeries within reach were almost at capacity.  There was no strategic integration. 1.16.4 Environment  CCC felt that the large student blocks were inappropriate.  This development would have a negative impact on Heriot-Watt’s “rural” feel.  There is not enough evidence that the power lines could, and would, be sunk. 1.17 In conclusion, the Community Council agreed with development in a considered and careful context and the LDP provided this framework. However, RMV was not an expansion of their community, this was a new village on prime farmland in the green belt that was not in the LDP. Therefore, the Community Council agreed with the assessment that this proposal should be refused.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 31 May 2018 Page 5

Presentation by Davidson Robertson Rural 1.18 Martin Hall and Michael Reid Thomas gave a presentation on behalf of Davidson Robertson Rural. 1.18.1 Martin Hall indicated that they objected to the proposed development. (Michael Reid Thomas and Davidson and Robertson had been located at Riccarton Mains since the 1970’s and 1990’s respectively.) 1.18.2 The traffic on Riccarton Mains had increased substantially in recent years and at times was at capacity. This development would add yet further congestion unless an alternative access was used to help alleviate bottlenecks and further road junctions onto Riccarton Mains Road between Herriot Watt and Currie. 1.18.3 Riccarton Mains Road had for many years been quite a dangerous road, with blind corners and an adverse camber. In addition, there was little provision for pedestrians and cyclists to travel safely, with poor connectivity to the railway station. 1.18.4 On this basis they objected to the proposed development. It was their view that if consent was granted then an access to this site should be directly off the existing branches of Riccarton Mains Roundabout.

Presentation by Applicant - Tim Ferguson (Ferguson Planning) 1.19 Tim Ferguson (Ferguson Planning) and Alex Sneddon (Transport Planning) gave a presentation on behalf of the applicant the H&H Group PLC. 1.20 He advised that the H&H Group were, by way of background, Property and Farmstock Brokers who operated across Scotland and the north of England. 1.21 The H&H Group had acquired the land as part of the overall John Swann takeover back in 2015 but soon realised on the review of their land portfolio that, due to the large overhead pylons and general low quality of the land, the overall value of the subject site for agricultural purposes was low. 1.22 Following press reports of a housing shortfall within the city, and in particular in the proximity of the university, park and ride and Currie Train Station, this had led to the appointment of the project team to pursue the Riccarton Mains Village proposal. 1.23 It should be noted that the proposal had no direct relationship with the Garden District Proposals. It was a stand-alone village concept that was being promoted by their clients. 1.24 The proposal was of a scale that they considered could be delivered within a reasonable time period and that could go towards the growing housing shortfall in the city. 1.25 Considerable time and consultation had gone into the provision of detailed supporting documentation on the overall design of Riccarton Mains Village

The City of Edinburgh Council – 31 May 2018 Page 6

Masterplan. All of which came after any such review of the site during the LDP review. 1.26 The proposal again had been subjected to an environmental impact assessment and the design concept together with 3D images were contained within the Design and Access Statement and which had followed core placemaking principles. 1.27 The Master Plan for the site was generally made up of three core parts: 1.27.1 Approximately 200 residential dwellings with strong “rural feel” and which would promote high-quality build materials such as stone timber natural slate. 1.27.2 The focal point being a large village green together with a village centre to cater for community needs such as small shops, village hall and space for the GP practice. 1.27.3 University halls of residence again formed a core part given the extreme close proximity to the Heriot Watt Campus and something encouraged by policy Hou 8 of the LDP. 1.28 The village was intended to have an extensive boundary woodland which doubled up as informal recreation walkways for local people. It again sought to connect in with the local cycle and footways that bordered the site and which would encourage links on foot to nearby bus and train stops. 1.29 It was appreciated that the lands in question were designated as green belt, it was important however, to understand whether it would significantly impact on green belt principles. The proposal was a standalone village with significant boundary woodland/landscaping to contain it and ensure it did not significantly impact on the wider landscape or encourage urban sprawl. 1.30 In physical terms it could be seen as a form of an extension to the significant build form that neighboured it at the Heriot Watt Campus which again should be noted was allocated outwith the greenbelt. 1.31 As shown in the reporter’s finding to the current SESPLAN it was clear that if and when there was a continued housing shortfall, more must be done to meet that shortfall, including allowing further housing sites to come forward on suitable greenfield land. That included looking at sites within the green belt which were considered sustainable located and which would not have significant visual or landscape impacts. 1.32 There continued to be both mainstream and affordable housing shortfalls within Edinburgh and there were numerous large housing sites allocated within the LDP that were slow to deliver or constrained and in overall terms, there being an inadequate five and ten year housing land supply. This then continued to push houses prices up locking many out of the housing market. For this site the applicant had committed to 25% affordable housing on site and which would equate to approximately 54 of the 214 units proposed.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 31 May 2018 Page 7

1.33 The reporter’s conclusions on the green belt when considering the current LDP, was that there was significant time lag in the delivery of sites and that brownfield sites alone were highly unlikely to enable the housing land requirement to be met. The reporter also alluded to ensuring continued compliance with SESPLAN and a continual monitoring of housing delivery and, if required, additional greenfield sites would need to be considered. 1.34 This had been furthered in SESPLAN2, currently at examination. Contrary to the position within the officer’s report, they considered it still be a strong material consideration. SESPLAN2 placed strong emphasis on housing delivery and that it remained under constant review. Reference was made to an annual supply of some 2,662 homes per year being needed between 2018 and 30 should be provided and that a generosity margin should again be applied. 1.35 The subject site as shown within their transport assessment could quickly avail of various modes of transport other than the private car. Bus provision and a park and ride facility was within a 5 minute walk from the site. It had a cycle path along its boundary and which acted as a definable edge and again within easy reach was the nearby Currie Train Station. 1.36 The sentiments made with regard to the visual and landscape impact on the proposal had been grossly exaggerated and lacking in true appreciation of the current landscape within which the proposal was set. The site was undulating but largely low lying. It was contained within the confines of current built form – that being an existing cycle/footpath and road network together with houses located beyond the site to the north, east and west. Further to this, the development would sit well below and within the wider context of the neighbouring white Oriam Sports Centre which could be seen from a considerable distance. 1.37 In addition to this, the landscape right across the subject site was significantly scarred as a result of three extremely high power lines that ran right across it. A landscape impact assessment had been undertaken by independent landscape architects and had shown that the landscape in this area was not of a high quality and while there may be some localised or modest impact – on the whole there would be no significant or detrimental visual impact on the wider landscape. 1.38 Significant woodland boundary treatment which would have walkways intertwined would actually enhance one of the green belt principles by providing better recreational access while softening any visual impact. Again, one would note in the SNH consultation no significant concerns regarding visual impact or ecology were raised. 1.39 Within reason for refusal 2, there was reference to not demonstrating what additional infrastructure was required and delivery within a reasonable timescale. They presumed this was in reference to the burial of the pylons on the site. They were unclear given this was a PPP Application why such detailed information was being sought and not being conditioned as they had sought.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 31 May 2018 Page 8

1.40 It was important to point out they provided the Case Officer and Environmental Health Officer an e-mail, showing that dialogue was ongoing with Scottish Power and that the principle of the pylon burial was indeed possible. Desktop investigations had been undertaken and options provided by Scottish Power, all of which gave comfort that the concept was technically viable. The detail of such was a private matter between the landowner and the provider. 1.41 To go to the next stage required extremely detailed plans and exact confirmation on position of the built form. That was for the next stage in the planning process. They had provided the Case Officer and Environmental Health Officer with correspondence from Scottish Power, and Network Rail had also provided their consultation to this application. Neither raised an issue with the concept of the burial of the pylons. This was what they sought to do and had outlined that within their proposal description and that was what they sought to be conditioned. 1.42 It was again worthy of note of other greenfield sites that had been granted PPP permission that had pylons running across them, for example, at Brunstane. On that occasion neither the Environmental Health nor Planning Department sought the detailed investigations that were being sought of them. Indeed, they recommended a condition be applied in relation to such matters relating to pylons. 1.43 Refusal Reason 3 stated: “The proposal was contrary to the provision of the LDP Policy Tra8 as it had not fully demonstrated the cumulative effects of the proposal and that it could be addressed within a relevant timeframe.” They considered this to be incorrect. An extensive amount of dialogue occurred between the applicants and the Council on 21st April 2016, when the first (of two) Transport Assessment scoping meeting was held with CEC. 1.44 The protracted nature of this dialogue related to the inclusion of so called “cross border/cross boundary” traffic effects within the Transport Assessment and this had been done in accordance with the Council’s requirements and using data extracted from the Council’s traffic model. Additionally, the site lay within the Calder and Hermiston transport contributions zone as laid out in current developer contribution guidance. This was acknowledged in the transport consultation response to the application and the applicants were content to discuss appropriate contribution in the same manner as many other sites across the City which also lay within transport contribution zones. 1.45 Refusal reason 4, an Air Quality Assessment that linked with the Transport Assessment had been undertaken. It showed the existing air quality in the study area was good and well within the statutory ECT limit values and was predicted to comply with all Scottish Air Quality Objectives. SEPA again touched upon the subject of air quality and had no objection on such grounds. Given mitigation measures could be provided, it was again assumed the matter of noise related to the overhead pylons raised by Environmental Health had been addressed previously. They were not seeking that they remained “In Situ” and thus when buried, no such noise issues would arise or indeed the need to be tested.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 31 May 2018 Page 9

1.46 Clarity was required on the validity or reasoning for refusal 5. The Masterplan had built in a form of Neighbourhood Centre for local people. That included units that could be used for such purposes as a GP practice should the demand be there from doctors wishing to set up in the area. Again, complementary services were planned to sit alongside this, together with community space. 1.47 In relation to refusal number 6, they did not consider the lands in question to be prime agricultural land. The lands were undulating, some of which fell within Grade 3 and this together with the pylons running across the lands could in no way be deemed prime land. This was low level grazing land at best as a result of the aforementioned restrictions. 1.48 On refusal reason 7, they acknowledge that the lands were currently not designated but it equally needed to acknowledge in relation to the Strategic Development Plan that there was a need to meet the growing housing needs and where there was not, consideration of sustainable located greenfield land must be considered. 1.49 They considered that there was a growing housing shortfall and that housing identified in the Local Development Plan was not keeping pace with that demand – many being constrained and unable to fully deliver within the LDP timeframe. The proposal was in a sustainable location with no significant impacts. It could deliver within a reasonable time period and the appropriate flexibility to allow such sites should be applied in accordance with SDP principles. 1.50 In conclusion, there were some very strong material considerations that had been given very little coverage within the officer's report. This was the economic benefits of the proposal would bring, which included: 1.50.1 Approximately £100 million of new capital investment. 1.50.2 In the region of 495 man years of construction and injecting an additional £22 million into the economy. 1.50.3 The creation of jobs within the proposed local centre. 1.50.4 The provision of new community facilities and an additional £2m in retail spend. 1.50.5 214 new homes and halls of residence that would bolster existing services in areas such as Currie. 1.50.6 They had read the detail in the officer’s report and on this occasion they considered the reasoning for refusal to be lacking for the reasons outlined. 1.50.7 Significant detailed and technical documentation had been provided in support of this application and this outlined the compliance with core material considerations and as to why the proposed Riccarton Mains Village should be approved. 1.51 They thanked the Sub-Committee for their time and requested that they overturn the recommendation by the Chief Planning Officer and grant the application.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 31 May 2018 Page 10

Deliberation by Sub-Committee Members 1.52 The representations received during the consultation period had been made available to members of the Sub-Committee for inspection. 1.53 All parties were questioned on their presentations by members of the Sub- Committee. 1.54 The Development Management Sub-Committee agreed to recommend to the Council that planning permission in principle be refused following reasons: 1.54.1 The proposal is contrary to the provisions of Policy Env 10 (Development in the Green Belt and Countryside) of the Edinburgh Local Development Plan (LDP) as does not meet any of the criteria a) to d) for inclusion and it would detract from the landscape quality and the rural character of the area. 1.54.2 The proposal is contrary to the Edinburgh Local Development Plan Policy Hou 1 (Housing Development) as it does not satisfy any of the criteria in Hou 1 Part 1 and does not satisfy Hou 1 Part 2 because it is not in keeping with the character of the local area, would undermine Green Belt objectives, has not fully demonstrated what additional infrastructure is required and that it can be provided within a relevant timeframe, and is not sustainable, to the detriment of the overall objectives of the Local Development Plan policy. 1.54.3 The proposal is contrary to the provisions of the Edinburgh Local Development Plan Policy Tra 8 (Provision of Transport Infrastructure) as it has not fully demonstrated the cumulative effects of the proposal and that it can be addressed within a relevant timeframe. The proposal was contrary to Edinburgh Local Development Plan Policies Des 1 and Des 4 as the development will not have a positive impact on its setting, the wider landscape and views. 1.54.4 The proposal is contrary to the provisions of the Edinburgh Local Development Plan Policy ENV 22 (Pollution and Air, Water and Soil Quality) as insufficient evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that there will be no significant cumulative adverse effects on local air quality and that noise from overhead pylons will not have a detrimental impact on future resident amenity. 1.54.5 The proposal is contrary to the provisions of the Edinburgh Local Development Plan Policy Hou10 (Community Facilities) as it has not demonstrated that facilities, including healthcare, are available. 1.54.6 The proposal is contrary to the provisions of Scottish Planning Policy (2014) section 80, as it would result in the non-essential and permanent loss of prime agricultural land. 1.54.7 The proposal is inconsistent with the spatial strategy of the Strategic Development Plan as it would introduce development to greenfield land outwith the identified Strategic Development Areas.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 31 May 2018 Page 11

2. For Decision/Action

2.1 The Council is asked to consider the recommendation of the Development Management Sub-Committee to refuse planning permission in principle for the reasons outlined in paragraph 1.54. Background reading/external references

Development Management Sub-Committee 25 April 201

Laurence Rockey Head of Strategy and Insight Contact: Blair Ritchie, Committee Services E-mail: [email protected] | Tel: 0131 529 4085

3. Appendices

Appendix 1 – Report by the Chief Planning Officer

The City of Edinburgh Council – 31 May 2018 Page 12

Development Management Sub Committee

Wednesday 25 April 2018

Application for Planning Permission in Principle 16/05217/PPP At Land 320 Metres Southeast Of 1 Riccarton Mains Cottages, Riccarton Mains Road, Currie Residential development (class 9), flats (sui generis) (including affordable housing provision, university halls of residence), neighbourhood centre inc. retail (class 1), services (class 2), food + drink (class 3), non-residential (class 10) + assembly + leisure (class 11) with associated access, parking, open space, public realm + infrastructure works (inc. demolition of overhead + relaying of power lines)

Item number Report number

Wards A02 - Pentland Hills (Pre May 2017)

Summary

The development of the site for residential purposes is not supported by the Edinburgh Local Development Plan (LDP) and is contrary to the provisions of LDP Policy Env 10 (Development in the Green Belt and Countryside).

Development Management Sub-Committee – 25 April 2018 Page 1 of 73 16/05217/PPP

The proposal is contrary to LDP Policy Hou 1 (Housing Development). Using the method described in the Housing Land Audit 2017 to assess unconstrained housing land with support, there is a five-year effective housing land supply in the Council's area. Even if there was a deficiency in the five year housing land supply, and considering the proposal against LDP policy Hou1 and the wide aims of the development plan, the proposal is not acceptable. It would have an adverse impact on the landscape setting of the city, would not provide suitable green belt boundaries and would not be in keeping with the character of the settlement and local area. It has poor public transport accessibility for pedestrians and there is no guarantee that this could be improved.

Insufficient information has been submitted to fully assess the transport impacts of the proposal and whether the pylons can be removed and the overhead powerlines can be successfully redirected or buried.

In summary, the proposal is unacceptable in principle, in terms of sustainable location, impact on city setting and area character and setting, and in terms of sufficiency of information.

The proposal is contrary to the development plan and there are no material considerations which justify approval.

Links

Policies and guidance for LDPP, LDEL01, LDES01, LDES02, LDES03, LDES04,

this application LDES05, LDES06, LDES07, LDES08, LDES09, LDES10, LDES11, LEN03, LEN09, LEN10, LEN12, LEN13, LEN15, LEN16, LEN20, LEN21, LEN22, LHOU01, LHOU02, LHOU03, LHOU04, LHOU06, LHOU08, LHOU10, LRET01, LRET06, LRET08, LRET11, LTRA01, LTRA02, LTRA03, LTRA09, NSGSTU, LRS06, NSG, NSDCAH, NSGD02, NSGCGB, SDP, SDP06, SDP07,

Development Management Sub-Committee – 25 April 2018 Page 2 of 73 16/05217/PPP

Report

Recommendations

1.1 It is recommended that this application be Refused for the reasons below. Background

2.1 Site description

The application site, covering approximately 11.94 hectares, is undulating agricultural land, roads and woodland. Riccarton Mains Road splits the site into a smaller area on the west and a larger area on the east. Crossing the site are two sets of high voltage electricity lines on pylons and one low voltage line on wooden poles.

The site lies east of the Murray Burn and Heriot Watt University's Riccarton campus. It curves round Riccarton Mains Cottages on the north, to the south of a roundabout accessing the campus. There is agricultural land to the north east and east. To the south east is the Shotts Glasgow Central to Edinburgh railway line and Whitelaw Crossing Cottage.

The site boundaries are hedges, post and wire fences, stone walls and the east bank of the Murray Burn. There are trees along part of the site boundary, notably on the west.

A narrow road, Donkey Lane, runs along the north east boundary and gives access to the east part of the site. A partially derelict section of the old Riccarton Mains Road lies within and gives access to the west part of the site.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 25 April 2018 Page 3 of 73 16/05217/PPP

There are two scheduled ancient monuments near the site: Baberton Mains Enclosure (listing reference: SM6190) is on the north east and Currievale Fort (Canmore ID 88983) is towards the south. There are no listed buildings within the site and it is not in or immediately adjacent to a conservation area. Currie and Juniper Green conservation areas are to the south and Hermiston conservation area is to the north. There are two Category A, 18 Category B and six Category C Listed Buildings within one kilometre of the site. The Environmental Statement lists these. They include:

 Riccarton Mains, listed Category C (listing reference: LB45426, date of listing: 26.3.1998);  Baberton Mains, listed Category B (listing reference: LB45416, date of listing: 26.3.1998); and  Hermiston House, listed Category B (listing reference: LB27389, date of listing: 30.1.1981).

The site is within the Edinburgh Green Belt.

The Riccarton Estate Local Biodiversity Site lies to the west, and applies to woodland in the university campus.

2.2 Site History

27 November 2013 - proposal of application notice submitted for planning permission in principle for residential development, horticultural visitor and education centre (the Calyx), new schools, community facilities, local retail facilities, local Class 2 and Class 3, Class 4, Class 10, Class 11, conference centre, hotel, a sports stadium/arena, sporting facilities, construction training centre, sustainable energy centre, green network, transport links, canal related uses and infrastructure (application reference 13/04911/PAN).

17 March 2016 - proposal of application notice submitted for planning permission in principle for major development of proposed Riccarton Mains Village comprising residential development Class 9, flats (Sui Generis) including affordable housing provision, University Halls of Residence, Neighbourhood centre including retail (Class 1) services (Class 2), food and drink (Class 3), non-residential (Class 10) and assembly and leisure (class 11) together with associated access, parking, open space, public realm and infrastructure works (including the demolition of overhead and relaying of power lines) (application reference 16/01691/PAN).

Relevant nearby site

16 November 2015 - proposal of application notice submitted for planning permission in principle for residential development of around 1,500 homes with a community hub (containing various neighbourhood facilities), a hotel, non-denominational primary school and associated infrastructure including new access and roads, improved access to public transport, extended rail station car parking, flood mitigation measures, landscaping, sports pitches and green networks (application reference 15/05258/PAN).

Development Management Sub-Committee – 25 April 2018 Page 4 of 73 16/05217/PPP

Main report

3.1 Description Of The Proposal

This application seeks planning permission in principle for a mixed-use development of houses, flats, university halls of residence, a neighbourhood centre including retail, services, food and drink, non-residential and assembly and leisure uses, with associated access, parking, open space, public realm and infrastructure works, including demolition and relaying of overhead power lines. An indicative masterplan and accommodation schedule accompany the application. They show the following indicative development:

Student housing

Approximately 200 beds, in the north west of the site, in four blocks of two or four storeys.

Standard housing

Approximately 14 flats sitting over the community facilities and approximately 200 houses mainly in the south of the site, with between two and four bedrooms, and terraced, semi-detached or detached.

Community facilities

Indicative 600m² net floor area of community facility/ retail/ potential GP practice.

Subsequent applications for the approval of matters specified in condition would include details of the number of units, design and layout, scale and massing, access, landscaping, open spaces and parking.

Supporting Statements

The application has been accompanied by an Environmental Statement (ES) which considers:

 Ecological Assessment;  Cultural Heritage and Archaeology;  Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment;  Acoustics;  Air Quality;  Water;  Transportation; and  Arboriculture.

The Transport Assessment and Air Quality Impact Assessment, part of the ES, were updated in January 2018 and the application re-advertised. In addition to the ES, the applicant has submitted the following documents in support of the application:

 Design and Access Statement;  Further Ecological Assessment;

Development Management Sub-Committee – 25 April 2018 Page 5 of 73 16/05217/PPP

 Planning Statement;  Pre-application Consultation Report;  Preliminary Environmental Assessment; and  Socio-economic Assessment.

These documents are available to view on the Planning and Building Standards Online Services.

3.2 Determining Issues

Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 states - Where, in making any determination under the planning Acts, regard is to be had to the development plan, the determination shall be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Do the proposals comply with the development plan?

If the proposals do comply with the development plan, are there any compelling reasons for not approving them?

If the proposals do not comply with the development plan, are there any compelling reasons for approving them?

3.3 Assessment

To address these determining issues, the Committee needs to consider whether:

a) the principle of development is acceptable on this site;

b) the design and layout are appropriate to the site;

c) the proposal preserves or enhances the historic environment;

d) the proposal will protect neighbour and future occupier amenity;

e) there are any transport and parking issues;

f) the proposal raises any flooding and drainage issues;

g) other material considerations have been addressed;

h) the proposal meets sustainability criteria;

i) any impacts on equalities or human rights are acceptable; and

j) comments raised have been addressed.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 25 April 2018 Page 6 of 73 16/05217/PPP a) Principle

Policy Hou 1 of the adopted Edinburgh Local Development Plan (LDP) relates to the location of housing development and consists of two parts. The first part gives priority to housing development in the urban area as defined in the LDP.

The application site lies in the green belt as defined in the LDP and so is not supported by part 1 of Policy Hou 1. Should there be a deficit in the maintenance of the five year housing land supply, the site may be assessed in terms of part 2 of Policy Hou 1.

The latest assessment of the housing land supply in the City of Edinburgh is the 2017 Housing Land Audit and Delivery Programme (HLADP) which was reported to Planning Committee on 12 October 2017. The supply of effective housing land and the delivery programme within the HLADP were agreed as reasonable with Homes for Scotland.

The HLADP examines both the supply of effective housing land (an input) and the expected delivery of new homes (the output). The 2017 HLADP concludes that there is more than sufficient effective housing land for the next five years, and in the longer term, to meet the housing land requirements set by the Strategic Development Plan (SDP). The delivery of new homes anticipated over the next five years, however, is still below the five year delivery target (90%).

Delivery of new homes is affected by many economic and demand factors unrelated to the supply of effective land available for development. The anticipated output programme, therefore, is not the only assessment that the Council considers to measure the adequacy of the land supply. Land supply is also considered in terms of the capacity of unconstrained land available for development. The 2017 HLADP recorded a supply of effective housing land for 23,329 units - more than sufficient for the next five years and sufficient to meet the housing land requirement for the entire LDP period (to 2026).

This approach to assessing the adequacy of the effective land supply is consistent with Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) paragraph 123: Maintaining a 5-year Effective Land Supply.

As there is no deficit in the maintenance of the five year land supply, LDP policy Hou 1 part 2 does not apply. However, should more weight be given to the deficit in the five year delivery programme when compared to the five year delivery target, the site should be assessed against the criteria specified in Hou 1 part 2. The application site is assessed against these criteria below. a) Character of settlement and local area

The character of the site, with gently rolling farmland beside a narrow lane on the east part of the site, grazing land and the steeply wooded banks of the Gogar Burn to the west, is rural. The presence of electricity pylons and Riccarton Mains Road passing through the site do not remove its essential nature. The site is part of the open, rural landscape to the west of Edinburgh.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 25 April 2018 Page 7 of 73 16/05217/PPP

In preparing the LDP, the selection of greenfield housing sites for release went through a systematic and evidenced process. The Council has set out the evidence of its housing site assessment in the LDP Environmental Reports. The Second Proposed Local Development Plan - Revised Environmental Report, Volume 2, June 2014(pp 200-203) (originally under John Swan Sons plc) assessed the site and concluded that its development would not be in keeping with the character of the settlement and surrounding area as it would introduce large scale urban residential development into rolling farmland to the north of the railway line and east of Heriot Watt campus and would impact adversely on the overall open rural character of the landscape to the west of Edinburgh.

To the west of the city, the settlement pattern is aligned with the landform ridge to the north of the Water of Leith and Lanark Road (A71). The local landscape comprises rolling farmland structured by the wooded framework of former country estates, such as at Riccarton, scattered farmsteads and former agricultural cottages.

The proposed built development would be visually prominent in the open landscape and would contrast with the wooded backdrop of the campus. This is counter to the established settlement pattern.

The findings of the LVIA (Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment) in the applicant's Environmental Impact Assessment are questioned. The LVIA states that the development will be 'read in conjunction with the neighbouring University'(para. 6.118). However, the University is enclosed by dense wooded boundaries and, in general, is not perceived in the wider landscape. The exception to this principle is the Oriam, a nationally important sports facility, which breaks the canopy line.

The proposal's indicative large scale, low-rise housing element is essentially suburban in character. It is out of keeping with the small group of cottages to the north of the site, the railway crossing cottage and the grander Riccarton Mains House, outbuildings and grounds. It does not reflect the character of the University campus.

Whilst the site to the west is relatively small and is not prominent in views, it is relatively narrow in plan and is constrained by woodland to the west and Riccarton Mains Road to the east. Taking into account vehicular access, this would be likely to generate a ribbon urban layout, remote from the existing settlement.

The larger site to the east is equally separated from the existing townscape of Currie, which lies some 500 metres to the south, beyond the railway, further arable land and an electricity sub-station. The larger site is more visually prominent and its development would impact adversely on views from Donkey Lane and Whitelaw Crossing Cottage, in addition to the existing rural approach to Currie along Riccarton Mains Road.

Due to the separation of the railway and intervening land uses, the site would form a new pocket of development within the Green Belt, lacking integration with the existing settlement and landscape.

The proposal would not be in keeping with the character of the settlement and the local area, contrary to LDP policy Hou 1, Part 2. a).

Development Management Sub-Committee – 25 April 2018 Page 8 of 73 16/05217/PPP b) Green Belt objectives

The Green Belt helps shape the city's growth and supports regeneration. It protects and enhances the character, landscape setting and identity of the city and provides countryside access.

The terms of SDP policy 7, criteria (a) and (b) permit housing development outside Strategic Development Areas to help maintain a 5 year effective housing land supply, but only where local character and green belt considerations are addressed satisfactorily. The impacts of the proposal on local character are assessed above.

SPP, in paragraph 50, states that 'In developing the spatial strategy, planning authorities should identify the most sustainable locations for longer-term development and, where necessary, review the boundaries of any green belt.'

Paragraph 130 of SDP provides that local planning authorities should seek to minimise the loss of land from the Green Belt whilst balancing the need to achieve sustainability objectives. Where Green Belt land is needed for strategic development, the impacts on Green Belt objectives should be minimised and the establishment of long term boundaries sought. The proposal would not satisfy the criteria in SDP policy 7 by addressing local character and green belt considerations satisfactorily. These issues were reviewed in the LDP preparation.

The Second Proposed Local Development Plan - Revised Environmental Report Volume 2, June 2014 (the Report) found that development of the site would adversely affect the landscape setting of the city.

The site forms part of a wider area of rural land to the west of the City which provides an open context for views to the city skyline and wider landscape setting of the Pentland Hills. This is evident from strategic approaches to the city from the Calder Road (A71) - as illustrated in viewpoint 1 of the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA); City By-pass (A720); and more locally on the approach to Currie from Riccarton Mains Road - LVIA viewpoint 2 and 3, and from the north-south path route of Donkey Lane.

The existing Green Belt boundary is clearly formed by the City Bypass to the east, the urban edge of Baberton, Juniper Green and Currie to the south and the perimeter woodland belts at Heriot-Watt University to the west.

The Report also found that the site would fail to provide a robust and defensible greenbelt boundary. Although the site is bounded by the railway to the south, the edge of the eastern site is formed by single track road and hawthorn hedge. The proposal relies on the provision of a belt of trees on its northern edge to contain the development. There is no marked change in landscape characteristics to either side of this road. It is therefore not a natural and defensible green belt boundary. A planted boundary strip of 10 - 25 metres wide is shown on the indicative masterplan. This could provide a new landscape edge along Donkey Lane. However, it could take between 10- 15 years to form an effective screen in this exposed location. Stand-offs for power lines, whether buried or not, are liable to constrain landscaping. The proposed species and planting density would require to meet with aerodrome safeguarding requirements.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 25 April 2018 Page 9 of 73 16/05217/PPP

The proposal does not satisfy LDP policy Env 10 (Development in the Green Belt and Countryside) criteria or the Council's non-statutory guidance 'Development in the Countryside and Green Belt' and would detract from the character of the settlement and local area.

The proposal would erode the quality of the Green Belt edge and is not justified in this respect. Also, the erosion of this part of the Green Belt would reduce the quality of the landscape setting of the city.

The proposal would undermine Green Belt objectives, contrary to LDP Policies Hou 1, Part 2. b) and Env 10. c) Additional infrastructure

SDP Policy 9 (Infrastructure) states that Local Development Plans should provide policy guidance requiring sufficient infrastructure to be available, or its provision to be committed, before development can proceed. SDP Policy 11 (Delivering the Green Network) is also relevant. LDP Policy Del 1 (Developer Contributions and Infrastructure Delivery), Tra 8 (Provision of Transport Infrastructure), Hou3 (Private Green Space in Housing Development), Hou10 (Community Facilities) and the LDP Action Programme address these matters.

The Council's new LDP Action Programme (January 2018) identifies fair and realistic developer contributions to necessary infrastructure and is a material consideration. The Council has also approved new draft Supplementary Guidance on Developer Contributions and Infrastructure Delivery (January 2018). It is currently out for consultation and is a material consideration in the determination of applications.

Education

Residential development is required to contribute towards the cost of delivering these education infrastructure actions to ensure that the cumulative impact of development can be mitigated. In order that the total delivery cost is shared proportionally and fairly between developments, Education Contribution Zones have been identified and 'per house' and 'per flat' contribution rates established. These are set out in the draft Supplementary Guidance. Communities and Families advises that the required contribution should be based on the total 'per house' and 'per flat' contribution figures of £2,196 per flat and £11,748 per house, index linked based on the increase in the BCIS Forecast All-in Tender Price Index from Q4 2017 to the date of payment and secured through a legal agreement.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 25 April 2018 Page 10 of 73 16/05217/PPP

Transport infrastructure

Transport advises that that the application should be refused. The reasoning for this, along with other transport issues are considered in more detail on 3.3.e). However, if Committee wishes to grant the application, transport infrastructure would require investment. In addition to transport-related infrastructure within the application site, investment would be needed in the wider area as indicated in the LDP Action Programme. The Programme identifies actions at Hermiston Park and Ride, Calder and Hermiston, and Gillespie Cross Roads. Various traffic orders, signage, car club provision and pedestrian crossing facilities would be needed. It is not clear whether or not additional linkage to the Riccarton campus, as suggested by the applicant, can be delivered. It is also not demonstrated that suitable, additional bus services adjacent to and serving the site will be provided.

Green space

The design and implementation of new green spaces and play space to meet the Council's Open Space Strategy standards, would require to be controlled by condition. It is recommended that it is delivered in line with a masterplan and approved site phasing programme in order to provide for the amenity of future occupiers. A street design/public realm framework could provide co-ordination across the development. The framework and design of green space and play space should follow the Council's planning guidance. Public seating should be provided throughout the site, to cater for a full spectrum of needs.

Healthcare

The proposal may result in a lack of capacity at Wester Hailes medical practice. The LDP sets out only the infrastructure required to meet allocations that form part of the LDP's strategy. There are no policies or procedure in place to provide healthcare facilities for proposals contrary to the LDP or to collect developer contributions.

Policy Hou10 states that permission will only be granted where there are associated proposals to provide necessary health facilities relative to the impact and scale of development proposed. The impact of the proposal on primary health care capacity has not been assessed. Therefore it is not clear what additional healthcare infrastructure, if any, is needed. The proposal suggests a medical practice on site but does not confirm provision.

Utilities

Scottish Water offers no objection to the proposal. Scottish Power has not responded to the standard consultation enquiry regarding utilities.

Subject to conditions and a legal agreement, the relevant additional infrastructure can be provided for education, green space and play space. The primary healthcare requirements and their implementation are not clear. Transport infrastructure requirements can be partially met but are not fully demonstrated.

It has not been demonstrated that the application satisfies LDP policy Hou 1 Part 2 c).

Development Management Sub-Committee – 25 April 2018 Page 11 of 73 16/05217/PPP d) Effectiveness in the relevant timeframe

In this context the measures of effectiveness are set out in PAN 2/2010. The main issue is whether there is anything about the site, should it receive planning consent that would prevent residential units being completed and available for occupation within five years. In this case, there is uncertainty about:

 the method, feasibility and timescales involved in re-routing and/ or burying the electricity cables and removing the pylons. Issues include land and pylon ownership and control, both within and outwith the site; and  whether the necessary infrastructure can realistically be provided to allow development.

There is a lack of confirmation from all relevant parties that the electricity cables can and will be buried or re-aligned, and a lack of clarity about what can and will happen to cables over the railway. In the absence of a suitable solution from the developer, the application should be refused.

However, if Committee wishes to grant planning permission in principle, a planning condition would be required, to prevent any development of the site until such time as a suitable means of diversion of the power lines has been granted.

Compliance with Hou 1, Part 2 d) remains to be demonstrated. e) Contribution to sustainable development principles

Well-designed housing, including affordable housing, in the right place, has the potential to contribute towards sustainable development. Inclusion of community spaces, opportunities for physical activity and a mix of land uses suitable for a small community, can all contribute towards sustainability. However, there is substantial evidence that the proposed development is not in the right place, particularly for pedestrians.

The LDP Environmental Report found that the accessibility of the site to public transport was lacking and that no measures were available to increase accessibility for the site. Deficiencies in access to public transport detract from sustainable development. The lack of confirmed connectivity to Heriot Watt through the west of the site is also a consideration, as it would contribute to the isolation of the site.

The electricity pylons and cables currently on the site are imposing in scale, have hard lines and need set-offs from buildings and landscaping. Their presence is challenging when trying to create a good living environment. The removal of the pylons and burial of the cables is important in creating a sustainable place. There will be restrictions on development near cables, including buried cables. If undergrounded around the site, they may affect the viability of boundary landscaping and location of SUDs features. These may also have an impact on achievable housing density and site layout.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 25 April 2018 Page 12 of 73 16/05217/PPP

There is a risk that the development would be partly a commuter site, relying on car use, and partly a student location, not integrated into Heriot Watt, split by Riccarton Mains Road, and, potentially, fragmented by offsets for cables and/or pylons. In addition, there would be loss of prime agricultural land and part of the Green Belt. On balance, the proposal fails to satisfy sustainable development principles.

In summary, the applicant considers that there is a substantial shortfall in the housing land supply for Edinburgh and that the proposed new village is justified and desirable. Planning does not agree. In addition, Planning considers that the proposal does not satisfy either part 1 or 2 of LDP Policy Hou 1.

Other considerations about principle of use

Strategic Development Areas

The site is outwith the West Edinburgh Strategic Development Area (SDA) as defined by the Strategic Development Plan (SDP). As such, its development would be inconsistent with the SDA's spatial strategy which seeks to prioritise in the first instance, the development of brownfield land and land within identified SDAs. The emerging Strategic Development Plan (SDP2), is currently under examination by the Scottish Ministers. It is a material consideration but can be given little weight at present. It states that, where there is a shortfall in the five year effective land supply, SESplan members will consider permitting proposals for additional housing supply, subject to seven criteria. The current application does not conform to these.

Prime agricultural land

The proposal would result in the loss of prime agricultural land (PAL) on the west part of the site. The proposal does not meet the exception criteria in SPP paragraph 80 and is not supported by SPP in this respect. While the presence of pylons and undulating topography may limit aspects of use, the prospective loss of PAL, a finite resource, has weight as a material planning consideration.

Non-residential use

LDP policy Hou 8 (Student Accommodation) relates to the Urban Area and the application site is not within it. The LDP does not support student accommodation on this Green Belt site.

The proposal does not fall within the scope of LDP Policy Ret 7 (Entertainment and Leisure Developments - Preferred Locations). As it has not been demonstrated that the proposal satisfies LDP Policy Ret 8 (Entertainment and Leisure Developments - Other Locations), including the lack of a thorough assessment of all potential City Centre or town centre options, the proposed entertainment and leisure uses are not supported.

Riccarton Campus (Heriot Watt University) and Business Park

This application is not coming forward from Heriot Watt itself. Heriot Watt has its own masterplan and is working within the campus and on an independent development framework. This application is not within the university campus or business park and is not supported by the masterplan.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 25 April 2018 Page 13 of 73 16/05217/PPP

The adjacent university campus and business park are identified as a special economic area in the LDP (Table 2 - Special Economic Areas, Policy Emp 3 (Riccarton University Campus and Business Park). Its main purpose is academic teaching and research and business uses with a functional link to the University. The Heriot Watt masterplan was approved in 2001. It projects an increase in student residences on the campus. Uses within the campus are carefully controlled and assessed against factors which include their relationship with the Green Belt.

Departure from development plan

The probable impact of the proposal on the development plan justifies a pre- determination hearing. b) Design and layout

The application is for planning permission in principle and includes indicative information on design and layout only. These matters are not assessed in detail at this time. Before the start of any works on site, a site-wide landscape masterplan would be needed, in order to comply with Policy Des 8 Public Realm and Landscape Design. Landscape proposals, including SUDs design, would need to comply with Edinburgh Airport safeguarding requirements.

Density

The application does not seek approval for the number of units and density cannot be calculated at this time. It would be assessed in any AMC applications.

Layout

Layout would be assessed in any AMC applications. Considerable work would be needed to ensure that the development could achieve a good sense of place and function as the 'standalone settlement' proposed in the supporting information. The western part of the site is relatively linear in plan and it is not clear from the indicative masterplan that the two parcels of the site will be brought forward as a connected place.

Open spaces and pedestrian and cycle routes should connect with the wider site and network in a safe, direct and convenient way. The supporting information suggests additional connections to Heriot Watt. These would be dependent, at least in part, on the landowner's consent. This needs to be evidenced. There is also a tension between the applicant's proposed additional connectivity on the west of the site and SEPA's view, which discourages additional connection/s over the Murray Burn and recommends that the banks are left in their natural state.

The feasibility of cable burial and location, any stand-offs required and any other requirements may affect the achievement of planning objectives, such as appropriate site density, masterplanning, landscaping and SUDs.

The layout, density and place-making implications of the acoustic barrier fencing recommended in the Environmental Statement, to go along both sides of Riccarton Mains Road, would have to be considered in detail.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 25 April 2018 Page 14 of 73 16/05217/PPP

Trees

In line with LDP Policy Env 12, the submitted tree survey indicates that some of the roadside verge planting along Riccarton Mains Road would be affected by the development. Detailed proposals for the protection of trees to be retained on site, tree removal and new planting to mitigate losses would require to be controlled by condition.

Mix

If the principle of housing is found to be acceptable on this site, an appropriate mix of house types and sizes, as required by LDP policy Hou 2 (Housing Mix) would be considered at AMC stage.

Affordable housing is required at 25 per cent of total housing in terms of LDP policy Hou 6 (Affordable Housing).It should be on-site, tenure-blind, address the full range of housing needs, be integrated with market housing and comply with planning guidance. c) Historic environment

This site is within an area of archaeological potential. The City Archaeologist advises that no development should take place on the site until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the Planning Authority. A condition is recommended to secure this, should Committee be minded to approve the application.

The Environmental Statement determines that the development may have a minor adverse impact upon the setting of nine listed buildings and the Baberton Mains scheduled ancient monument, with all other visual impacts assessed upon heritage assets being of lower magnitude. It concludes that there is limited scope to mitigate such effects but that maintaining the existing hedgerows and woodland, particularly along the western boundary of the application site, will ensure that they continue to provide a degree of screening. This can be secured through a planning condition.

During construction, there will be impacts on the historic environment. Mitigation measures can reduce these. The Environmental Statement concludes that the impact on the historic environment will be minor after construction. It also identifies a minor to negligible cumulative impact on the increased urbanisation of a diminishing rural landscape.

There will be an impact on the historic environment, which can be partially mitigated in the long term by landscaping. d) Amenity

Daylighting, sunlight, privacy and amenity space

With sensitive layout, design and landscaping at the AMC stage, suitable amenity for existing neighbours and prospective occupiers of the development can be achieved in terms of privacy, daylighting and sunlight and provision of open space.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 25 April 2018 Page 15 of 73 16/05217/PPP

Local views

Passers-by and some neighbours will experience a particular change in local views. While Planning does not protect the views of individuals, sensitive landscaping could help soften the impact of the proposal on local views.

Noise

The Environmental Assessment considers potential noise impacts from Riccarton Mains Road, the railway line, the National Performance Centre, the air rifle range and from the proposed development itself. It concludes that noise mitigation would be needed: acoustic grade fencing within the development sites either side of Riccarton Mains Road, to deal with road traffic noise; no amenity areas to be within a specified buffer zone; and acoustic double glazing capable of a sound reduction level of 33dB.

Environmental Protection does not support the application because it has concerns about the potential adverse impacts the proposal may have on local air quality and doubt regarding the potential to relocate the overhead power lines. It advises that the applicant has not provided sufficient information to assess the potential impacts and any required noise mitigation should the pylons and lines remain in place. It is not convinced that the application has demonstrated that the powerlines can be suitably buried or re-directed. While discussions may have taken place, the specific consent of all potential interested parties has not been evidenced. If the lines remain in place, it is likely that a buffer zone under them would be needed in respect of noise, of approximately 20 to 50 metres.

If the proposal proceeds to AMC stage, further noise impact assessment will be required. Rail noise from freight movements should be included as this has not been measured, although requested. Any future assessment should include technical details of proposed mitigation measures.

Odour

The uses proposed are likely to include cooking operations. Details of siting and ventilation would need to be fully assessed at the AMC stage to protect residential amenity.

In summary, the amenity of present residents and future occupiers of the development could be acceptable, subject to condition, in respect of daylighting, sunlight, privacy and odour. Noise assessment at AMC stage can inform mitigation measures. However, there is insufficient information regarding undergrounding of powerlines and assessment of noise from electric cables to fully assess their impacts. e) Transport and parking

Objections to the application have been received in relation to transport issues. These mainly relate to pedestrian and cyclist issues, road safety and cumulative traffic impacts.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 25 April 2018 Page 16 of 73 16/05217/PPP

Transport Scotland was consulted and did not raise an objection. The Environmental Statement concludes that site is well located in relation to existing walking, cycling and public transport facilities and that access to local amenities, shops and schools will be acceptable.

However, while the site location provides travel choices for car drivers, the options are less favourable for pedestrians. Guidance from PAN 75, on acceptable walking distances, gives 400 metres for bus and 800 metres for rail.

The existing bus service past the site is poor in terms of frequency and operating times. Hermiston Park and Ride has better services but is over 700 metres away. Buses also run from the Riccarton Campus. The nearest bus stop is approximately 500 metres from the proposal site, on Riccarton Mains Road. The nearest train station, Curriehill, is approximately 1.9 kilometres away.

The adjacent railway crossing, while it may be acceptable for current use, relies on a light-controlled pedestrian crossing to regulate people crossing the tracks. Increased use of the crossing, by occupants of and visitors to the proposed development, is highly likely. Explicit consideration is required of the needs of users, including children and those with mobility issues. It is not clear whether or not a bridge over the railway, would be advisable or feasible.

Transport Strategy and Assessment

The Council prepared a transport appraisal to understand the impacts of the new, planned growth set out in the LDP and to identify the transport interventions needed to mitigate it. This site is not proposed within the LDP and, therefore, its transport impact on the strategic road network was not assessed cumulatively in that context.

The West Edinburgh Transport Appraisal (WETA) has been refreshed and SESplan and Transport Scotland are working on the actions necessary to address cross boundary traffic flows related to the cumulative impacts of developments in the SESplan area.

The applicant's Transport Assessment has considered some cumulative issues. However, Transport has raised queries about the modelling used.

LDP Action Programme

Where transport interventions have been identified as needed due to the cumulative impact of several developments, a transport contribution zone has been established and is shown in the LDP Action Programme. The aim is for the total cost of delivering infrastructure within zones to be shared proportionally and fairly between all developments in the zone.

Development proposals which are not accounted for in the Action Programme need to carry out their own transport assessments.

Draft Supplementary Guidance on Developer Contributions and Infrastructure Delivery (January 2018)

Development Management Sub-Committee – 25 April 2018 Page 17 of 73 16/05217/PPP

To support LDP aims, the Council has drafted supplementary guidance on developer contributions and infrastructure delivery. It has not been adopted but carries significant weight as a material consideration. If Committee is minded to approve the application, a legal agreement is recommended to secure suitable developer contributions and infrastructure delivery. f) Flooding and drainage

SEPA prefers that the water environment is left in its natural state as far as possible. However, it does not raise an objection, subject to the application of planning conditions relating to SUDS and a buffer strip along each side of the Murray Burn of approximately six metres to protect the water environment. It notes that potential crossings of the Murray Burn will require authorisation under The Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 (as amended). Flooding does not raise objection to the application.

Should Committee be minded to approve this application it is recommended that surface water management, SUDS (including maintenance), flood prevention and details of appropriate protection of the Murray Burn, including crossings, should remain as reserved matters, and form part of any detailed design to be assessed fully as part of a detailed application for approval of matters specified in conditions. g) Other issues

Airport

Edinburgh Airport does not raise objection to the proposal, subject to planning conditions relating to bird hazard management, landscaping and SUDS (Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems).

Air Quality

Environmental Protection has concerns about the potential cumulative impacts that developments, especially large proposals on the Green Belt, may have on air quality. It recommends the application is refused, in part due to the potential adverse impacts the proposal may have on local air quality. SEPA does not object to the application on air quality grounds.

Economic

The proposal would provide employment opportunities during construction, with potential limited on-site employment thereafter.

Land remediation

The applicant has submitted a preliminary environmental assessment report. Environmental Protection advises that the report indicates that the potential for significant sources of contamination on this site appears to be minimal and therefore risks in connection with development to residential are likely to be low.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 25 April 2018 Page 18 of 73 16/05217/PPP

Natural heritage

The supporting environmental information confirms that, in relation to flora and fauna, there are no significant constraints to the development of the site as currently proposed. It details potential impacts and mitigation: hedgerows should be improved, a series of precautionary pre-construction protected species surveys are recommended for bats, otters, badgers and birds and a construction environmental management plan should be put in place.

Railway

Network Rail does not raise an objection. It asks for the certain matters to be taken into account, including linkages, station amenities, drainage and safety. Network Rail does not address the issue of burial or re-direction of electricity lines near, under or over the railway line.

In summary, subject to suitable conditions and a legal agreement, the proposal is acceptable in respect of affordable housing, airport safeguarding, education, natural heritage and land remediation. Further clarification is needed about the delivery of local services, the feasibility of burial or re-direction of electricity lines in relation to the railway, and air-quality impacts. h) Sustainability

The applicant has submitted a sustainability statement in support of the application. Sustainability measures would be considered further at the detailed application stage. i) Equalities and human rights

The site is not well-served by public transport although community amenities within the site would be of assistance. Subject to appropriate planning conditions, the proposal could create an environment where public spaces can be used safely. Affordable housing would assist those who cannot access traditional housing markets and a range of housing types would support a variety of occupants. Environmental Protection's concerns about lack of clarity regarding potential impacts on local air quality and noise from pylon cables are reflected in the recommended reasons for refusal. j) Comments

This application was advertised on 11 November and 2 December 2016. Fifty eight letters of objection (and two late representations) were received, including from a cycling group, a street improvement group, Heriot Watt University, a ward councillor and an MSP. Currie Community Council, as a statutory consultee, also objected. The application was re-advertised on 23 February 2018 and six letters of objection and one letter of support were received.

Material Representations: Objection

Proposed use - addressed in section 3.3.a)

 Proposed use is inappropriate;

Development Management Sub-Committee – 25 April 2018 Page 19 of 73 16/05217/PPP

 Permanent land loss, including agricultural;  Brownfield sites and refurbished buildings should be prioritised;  Loss of amenity and health value of current use;  Concern about pylon removal feasibility;  Green Belt - adverse impact on; contrary to LDP; consider cumulative loss in context of existing and proposed development;  Heriot Watt - has sufficient land within campus for student residences, good transport links, landscape setting, potential coalescence of Heriot-Watt and Currie;  Site is not connected to existing community;  More student accommodation not needed generally, affordable housing needed, Currie has enough houses; and  Report of Examination comments on area are not supportive.

Landscape - addressed in section 3.3.a)

 Significant, permanent intrusion into countryside, out of character with the area, urban sprawl, loss of 'village' feel;  Adverse impact on area locally significant in terms of landscape setting, views and quality of place;

Design - addressed in section 3.3.b)

 Development too big, too dense, and of inappropriate design; and  Proposal seems to isolate people from community rather than integrate them.

Amenity - addressed in section 3.3.d)

 No guaranteed access to university grounds for estate residents; and  Potential overshadowing of existing property;

Traffic and road safety - addressed in section 3.3.a) and e)

General

 Transport infrastructure insufficient;  Measures proposed by the developers to encourage non-car travel are unsatisfactory;  Transport assessment not independent, accurate, sufficiently cumulative or projecting far enough into the future; and  Safety concerns.

Pedestrian

 Poor public transport links, no accessible train, tram or public transport to rest of city;  Site too far from schools and routes proposed not safe;  Route to park and ride is not pedestrian friendly - part unlit, part dangerously narrow, blind bends, poor pedestrian/cycle facilities;

Development Management Sub-Committee – 25 April 2018 Page 20 of 73 16/05217/PPP

 Lighting, road widening and good pavements on both sides of road are needed for safety;  Traffic bottle neck over rail bridge - little scope for making it cyclist and pedestrian friendly; and  No agreement with Heriot Watt to allow access paths.

Cycle

 Adverse impact on local cyclists;  Need safe, direct cycle paths, avoiding hill and dangerous dog-leg rail bridge;  Proposed new footway on the east side of Riccarton Mains Road should be a shared-use for pedestrians and cyclists;  Potential secondary route to Heriot Watt via bridge over Murray Burn, connection to campus perimeter track - much shorter route for walkers and cyclists to Curriehill Station; and  Reasonable cycle distance to Edinburgh Park train and tram station - but involves a hill and crossing A71.

Road network

 Network unable to cope with additional traffic;  Lack of parking to accommodate persons using rail/tram stations or park and ride facilities;  Road safety;  Inadequate/ inappropriate access;  Lack of car parking for students will increase on-street parking, causing road issues;  Shared surfaces are not good practice as way to slow traffic or for those with visual or hearing issues;  Traffic lights likely to have adverse impact;  Infrastructure should precede development; and  Improved transport infrastructure needed, including new junction to access the A720 between Calder and Barberton, bus infrastructure upgrading and interchange at Gillespie crossroads.

Flooding and drainage - addressed in section 3.3.g)

 Site floods - not suitable for proposal.

Education - addressed in section 3.3.h)

 School capacity concerns; and  Proposal does not include Currie Primary.

Other issues - addressed in section 3.3.g)

 Adverse impact on wildlife and actual and potential habitats;  Air pollution;  Inadequate existing and proposed community facilities and infrastructure;  Increased use of Heriot Watt facilities;

Development Management Sub-Committee – 25 April 2018 Page 21 of 73 16/05217/PPP

 Socio-economic Assessment conclusions unclear on population numbers; and  Site area given is inconsistent.

Sustainability - addressed in section 3.3.i)

 Proposal not sustainable;  Brownfield sites and refurbished buildings should be prioritised;  Adverse impact on commuting for work; and  Proposed use is less sustainable than current farming use.

Material Representations: General comments

 Site is part of the Murray application 13/04911/PAN, rejected because it was not in line with the LDP - each application is considered on its own merits;  Detailed analysis of housing land supply in LDP examination - this is considered in section 3.3.a);  Encourage use of Park and Ride at Hermiston by bike, including adequate bike parking - infrastructure and developer contributions addressed in 3.3.e);  Path on west of Riccarton Mains Road and old road section could form basis of cycle route to Currie, crossing point near rail bridge where one-way lights controlled working could free up road space for cyclists and pedestrians, calm traffic and discourage car use - noted. Cycling issues addressed in 3.3.e)  Inadequate or absent Applicant response to Reporter's comments - the Local Development Plan takes account of the Reporter's comments and informs Planning's assessment;  DPEA decisions are relevant - they inform this report; and  Lack of obvious benefit to existing village - noted. The proposal is for a new village.

Currie Community Council

Material points of objection

 Green Belt - addressed in section 3.3.a);  Loss of prime quality farmland- addressed in section 3.3.a);  Not sustainable- addressed in section 3.3.a);  Population/Education - addressed in section 3.3.a);  Use (student accommodation) - addressed in section 3.3.a);  Recreation space inadequate for greater local community- addressed in- addressed in section 3.3.b);  Transport assessment inadequate - addressed in sections 3.3.a) and 3.3.f); and  Public transport inadequate - - addressed in sections 3.3.a) and 3.3.f).

Non-material comments

 Construction traffic - not a material planning consideration. The Council's local area team would help deal with impacts;  Health risk associated with housing near pylons - apart from noise, health risk has not been raised by Environmental Protection;

Development Management Sub-Committee – 25 April 2018 Page 22 of 73 16/05217/PPP

 Applicant may be looking to sell on - this is a commercial matter, rather than a planning matter.  Contrary to draft ELDP policy ENV 10a - superseded by LDP. See response about LDP ENV 10a above;  Council is approving applications purely on grounds of profit - this is incorrect. Committee reports set out reasoning for approval/refusal;  Brexit may reduce student demand - not a material planning consideration;  Traffic survey metrics were promised by developer - but not delivered to person making representation - this is a matter between applicant and developer;  Submission of applications which are contrary to the development plan should not be allowed - the law permits anyone who wishes to make a planning application to do so;  Disruption to rail services if powerlines are moved - this is a matter for Network Rail and the applicant to resolve; and  Anti-social behaviour from students and on roads - would be a matter for other authorities, such as Police Scotland.

Conclusion

In summary, the proposal is unacceptable in principle, in terms of sustainable location, impact on city setting and area character and setting, and in terms of sufficiency of information.

The proposal is contrary to the development plan and there are no material considerations which justify approval.

It is recommended that this application be Refused for the reasons below.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 25 April 2018 Page 23 of 73 16/05217/PPP

3.4 Conditions/reasons/informatives

Reason for Refusal:-

1. The proposal is contrary to the provisions of Policy Env 10 (Development in the Green Belt and Countryside) of the Edinburgh Local Development Plan (LDP) as does not meet any of the criteria a) to d) for inclusion and it would detract from the landscape quality and the rural character of the area.

2. The proposal is contrary to the Edinburgh Local Development Plan Policy Hou 1 (Housing Development) as it does not satisfy any of the criteria in Hou 1 Part 1 and does not satisfy Hou 1 Part 2 because it is not in keeping with the character of the local area, would undermine Green Belt objectives, has not fully demonstrated what additional infrastructure is required and that it can be provided within a relevant timeframe, and is not sustainable, to the detriment of the overall objectives of the Local Development Plan policy.

3. The proposal is contrary to the provisions of the Edinburgh Local Development Plan Policy Tra 8 (Provision of Transport Infrastructure) as it has not fully demonstrated the cumulative effects of the proposal and that it can be addressed within a relevant timeframe.

4. The proposal is contrary to the provisions of the Edinburgh Local Development Plan Policy ENV 22 (Pollution and Air, Water and Soil Quality) as insufficient evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that there will be no significant cumulative adverse effects on local air quality and that noise from overhead pylons will not have a detrimental impact on future resident amenity.

5. The proposal is contrary to the provisions of the Edinburgh Local Development Plan Policy Hou10 (Community Facilities) as it has not demonstrated that facilities, including healthcare, are available.

6. The proposal is contrary to the provisions of Scottish Planning Policy (2014) section 80, as it would result in the non-essential and permanent loss of prime agricultural land.

7. The proposal is inconsistent with the spatial strategy of the Strategic Development Plan as it would introduce development to greenfield land outwith the identified Strategic Development Areas.

Financial impact

4.1 The financial impact has been assessed as follows:

The application is subject to a legal agreement for developer contributions.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 25 April 2018 Page 24 of 73 16/05217/PPP

Risk, Policy, compliance and governance impact

5.1 Provided planning applications are determined in accordance with statutory legislation, the level of risk is low. Equalities impact

6.1 The equalities impact has been assessed as follows:

This application was assessed in terms of equalities and human rights. The impacts are identified in the Assessment section of the main report. Sustainability impact

7.1 The sustainability impact has been assessed as follows:

Sustainability would be considered in detail at the stage of application for matters conditioned. Consultation and engagement

8.1 Pre-Application Process

Pre-application discussions took place on this application.

8.2 Publicity summary of representations and Community Council comments

This application was advertised on 11 November and 2 December 2016. Fifty eight letters of objection were received, including from a cycling group, a street improvement group, Heriot Watt University, a ward councillor and an MSP. Currie Community Council, as a statutory consultee, also objected. Following re-advertisement on 23 February 2018, six letters of objection and one letter of support were received. (Three late representations were received.)

A full assessment of the representations can be found in the main report in the Assessment section. Background reading/external references

 To view details of the application go to  Planning and Building Standards online services  Planning guidelines  Conservation Area Character Appraisals  Edinburgh Local Development Plan  Scottish Planning Policy

Development Management Sub-Committee – 25 April 2018 Page 25 of 73 16/05217/PPP

Statutory Development Plan Provision Relevant Development Plans The current Development Plan for this site comprises the Strategic Development Plan for South East Scotland (June 2013) and the Edinburgh Local Development Plan (LDP). Supporting documents for the LDP include the LDP Environmental Report, Transport Appraisals and Education Appraisal.

Edinburgh Local Development Plan The application site is identified as an area of Green Belt in the LDP. Policy ENV 10 sets out the range of uses supported in the Green Belt, including (subject to various constraints) those relating to agriculture, woodland, forestry, horticulture, countryside recreation and uses where a countryside location is essential.

Strategic Development Plan Strategic Development Plan Policy 7 provides that sites within and outwith Strategic Development Areas may be allocated in local development plans, in order to maintain an effective 5 year housing land supply subject to a number of provisions. (The site is not within a Strategic Development Area.)

Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) Provides that a five year effective land supply for housing should be maintained by the Local Authority and that investment in infrastructure, required as a result of planned growth should be addressed through the Development Plan process and not left to be resolved through the development management process.

Supplementary Guidance The amended draft Supplementary Guidance - Developer Contributions and Infrastructure Delivery is a material consideration.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 25 April 2018 Page 26 of 73 16/05217/PPP

Date registered 4 November 2016

Drawing numbers/Scheme 01.,

Scheme 1

David R. Leslie Chief Planning Officer PLACE The City of Edinburgh Council

Contact: Eileen McCormack, Planning Officer E-mail:[email protected] Tel:0131 529 3609 Links - Policies

Relevant Policies:

Relevant policies of the Local Development Plan.

LDP Policy Del 1 (Developer Contributions and Infrastructure Delivery) identifies the circumstances in which developer contributions will be required.

LDP Policy Des 1 (Design Quality and Context) sets general criteria for assessing design quality and requires an overall design concept to be demonstrated.

LDP Policy Des 2 (Co-ordinated Development) establishes a presumption against proposals which might compromise the effect development of adjacent land or the wider area.

LDP Policy Des 3 (Development Design - Incorporating and Enhancing Existing and Potential Features) supports development where it is demonstrated that existing and potential features have been incorporated into the design.

LDP Policy Des 4 (Development Design - Impact on Setting) sets criteria for assessing the impact of development design against its setting.

LDP Policy Des 5 (Development Design - Amenity) sets criteria for assessing amenity.

LDP Policy Des 6 (Sustainable Buildings) sets criteria for assessing the sustainability of new development.

LDP Policy Des 7 (Layout design) sets criteria for assessing layout design.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 25 April 2018 Page 27 of 73 16/05217/PPP

LDP Policy Des 8 (Public Realm and Landscape Design) sets criteria for assessing public realm and landscape design.

LDP Policy Des 9 (Urban Edge Development) sets criteria for assessing development on sites at the Green Belt boundary.

LDP Policy Des 10 (Waterside Development) sets criteria for assessing development on sites on the coastal edge or adjoining a watercourse, including the Union Canal.

LDP Policy Des 11 (Tall Buildings - Skyline and Key Views) sets out criteria for assessing proposals for tall buildings. LDP Policy Env 3 (Listed Buildings - Setting) identifies the circumstances in which development within the curtilage or affecting the setting of a listed building will be permitted.

LDP Policy Env 9 (Development of Sites of Archaeological Significance) sets out the circumstances in which development affecting sites of known or suspected archaeological significance will be permitted.

LDP Policy Env 10 (Development in the Green Belt and Countryside) identifies the types of development that will be permitted in the Green Belt and Countryside.

LDP Policy Env 12 (Trees) sets out tree protection requirements for new development.

LDP Policy Env 13 (Sites of International Importance) identifies the circumstances in which development likely to affect Sites of International Importance will be permitted.

LDP Policy Env 15 (Sites of Local Importance) identifies the circumstances in which development likely to affect Sites of Local Importance will be permitted.

LDP Policy Env 16 (Species Protection) sets out species protection requirements for new development.

LDP Policy Env 20 (Open Space in New Development) sets out requirements for the provision of open space in new development.

LDP Policy Env 21 (Flood Protection) sets criteria for assessing the impact of development on flood protection.

LDP Policy Env 22 (Pollution and Air, Water and Soil Quality) sets criteria for assessing the impact of development on air, water and soil quality.

LDP Policy Hou 1 (Housing Development) sets criteria for assessing the principle of housing proposals.

LDP Policy Hou 2 (Housing Mix) requires provision of a mix of house types and sizes in new housing developments to meet a range of housing needs.

LDP Policy Hou 3 (Private Green Space in Housing Development) sets out the requirements for the provision of private green space in housing development.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 25 April 2018 Page 28 of 73 16/05217/PPP

LDP Policy Hou 4 (Housing Density) sets out the factors to be taken into account in assessing density levels in new development.

LDP Policy Hou 6 (Affordable Housing) requires 25% affordable housing provision in residential development of twelve or more units.

LDP Policy Hou 8 (Student Accommodation) sets out the criteria for assessing purpose-built student accommodation.

LDP Policy Hou 10 (Community Facilities) requires housing developments to provide the necessary provision of health and other community facilities and protects against valuable health or community facilities.

LDP Policy Ret 1 (Town Centres First Policy) sets criteria for retail and other town centre uses following a town centre first sequential approach.

LDP Policy Ret 6 (Out-of-Centre Development) identifies the circumstances in which out-of-centre retail development will be permitted.

LDP Policy Ret 8 (Entertainment and Leisure Developments - Other Locations) sets out the circumstances in which entertainment and leisure developments will be permitted outwith the identified preferred locations.

LDP Policy Ret 11 (Food and Drink Establishments) sets criteria for assessing the change of use to a food and drink establishment.

LDP Policy Tra 1 (Location of Major Travel Generating Development) supports major development in the City Centre and sets criteria for assessing major travel generating development elsewhere.

LDP Policy Tra 2 (Private Car Parking) requires private car parking provision to comply with the parking levels set out in Council guidance, and sets criteria for assessing lower provision.

LDP Policy Tra 3 (Private Cycle Parking) requires cycle parking provision in accordance with standards set out in Council guidance.

LDP Policy Tra 9 (Cycle and Footpath Network) prevents development which would prevent implementation of, prejudice or obstruct the current or potential cycle and footpath network.

Non-statutory guidelines Student Housing Guidance interprets local plan policy, supporting student housing proposals in accessible locations provided that they will not result in an excessive concentration.

LDP Policy RS 6 (Water and Drainage) sets a presumption against development where the water supply and sewerage is inadequate.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 25 April 2018 Page 29 of 73 16/05217/PPP

Relevant Non-Statutory Guidelines

Non-statutory guidelines on Developer Contributions and Affordable Housing gives guidance on the situations where developers will be required to provide affordable housing and/or will be required to make financial or other contributions towards the cost of, providing new facilities for schools, transport improvements, the tram project, public realm improvements and open space.

Non-Statutory guidelines Edinburgh Design Guidance supports development of the highest design quality and that integrates well with the existing city. It sets out the Council's expectations for the design of new development, including buildings, parking, streets and landscape, in Edinburgh.

Non-statutory guidelines DEVELOPMENT IN THE COUNTRYSIDE AND GREEN BELT, provide guidance on development in the Green Belt and Countryside in support of relevant local plan policies.

Relevant Policies of the Strategic Development Plan

SDP06 (Housing Land Flexibility) Policy 6 requires that a 5 year effective housing land supply is maintained. It allows the granting of planning permission for the earlier development of sites which are allocated for a later period in the LDP to maintain the land supply.

Policy 7 requires that a 5 year housing land supply is maintained. Sites within or outwith Strategic Development Areas may be allocated in LDPs or granted consent subject to the development; being in accord with the character of the settlement or area, not undermining green belt objectives and any additional infrastructure required is either committed or to be funded by the developer.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 25 April 2018 Page 30 of 73 16/05217/PPP

Appendix 1

Consultations

Archaeology

The site, split by Riccarton Mains Road, forms open farmland lying adjacent to and occupying higher ground overlooking the Murray Burn. Historically the site formed part of the medieval Riccarton Estate centred upon Riccarton House formerly located at centre of what is now Heriot Watt University and its farm Riccarton Mains. The later C- listed farm house survives today boarding the northern limits of the site. Although 18th/19th century in date the current farm is likely to date back to the 16th/17th century as it is mentioned in a Royal Charter of 1610. Although no sites have been recorded within the boundaries of the site, prehistoric settlement is also known from the immediate area with ditched enclosures located at Currievale to the west (NT16 NE59), to the East at Barberton Mains (NT16 NE9) and to SE o(n the opposing side of the railway line) at Whitelaw (NT16 NE 194). The latter two enclosures are topographically situated on a very similar location to proposed village.

Accordingly this site has been identified as occurring within an area of archaeological potential. This application must be considered therefore under terms the Historic Environment Scotland Policy Statement (HESPS) 2016, Scottish Planning Policy (SPP), PAN 02/2011, current Rural West Edinburgh Local Plan Policy E30 and Local Development Plan (as modified) Policy ENV9. The aim should be to preserve archaeological remains in situ as a first option, but alternatively where this is not possible, archaeological excavation or an appropriate level of recording may be an acceptable alternative.

The archaeological evidence from the surrounding area indicates that this proposed development has the potential to disturb significant unrecorded prehistoric and medieval/post-medieval remains. Having assessed the potential archaeological implications of development, it is considered that these proposals would have potential moderate archaeological impacts.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 25 April 2018 Page 31 of 73 16/05217/PPP

It is therefore considered essential that prior to the submission of further detailed AMC or FUL for the site, that a programme of archaeological evaluation is undertaken up to a maximum of 10% of the site linked to a programme of metal detecting. The results of which would allow for the production of appropriate more detailed mitigation strategies to be drawn up to ensure the appropriate protection and/or excavation, recording and analysis of any surviving archaeological remains is undertaken prior to and or during subsequent phases of development.

Furthermore if important discoveries are made during these works a programme of public/community engagement (e.g. site open days, viewing points, temporary interpretation boards) will be required to be undertaken, the final scope to be agreed with CECAS.

Accordingly it is recommended that the following condition be attached consent, if granted, to ensure that this programme of archaeological works is undertaken either prior to or during construction.

'No development shall take place on the site until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work (excavation, analysis & reporting, publication, public engagement) in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the Planning Authority.'

The work must be carried out by a professional archaeological organisation, either working to a brief prepared by CECAS or through a written scheme of investigation submitted to and agreed by CECAS for the site. Responsibility for the execution and resourcing of the programme of archaeological works and for the archiving and appropriate level of publication of the results lies with the applicant.

Archaeology comment

Just read over the EIA which was issued to me on the 2nd December. Although I have a couple of minor issues with it in essence these are in line with my earlier conclusions and recommendations expressed in my memo to you of the 9th November.

Affordable Housing

1. Introduction

Housing requirements by tenure are assessed in line with the Affordable Housing Policy (AHP) for the city.

The AHP makes the provision of affordable housing a planning condition for sites over a particular size. The proportion of affordable housing required is set at 25% (of total units) for all proposals of 12 residential units or more.

This is consistent with Policy Hou 7 Affordable Housing in the Edinburgh City Local Plan.

2. Affordable Housing Provision

Development Management Sub-Committee – 25 April 2018 Page 32 of 73 16/05217/PPP

This application is for a development consisting of approximately 200 homes and as such the AHP will apply. There will be a AHP requirement for a minimum of 25% homes of approved affordable housing tenures, so if 200 homes were built this would be a requirement for 50 affordable homes. We request that the developer enters an early dialogue with the Council to identify a Registered Social Landlord (RSL) to take forward the affordable homes and deliver a well integrated and representative mix of affordable housing on site.

The applicant has stated that a mix of house types and sizes will be provided and the development will include affordable homes to meet the Council's requirements. This is welcomed by the department. The affordable homes are required to be situated in at least two locations on the site, to be tenure blind and fully compliant with latest building regulations and further informed by guidance such as the relevant Housing Association Design Guides and Housing for Varying Needs design procedures.

This department requests that in subsequent detailed applications, the locations, numbers and tenures of the affordable homes should be identified within the development site and the RSL (or RSLs) taking forward the affordable housing should be clearly stated.

In regards to accessibility, the applicant has stated the site will be well served by bus routes x25, 25 and 45. All new affordable homes should be located within a 400m walk of public transport links in accordance with PAN 75 guidance.

3. Summary

The applicant has made a commitment to provide on-site affordable housing and this is welcomed by the department. The number and locations of affordable homes, and the RSL who will own or manage them should be identified by applicant, in agreement with the Council. These details will need to be confirmed in subsequent detailed applications and the affordable homes will be secured by a Section 75 Legal Agreement. This approach will assist in the delivery of a mixed sustainable community.

In summary:

The applicant is requested to enter an early dialogue with the Council regarding which Registered Social Landlord (RSL) is to deliver the affordable housing

25% of affordable housing is required to be delivered onsite, across at least two locations, to enable mixed communities

The affordable housing should include a variety of house types and sizes to reflect the provision of homes across the wider site

In the interests of delivering mixed, sustainable communities, the affordable housing will be expected to be identical in appearance to the market housing; an approach described as "tenure blind"

The applicant will be required to enter into a Section 75 legal agreement to secure the affordable housing element of this proposal.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 25 April 2018 Page 33 of 73 16/05217/PPP

Children + Families

The Council has assessed the impact of the growth set out in the LDP through an Education Appraisal (Updated December 2016), taking account of school roll projections. To do this, an assumption has been made as to the amount of new housing development which will come forward ('housing output'). This takes account of new housing sites allocated in the LDP and other land within the urban area.

The Council's assessment has indicated that additional infrastructure will be required to accommodate the cumulative number of additional pupils from development. Education infrastructure 'actions' have been identified and are set out in the Action Programme and current Supplementary Guidance on 'Developer Contributions and Infrastructure Delivery'.

Residential development is required to contribute towards the cost of education infrastructure to ensure that the cumulative impact of development can be mitigated. To ensure that the total cost of delivering the new education infrastructure is shared proportionally and fairly between developments, Education Contribution Zones have been identified and 'per house' and 'per flat' contribution rates established.

Assessment and Contribution Requirements

Assessment based on: 200 Houses

This site falls within Sub-Area SW-1 of the 'South West Education Contribution Zone'.

The Council has assessed the impact of the proposed development on the identified education infrastructure actions and current delivery programme, as set out in the Action Programme and Supplementary Guidance.

The Education Appraisal did not consider the impact of new housing on this site, which would be expected to generate 60 additional primary school pupils and 40 additional secondary school pupils. The education infrastructure actions identified in the current Action Programme are not sufficient to accommodate the increase in the cumulative number of pupils expected in the area if this development progressed.

If the Council is minded to grant the application, the education infrastructure actions for Sub-Area SW-1 would be revised. A need for additional primary school capacity is already identified in the Action Programme, but it is likely that more would be required to accommodate pupils from this development. As the Council is currently considering whether any school catchment area changes in the area should be progressed it is not certain where the additional capacity would be delivered and what the total infrastructure cost would be.

Future versions of the Council's Action Programme and Supplementary Guidance would identify any revisions to the requirement for new primary school infrastructure in the Zone, and set out the new per unit contribution rates. However at the present time, it is appropriate to apply the established primary school contribution rates for Sub-Area SW-1 to the proposed development.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 25 April 2018 Page 34 of 73 16/05217/PPP

School roll projections for Currie High School indicate that there will not be sufficient spare capacity to accommodate the increase in additional secondary school pupils anticipated in the area as a result of this development. Although the Council's current Action Programme does not identity a requirement for additional capacity at the school (this is based on the impact of new housing sites allocated in the LDP and other land within the urban area), additional capacity will be required to accommodate pupils from the application site. The pro-rata contribution rate for secondary school extensions, which is set out in the Supplementary Guidance, should also be applied to the proposed development (£6,419 per house and £963 per flat - as at Q1 2015).

The application is for planning permission in principle. The required contribution should be secured through a legal agreement based on the established 'per house' and 'per flat' contribution figures set out below.

If the appropriate contribution is provided by the developer, Communities and Families does not object to the application.

Per unit infrastructure contribution requirement:

Per Flat - £2,048 Per House - £11,067

Note - all infrastructure contributions shall be index linked based on the increase in the BCIS Forecast All-in Tender Price Index from Q1 2015 to the date of payment.

Children + Families further comment

The Council's assessment has identified where additional infrastructure will be required to accommodate the cumulative number of additional pupils from development. Education infrastructure 'actions' are set out in the Action Programme and current Supplementary Guidance on 'Developer Contributions and Infrastructure Delivery'.

Residential development is required to contribute towards the cost of the required education infrastructure to ensure that the cumulative impact of development can be mitigated. To ensure that the total cost of delivering the new education infrastructure is shared proportionally and fairly between developments, Education Contribution Zones have been identified and 'per house' and 'per flat' contribution rates established.

Assessment and Contribution Requirements

Assessment based on: 200 Houses

This site falls within Sub-Area SW-1 of the 'South West Education Contribution Zone'.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 25 April 2018 Page 35 of 73 16/05217/PPP

The application is for planning permission in principle. The required contribution should be secured through a legal agreement based on the total 'per house' and 'per flat' contribution figures which are set out below.

If the appropriate contribution is provided by the developer, Communities and Families does not object to the application.

Per unit infrastructure contribution requirement: Per Flat - £2,048 Per House - £11,067

Note - all infrastructure contributions shall be index linked based on the increase in the BCIS Forecast All-in Tender Price Index from Q1 2015 to the date of payment.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 25 April 2018 Page 36 of 73 16/05217/PPP

Children + Families further comment

The Council has assessed the impact of the growth set out in the LDP through an Education Appraisal (January 2018), taking account of school roll projections. To do this, an assumption has been made as to the amount of new housing development which will come forward ('housing output'). This takes account of new housing sites allocated in the LDP and other land within the urban area.

In areas where additional infrastructure will be required to accommodate the cumulative number of additional pupils, education infrastructure 'actions' have been identified. The infrastructure requirements and estimated delivery dates are set out in the Council's Action Programme (January 2018).

Assessment and Contribution Requirements

Assessment based on:

200 Houses

This site falls within Sub-Area SW-1 of the 'South West Education Contribution Zone'.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 25 April 2018 Page 37 of 73 16/05217/PPP

If the appropriate contribution is provided by the developer, Communities and Families does not object to the application.

Per unit infrastructure contribution requirement:

Per Flat - £2,196 Per House - £11,748

Note - all infrastructure contributions shall be index linked based on the increase in the BCIS Forecast All-in Tender Price Index from Q4 2017 to the date of payment.

Currie Community Council

1) Green Belt. This application is for a site in the Green Belt that is not included in the current LDP.

2) Prime Quality Farmland. I understand this land is prime quality farmland and therefore should not be built on.

3) Sustainable Development. This proposed development is not sustainable. The majority of residents will commute as minimal local workplaces are included in the planned development. It is also very unlikely that this proposal will make provision for any more than the minimum 25% affordable housing. It is also unlikely that any affordable housing will actually be included in this development. Housing in this area commands high prices therefore we must assume that yet again premium priced housing will be built.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 25 April 2018 Page 38 of 73 16/05217/PPP

4) Population/Education statistics. A quick calculation will suggest that there will be many more primary and secondary school age children than indicated in the proposal. There is no capacity within Currie Primary School. There is a proposal for additional classrooms to be added on to Dean Park and Nether Currie for the Newmills and Kinleith Mill developments. This proposal does not included Currie Primary School and these additional agreed classrooms do not include capacity for other developments.

5) Student Accommodation As this proposal was created prior to the Brexit vote it is now an unknown whether the demand for university places within the capital will decrease.

6) Recreation Space. If this recreation space is intended for the greater local community then it is not adequate.

7) Transport Assessments. It would appear that the traffic assessment considers only current road usage and does not include the agreed new developments at Newmills, Kinleith, The Tannery and other proposals in the pipeline. The assessments made on behalf of the proposers are unlikely to be impartial and therefore a true reflection of the current traffic situation.

We quote below comments contained in the DPEA report:

Michael Cunliffe (PPA-230-2112 - 2014) said - "several representations draw attention to the frequent tendency for traffic to grind to a halt. This was borne out on the way to my site visit, when a major holdup occurred between Juniper Green and Currie in the early afternoon...I am concerned that this and the traffic generated by any other significant developments in Balerno would add to an already congested road and lead to even longer journey times for both car users and bus passengers."

Richard Dent (PPA-230-2185 - 2016) said: "The proposal [to develop at Cockburn Crescent, Balerno] would undoubtedly increase traffic queuing and congestion at junctions affected by the site, including Gillespie Crossroads..".

8) Public Transport. This is already an issue in this area with elderly residents having to undertake multiple bus journeys in order to fulfill basic shopping, banking, hospital appointments etc. This proposal does not address these requirements and will leave residents in the proposed development isolated as there is only one infrequent 45 bus service.

9) Construction Traffic. The construction of this development will add to the disruption to traffic on this already busy road and adversely impact traffic on Lanark Road West. This will cause more traffic congestion and therefore increased pollution.

10) The Development Proposal. Whilst it is refreshing to see the amount detail and planning included in this proposal, it is somewhat unnecessary at this stage. This may suggest that the proposer is determined to gain support for planning in order to make the land more attractive and valuable to future purchasers. E.g. to gain planning permission and sell on to a builder.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 25 April 2018 Page 39 of 73 16/05217/PPP

Economic Development

The application is primarily for housing and therefore has the potential to contribute to economic growth. However, this is a matter that Planning are best placed to assess in terms of whether this proposal represents sustainable growth and the Economy Service has no further comments to make at this stage.

Edinburgh Airport

The proposed development has been examined from an aerodrome safeguarding perspective and could conflict with safeguarding criteria unless any planning permission granted is subject to the conditions detailed below:

Submission of a Bird Hazard Management Plan

Development shall not commence until a Bird Hazard Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The submitted plan shall include details of: o monitoring of any standing water within the site temporary or permanent o sustainable urban drainage schemes (SUDS) - Such schemes shall comply with Advice Note 6 'Potential Bird Hazards from Sustainable Urban Drainage schemes (SUDS) (available at http://www.aoa.org.uk/policy-safeguarding.htm). o management of any flat/shallow pitched/green roofs on buildings within the site which may be attractive to nesting, roosting and "loafing" birds. The management plan shall comply with Advice Note 8 'Potential Bird Hazards from Building Design' attached o reinstatement of grass areas o maintenance of planted and landscaped areas, particularly in terms of height and species of plants that are allowed to grow o which waste materials can be brought on to the site/what if any exceptions e.g. green waste o monitoring of waste imports (although this may be covered by the site licence) o physical arrangements for the collection (including litter bins) and storage of putrescible waste, arrangements for and frequency of the removal of putrescible waste o signs deterring people from feeding the birds.

The Bird Hazard Management Plan shall be implemented as approved, on completion of the development and shall remain in force for the life of the building. No subsequent alterations to the plan are to take place unless first submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.

Reason: It is necessary to manage the development in order to minimise its attractiveness to birds which could endanger the safe movement of aircraft and the operation of Edinburgh Airport.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 25 April 2018 Page 40 of 73 16/05217/PPP

The Bird Hazard Management Plan must ensure that flat/shallow pitched roofs be constructed to allow access to all areas by foot using permanent fixed access stairs ladders or similar. The owner/occupier must not allow gulls, to nest, roost or loaf on the building. Checks must be made weekly or sooner if bird activity dictates, during the breeding season. Outside of the breeding season gull activity must be monitored and the roof checked regularly to ensure that gulls do not utilise the roof. Any gulls found nesting, roosting or loafing must be dispersed by the owner/occupier when detected or when requested by Edinburgh Airport Airside Operations staff. In some instances it may be necessary to contact Edinburgh Airport Airside Operations staff before bird dispersal takes place. The owner/occupier must remove any nests or eggs found on the roof.

The breeding season for gulls typically runs from March to June. The owner/occupier must obtain the appropriate licences where applicable from Scottish Natural Heritage before the removal of nests and eggs.

Submission of Landscaping Scheme

No development shall take place until full details of soft and water landscaping works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, details must comply with Advice Note 3 'Potential Bird Hazards from Amenity Landscaping & Building Design' (available at http://www.aoa.org.uk/operations-safety/). These details shall include: o any earthworks o grassed areas o the species, number and spacing of trees and shrubs o details of any water features o drainage details including SUDS - Such schemes must comply with Advice Note 6 'Potential Bird Hazards from Sustainable urban Drainage Schemes (SUDS) (available at http://www.aoa.org.uk/policy-safeguarding.htm). o others that you or the Authority may specify and having regard to Advice Note 3: Potential Bird Hazards from Amenity Landscaping and Building Design and Note 6 on SUDS].

No subsequent alterations to the approved landscaping scheme are to take place unless submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.

Reason: To avoid endangering the safe movement of aircraft and the operation of Edinburgh Airport through the attraction of birds and an increase in the bird hazard risk of the application site.

Submission of SUDS Details

Development shall not commence until details of the Sustainable Urban Drainage Schemes (SUDS) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Details must comply with Advice Note 6 'Potential Bird Hazards from Sustainable Urban Drainage Schemes (SUDS). The submitted Plan shall include details of:

Development Management Sub-Committee – 25 April 2018 Page 41 of 73 16/05217/PPP o Attenuation times o Profiles & dimensions of water bodies o Details of marginal planting

No subsequent alterations to the approved SUDS scheme are to take place unless first submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.

Reason: To avoid endangering the safe movement of aircraft and the operation of Edinburgh Airport through the attraction of Birds and an increase in the bird hazard risk of the application site. For further information please refer to Advice Note 6 'Potential Bird Hazards from Sustainable Urban Drainage Schemes (SUDS)' (available at http://www.aoa.org.uk/operations-safety/).

We would also make the following observations:

Lighting

The development is close to the aerodrome and the approach to the runway. We draw attention to the need to carefully design lighting proposals. This is further explained in Advice Note 2, 'Lighting near Aerodromes' (available at http://www.aoa.org.uk/operations-safety/). Please note that the Air Navigation Order 2005, Article 135 grants the Civil Aviation Authority power to serve notice to extinguish or screen lighting which may endanger aircraft.

We, therefore, have no aerodrome safeguarding objection to this proposal, provided that the above conditions are applied to any planning permission.

As the application is for planning permission in principle, it is important that Edinburgh Airport is consulted on all reserved matters relating to siting and design, external appearance (including lighting) and landscaping.

It is important that any conditions requested in this response are applied to a planning approval. Where a Planning Authority proposes to grant permission against the advice of Edinburgh Airport, or not to attach conditions which Edinburgh Airport has advised, it shall notify Edinburgh Airport, the Civil Aviation Authority and the Scottish Ministers as specified in the Safeguarding of Aerodromes Direction 2003.

Environmental Assessment

The application is for Planning Permission in Principal; however, the application does include very detailed plans of what is proposed. The proposal is to include a number of different uses including residential properties, neighbourhood centre, food and drink use class 3, non-residential class 10 and leisure class 11 uses all with associated car parking and infrastructure works including the demolition of overhead power lines and relaying of power lines underground.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 25 April 2018 Page 42 of 73 16/05217/PPP

The site is located on open farmland immediately southeast of Heriot-Watt University's Riccarton Campus, between Hermiston and Currie. The site itself is split into two parts by Riccarton Mains Road, one smaller area to the northwest of the road and a larger area to the east of the road, the site is located within Edinburgh's Green Belt

The Murray Burn runs just west of the site boundary, flowing from south to north and lies approximately 3m lower than the level of the smaller site. The Shotts railway line from Glasgow Central to Edinburgh Railway skirts the southeastern boundary of the site, approximately 7m from the site boundary at its closest point. Three sets of electricity pylons (two high voltage on pylons and one low voltage on wooden poles) cross the site.

To the north of the site is open fields and Riccarton Mains buildings (~100m from site boundary) with Riccarton Mains Road and a roundabout just to the west of this. To the South, immediately the Shotts Glasgow Central to Edinburgh railway line, then the small village of Corslet at ~200m from the southern boundary. Currie begins at approximately 500m from the southern boundary of the site. To the west, Murray Burn and mixed woodland surrounding it and then Heriot Watt Riccarton Campus with associated buildings, outdoor areas and sports facilities. To the east, there is a house on the eastern site boundary, the aforementioned railway line and generally open farmland beyond this.

The applicant has submitted various supporting materials including a noise and local air quality impact assessment. The applicant has submitted a site investigation report which is currently being assessed by Environmental Protection. Until this has been completed Environmental Assessment recommends that a condition is attached to ensure that contaminated land is fully addressed. The applicant has also provided communications between the applicant and Scottish Power regarding the overhead pylons.

Noise

In order to assess the potential noise impacts on the proposed development the applicant has submitted a noise impact assessment to address noise from Riccarton Mains Road, Railway line noise at southern site boundary, noise from the National Performance Centre, Air Rifle Range and any potential noise source within development specifically at building E. As this is not a detailed planning application the final layout and design have not been concluded and will likely change. When detailed plans are available further noise impact assessments will be required.

Noise sources from the overhead lines has not be carried out as requested by Environmental Protection this is based on the assumption that the overhead lines will be re-directed or buried and are therefore have not been assessed. Environmental Protection have serious concerns regarding this assumption as it will not be possible to condition that the overhead lines to be buried prior to development. Environmental Protection wanted the overhead lines to be assessed as this would be a worst-case scenario assessment. If the overhead lines remain a buffer zone under them will be require in the region of 20-50m wide.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 25 April 2018 Page 43 of 73 16/05217/PPP

The noise impact assessment has identified that noise mitigation measures will be required to ensure that specified indoor and outdoor amenity noise levels will be achieved. This is related to the transport sources of noise and will include an area that should not be developed for amenity space, acoustic barriers and double glazing.

As noise level in certain amenity areas exceeds the criteria level and the most appropriate method for controlling noise in garden areas is by the use of an acoustic grade fence and buffer zones. The assessment has identified that an acoustic fence and buffer zone are required to fully block the line of sight to Riccarton Mains Road to the centre of the proposed developments garden areas. Internal noise will require acoustic double glazing capable a sound reduction level of 33dB. Environmental Protection will recommend conditions are attached to ensure these mitigation measures are carried out.

It is also understood that the existing 40mph zone may be reduced to 30mph within the development frontage. This would possibly lead to a slight reduction in noise levels although this has not been predicted in the noise impact assessment. It would be in the interest of the applicant to reassess the road noise when detailed plans are available and if the speed limit has been reduced. Furthermore, the rail noise could be updated to include freight movements as this has not been actually measured.

Noise affecting the site from internal and external sources requires to be fully evaluated. A Noise Impact Assessment (NIA) will be necessary once details of proposed uses, layout, building heights /orientation are available. Any NIA will incorporate detailed technical specifications for any mitigation measures identified, as agreed by the Head of Planning.

Environmental Protection will not be in a position to support the application due to our concerns with the overhead power lines.

Local Air Quality

Planning Advice Note (PAN) 51: Planning, Environmental Protection and Regulation 3 sets out the Scottish Executive's core policies and principles with respect to environmental aspects of land use planning, including air quality. PAN 51 states that air quality is capable of being a material planning consideration for the following situations where development is proposed inside or adjacent to an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA):

* Large scale proposals. * If they are to be occupied by sensitive groups such as the elderly or young children. * If there is the potential for cumulative effects.

The planning system has a role to play in the protection of air quality, by ensuring that development does not adversely affect air quality in AQMAs or, by cumulative impacts, lead to the creation of further AQMAs (areas where air quality standards are not being met, and for which remedial measures should therefore be taken.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 25 April 2018 Page 44 of 73 16/05217/PPP

AQMAs have been declared at five areas in Edinburgh - City Centre, St John's Road (Corstorphine), Great Junction Street (Leith) Glasgow Road (A8) at Ratho Station and Inverleith Row/Ferry Road. Poor air quality in the AQMAs is largely due to traffic congestion and the Council's Air Quality Action Plan contains measures to help reduce vehicle emissions in these areas. The Council monitors air quality in other locations and may require to declare further AQMAs where AQS are being exceeded., It is noted that a significant amount of development is already planned / committed in west Edinburgh and additional development will further increase pressure on the local road network. Committed development should therefore be fully accounted for in the Air Quality Impact Assessment for these proposals.

The applicant has submitted a supporting air quality impact assessment but it's not clear what developments have been included as committed developments in the air quality model.

Reducing the need to travel and promoting the use of sustainable modes of transport are key principles as identified in the second Proposed Edinburgh Local Development Plan (LPD). The LDP also states growth of the city based on car dependency for travel would have serious consequences in terms of congestion and air quality. An improved transport system, based on sustainable alternatives to the car is therefore a high priority for the Council and continued investment in public transport, walking and cycling is a central tenet of the Council's revised Local Transport Strategy 2014-19.

The development site is in close proximity to the Hermiston Gate Park and Ride which is well served by public transport and has rapid electric vehicle charging facilities. The applicant should be encouraged to keep car parking number to a minimum, support car club with electric charging, provide rapid electric vehicle charging throughout the development site, provide public transport incentives for residents, improve cycle/pedestrian facilities and links and contribute towards expanding the electric charging facilities at the Hermiston Park and Ride.

Environmental Protection also advised the applicant that any energy centres must comply with the Clean Air Act 1993 and that Environmental Protection will not support the use of biomass.

Environmental Protection have concerns with the cumulative impacts developments especially large proposals on the green belt may have on local air quality. Local roads in the area are already congested during peak hours and the development of this site will only exacerbate this.

Odours

The PPP aspect of the application may propose Use Class 3, 10 & 11 premises which are likely to include cooking operations. Ventilation is likely to be required to adequately deal with kitchen effluvia from these premises and ensure that they reach an appropriate height. Therefore, the siting of such premises will require to be fully assessed at the AMC stage to ensure that odours from food operations do not impact upon residential amenity.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 25 April 2018 Page 45 of 73 16/05217/PPP

Overhead Power Lines

The applicant has provided an email from Scottish Power Networks advising that they are in dialogue with the applicant regarding the potential for underground and/or diversion of the 275kV and 132kV transmission overhead lines. Materials such as brick and clay are very efficient at shielding the electric field. In underground lines, the construction design is such that the electric field is completely shielded. The static electric field from overhead HVDC lines can expand further into the surroundings compared to AC lines (corona effects). The magnetic field, in contrast, passes unobstructed through most materials. However, the fields' strength diminishes quickly with distance from the line (International Commission on Non-Ionizing Protection). It is therefore desirable to have the powerline buried or diverted however the lines would need to be buried under the railway and there does appear to be three different sets of power lines crossing the site. It's not clear if all lines can be diverted/buried. All overhead cables would need to be buried or relocated before any development could commence.

Therefore, Environmental Protection on balance recommend the application is reused due to the potential adverse impacts the proposal may have on local air quality and the doubt regarding the potential to relocate the overhead power lines. If consent is grant Environmental Protection recommends that the following conditions are attached;

Conditions

Site in General

Prior to the commencement of construction works on site: a) A site survey (including intrusive investigation where necessary) must be carried out to establish, either that the level of risk posed to human health and the wider environment by contaminants in, on or under the land is acceptable, or that remedial and/or protective measures could be undertaken to bring the risks to an acceptable level in relation to the development; and b) Where necessary, a detailed schedule of any required remedial and/or protective measures, including their programming, must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. ii) Any required remedial and/or protective measures shall be implemented in accordance with the approved schedule and documentary evidence to certify those works shall be provided for the approval of the Planning Authority.

Electric vehicle (rapid) chargers shall be installed throughout the development site serving every tenth parking space

The following noise protection measures to the proposed development, as defined in the Neo Environmental 'Volume 2 Environmental Statement' Chapter 7. Acoustics, dated 20/10/2016:

Development Management Sub-Committee – 25 April 2018 Page 46 of 73 16/05217/PPP

An acoustic fence with a minimum surface density in of 10kg/m2 shall be erect as per Figure 7.1 Chapter 7 Acoustic Appendix dated 11/10/2016 drawing number NEO00347/030/A

No amenity areas to be located within the dotted lines as highlighted in Figure 7.2 Chapter 7 Acoustic Appendix dated 11/10/2016 drawing number NEO00347/030/A at the final design stage. shall be carried out in full and completed prior to the development being occupied.

Class 3,10 and 11 uses proposed as per PPP application

Development shall not commence until a scheme for protecting the occupiers of the proposed and existing residential units hereby consented from operational noise has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Head of Planning; all works which form part of the approved scheme shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Head of Planning, before any part of the development is occupied.

The kitchen shall be ventilated by a system capable of achieving 30 air changes per hour, and the cooking effluvia shall be ducted to a suitable exhaust point as agreed with the Planning Authority to ensure that no cooking odours escape or are exhausted into any neighbouring premises.

The ventilation system shall be installed, tested and operational prior to the use hereby approved being taken up.

Deliveries and collections, including waste collections, will require to be agreed at the Approval of Matters in Conditions (AMC) stage.

Residential uses

Details of the required acoustic glazing barrier shall be submitted in the form of an updated noise impact assessment and agreed at the Approval of Matters in Conditions (AMC) stage.

Informative

Environmental Protection also advised the applicant that any energy centres must comply with the Clean Air Act 1993 and that Environmental Protection will not support the use of biomass.

Environmental Assessment comment

A Preliminary Environmental Assessment Report dated May 2016 appears to have been submitted in support of this application.

An initial inspection of this report indicates that the potential for significant sources of contamination on this site appear to be minimal and therefore risks in connection with development to residential are likely to be of low level.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 25 April 2018 Page 47 of 73 16/05217/PPP

Nevertheless, an intrusive investigation is proposed by the report which will aim to identify the presence of unexpected contamination associated with the general ground conditions, further investigate the minor potential sources of contamination identified by the Preliminary Environmental Assessment, and assess potential risks associated with the development of the land to residential.

Environmental Protection would consider the application of a planning condition (SIO3c) to be sufficient for the purpose of ensuring/enabling any possible remedial requirements to address the presence of contaminants are agreed with the Local Authority prior to any works commencing on site to ensure the land is suitable for use.

Environmental Assessment updated comment

Environmental Protection have considered the supplementary information submitted by the applicant with regards transport and local air quality impacts. It is accepted that the changes in the predicted traffic flows are likely to be insignificant in terms of the air quality impacts, therefore the original consultation response provided by Environmental Protection is still valid.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 25 April 2018 Page 48 of 73 16/05217/PPP

Noise

Development Management Sub-Committee – 25 April 2018 Page 49 of 73 16/05217/PPP

Environmental Protection will not be in a position to support the application due to our concerns with the overhead power lines.

Local Air Quality

Large scale proposals. If they are to be occupied by sensitive groups such as the elderly or young children. If there is the potential for cumulative effects.

The applicant has submitted a supporting air quality impact assessment but it's not clear what developments have been included as committed developments in the air quality model. Reducing the need to travel and promoting the use of sustainable modes of transport are key principles as identified in the second Proposed Edinburgh Local Development Plan (LPD). The LDP also states growth of the city based on car dependency for travel would have serious consequences in terms of congestion and air quality. An improved transport system, based on sustainable alternatives to the car is therefore a high priority for the Council and continued investment in public transport, walking and cycling is a central tenet of the Council's revised Local Transport Strategy 2014-19.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 25 April 2018 Page 50 of 73 16/05217/PPP

Environmental Protection also advised the applicant that any energy centres must comply with the Clean Air Act 1993 and that Environmental Protection will not support the use of biomass.

Odours

Overhead Power Lines

Conditions

Development Management Sub-Committee – 25 April 2018 Page 51 of 73 16/05217/PPP

Site in General

1. Prior to the commencement of construction works on site: a) A site survey (including intrusive investigation where necessary) must be carried out to establish, either that the level of risk posed to human health and the wider environment by contaminants in, on or under the land is acceptable, or that remedial and/or protective measures could be undertaken to bring the risks to an acceptable level in relation to the development; and b) Where necessary, a detailed schedule of any required remedial and/or protective measures, including their programming, must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. ii) Any required remedial and/or protective measures shall be implemented in accordance with the approved schedule and documentary evidence to certify those works shall be provided for the approval of the Planning Authority.

2. Electric vehicle (rapid) chargers shall be installed throughout the development site serving every tenth parking space

3. The following noise protection measures to the proposed development, as defined in the Neo Environmental 'Volume 2 Environmental Statement' Chapter 7. Acoustics, dated 20/10/2016:

An acoustic fence with a minimum surface density in of 10kg/m2 shall be erect as per Figure 7.1 Chapter 7 Acoustic Appendix dated 11/10/2016 drawing number NEO00347/030/A

Class 3,10 and 11 uses proposed as per PPP application

4. Development shall not commence until a scheme for protecting the occupiers of the proposed and existing residential units hereby consented from operational noise has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Head of Planning; all works which form part of the approved scheme shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Head of Planning, before any part of the development is occupied.

5. The kitchen shall be ventilated by a system capable of achieving 30 air changes per hour, and the cooking effluvia shall be ducted to a suitable exhaust point as agreed with the Planning Authority to ensure that no cooking odours escape or are exhausted into any neighbouring premises.

6. The ventilation system shall be installed, tested and operational prior to the use hereby approved being taken up.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 25 April 2018 Page 52 of 73 16/05217/PPP

7. Deliveries and collections, including waste collections, will require to be agreed at the Approval of Matters in Conditions (AMC) stage.

Residential uses

1. Details of the required acoustic glazing barrier shall be submitted in the form of an updated noise impact assessment and agreed at the Approval of Matters in Conditions (AMC) stage.

Informative

Environmental Protection also advised the applicant that any energy centres must comply with the Clean Air Act 1993 and that Environmental Protection will not support the use of biomass.

Network Rail

Whilst Network Rail has no objections in principle to the proposal, due to its close proximity to the operational railway we would request that the following matters are taken into account:

The accompanying Planning Statement states that "the site is one of the most sustainable locations in the west of Edinburgh benefiting from a range of nearby public transport links". It then further recognises that Curriehill Station is located approximately 1.5km to the west of the site (c. 15 min walk) and provides an hourly service both to Edinburgh and Glasgow Central. The station provides car parking and 12 cycle parking spaces. It also states that the site is approximately 2km from Edinburgh Park Station which provides regular train services to Edinburgh City Centre, Dunblane and Helensburgh and Edinburgh Park tram which offers regular services to the airport and city centre.

Paragraph 290 of Scottish Planning Policy states that "Development proposals that have the potential to affect the performance or safety of the strategic transport network need to be fully assessed to determine their impact… Where such investment is required, the cost of the mitigation measures required to ensure the continued safe and effective operation of the network will have to be met by the developer."

It is therefore requested that further consideration is given to the impact of the proposed development on the rail network in the area. This may include pedestrian, cycling and vehicular linkages, car parking, cycle lockers and other station amenities.

In addition to the above, the following matters must also be taken into account, and if necessary and appropriate included as conditions or advisory notes, if granting the application:

Uncontrolled drainage towards the railway may have a direct impact on the reliability and frequency of the rail transport in your area.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 25 April 2018 Page 53 of 73 16/05217/PPP o All surface or foul water arising from the development must be collected and diverted away from Network Rail Property. (Any Sustainable Urban Drainage Scheme should not be sited within 10 metres of railway infrastructure and should be designed with long term maintenance plans which meet the needs of the development).

The railway can be a dangerous environment. Suitable barriers must be put in place by the applicant to prevent unauthorised and unsafe access to the railway. o If not already in place, the applicant must provide a suitable trespass proof fence of at least 1.8 metres in height adjacent to Network Rail's boundary and provision for the fence's future maintenance and renewal should be made. We recommend a 1.8 metre high 'rivetless palisade' or 'expanded mesh' fence. Network Rail's existing boundary measure must not be removed without prior permission.

The proximity and type of planting proposed are important when considering a landscaping scheme. Leaf fall in particular can greatly impact upon the reliability of the railway in certain seasons. Network Rail can provide details of planting recommendations for neighbours. o Where trees/shrubs are to be planted adjacent to the railway boundary these should be positioned at a minimum distance from the boundary which is greater than their predicted mature height. Certain broad leaf deciduous species should not be planted adjacent to the railway boundary.

Issues often arise where sensitive development types are sited in close proximity to the rail line. o The applicant should be aware that any proposal for noise or vibration sensitive use adjacent to the railway may result in neighbour issues arising. Every endeavour should be made by the applicant in relation to adequate protection of the uses contained within the site.

Construction works must be undertaken in a safe manner which does not disturb the operation of the neighbouring railway. Applicants must be aware of any embankments and supporting structures which are in close proximity to their development. o Details of all changes in ground levels, laying of foundations, and operation of mechanical plant in proximity to the rail line must be submitted to Network Rail's Asset Protection Engineer for approval prior to works commencing on site. Where any works cannot be carried out in a "fail-safe" manner, it will be necessary to restrict those works to periods when the railway is closed to rail traffic i.e. by a "possession" which must be booked via Network Rail's Asset Protection Engineer and are subject to a minimum prior notice period for booking of 20 weeks.

Police Scotland

We would welcome the opportunity for one of our Police Architectural Liaison Officers to meet with the architect to discuss Secured by Design principles and crime prevention through environmental design in relation to this development.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 25 April 2018 Page 54 of 73 16/05217/PPP

Roads Authority Issues

The application should be refused.

Reasons:

The transport infrastructure enhancement needs arising from the planned growth set out in the Local Development Plan (LDP) have been assessed by a transport appraisal which accompanies the LDP and informs its Action Programme. The Transport Infrastructure Appraisal provides a cumulative assessment of the additional transport infrastructure required to support the new housing development identified within the LDP. Where cumulative impacts have been identified, transport infrastructure to mitigate the impact of the development are established. Contribution Zones are used to collect developer contributions equitably towards these actions.

This site is not proposed within the LDP and, therefore, its transport impact on the strategic road network has not been assessed cumulatively. Whilst the applicant has considered the impact of committed development of this site in combination with other developments in the area, it is clear that traffic will have a significant impact on the existing road network, in particular A70 Lanark Road, Riccarton Mains Road and A71 Calder Road. The Local Development Plan states that development proposals relating to major housing or other development sites which would generate a significant amount of traffic must demonstrate that individual and cumulative transport impacts can be timeously addressed. It is unclear whether the additional traffic from this site can be so addressed within the improvement works set out in the Action Programme.

In addition, the LDP policies support the transport strategy by seeking to minimise travel demand and encourage a shift to more sustainable forms of travel. Major travel generating developments should take place in locations well served by public transport, walking and cycling networks, and development in non-central locations with limited sustainable travel options will be resisted. The proposed site is not considered to be well served by public transport and it is likely that public transport improvements will not be in place when required to serve the development.

If minded to grant, the application should be continued for the applicant to assess the cumulative traffic impact and determine the actions required to mitigate the identified impact.

In addition to the above, the following should be included as conditions or informatives as appropriate:

* Roads layout and parking numbers to be reserved matters.

* A contribution of £2,000 is required to progress a suitable order to redetermine sections of footway and carriageway as necessary for the development;

* A contribution of £2,000 is required to to progress a suitable order to introduce waiting and loading restrictions as necessary;

Development Management Sub-Committee – 25 April 2018 Page 55 of 73 16/05217/PPP

* A contribution of £2,000 is required to promote a suitable order to introduce a 20pmh speed limit within the development and a 30-mph on Riccarton Mains Road in the vicinity of the development, and subsequently install all necessary signs and markings at no cost to the Council. The applicant should be advised that the successful progression of this Order is subject to statutory consultation and advertisement and cannot be guaranteed;

* In support of the Council's LTS Cars1 policy, the applicant should contribute the sum of £18,000 (£1500 per order plus £5,500 per car) towards the provision of car club vehicles in the area;

* All accesses must be open for use by the public in terms of the statutory definition of 'road' and require to be the subject of applications for road construction consent. The extent of adoptable roads, including footways, footpaths, accesses, cycle tracks, verges and service strips to be agreed. The applicant should note that this will include details of lighting, drainage, Sustainable Urban Drainage, materials, structures, layout, car and cycle parking numbers including location, design and specification. Particular attention must be paid to ensuring that refuse collection vehicles are able to service the site. The applicant is recommended to contact the Council's waste management team to agree details;

* A Quality Audit, as set out in Designing Streets, to be submitted prior to the grant of Road Construction Consent;

* In accordance with the Council's LTS Travplan3 policy, the applicant should consider developing a Travel Plan including provision of pedal cycles (inc. electric cycles), secure cycle parking, public transport travel passes, a Welcome Pack, a high quality map of the neighbourhood (showing cycling, walking and public transport routes to key local facilities), timetables for local public transport;

* The applicant should note that new road names will be required for the development and this should be discussed with the Council's Street Naming and Numbering Team at an early opportunity;

* The applicant must be informed that any proposed on-street car parking spaces cannot be allocated to individual properties, nor can they be the subject of sale or rent. The spaces will form part of the road and as such will be available to all road users. Private enforcement is illegal and only the Council as roads authority has the legal right to control on-street spaces, whether the road has been adopted or not. The developer is expected to make this clear to prospective residents;

* The applicant should ensure that the access road and associated accesses are large enough, and of a shape, to accommodate any vehicles which are likely to use it, in particular refuse collection and emergency service vehicles. The applicant should provide a swept-path diagram to demonstrate that a vehicle can enter and exit the development in a forward gear, in the interests of road safety;

* All disabled persons parking places should comply with Disabled Persons Parking Places (Scotland) Act 2009. The Act places a duty on the local authority to promote proper use of parking places for disabled persons' vehicles. The applicant should therefore advise the Council if he wishes the bays to be enforced under this legislation.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 25 April 2018 Page 56 of 73 16/05217/PPP

A contribution of £2,000 will be required to progress the necessary traffic order. All disabled persons parking places must comply with Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 regulations or British Standard 8300:2009 as approved;

* Under new RAUC(S) standards the existing footway should not be narrowed to less than 1.8m;

* Electric vehicle charging outlets should be considered for this development including dedicated parking spaces with charging facilities and ducting and infrastructure to allow electric vehicles to be readily accommodated in the future;

The developer must submit a maintenance schedule for the SUDS infrastructure for approval.

Roads Authority Issues (updated)

The application should be refused.

Reasons:

1. The site location provides travel choices. However, census data suggests that car use is still dominant. In regard to access to alternative travel choices, the following is specific and relevant: a. It is located within 0.7 miles of Hermiston Park & Ride which is served by regular bus services to and from the City Centre. Express services are available at peak times. A night time service also operates to and from Riccarton Campus via the P&R site. Service 45 (Riccarton Campus to QMU, passing other university campuses enroute) which passes the site on Riccarton Mains Road operates on a 30 minute frequency on weekdays (06.00-20.00 approximately), and no weekend service. b. Edinburgh Park Station (4 trains per hour) and Tram Stop (7 - 10 minute frequency) are 1.8 miles away (6 minute car journey in uncongested conditions). Curriehill Station is 1.2 miles away (4 minute car journey in uncongested conditions). Services from Curriehill (Glasgow Central - Edinburgh Waverley via Shotts) operate on an hourly frequency. Some additional services city bound (including Glasgow Central to North Berwick) stop during the morning peak.

It can be reasonably suggested that for the rail trip modes a short journey by car would be tempting, and most certainly likely during periods of inclement weather, or due personal circumstances on a given day e.g. childcare activity. The existing bus service which passes the site is poor in terms of frequency and times of operation which will impact on its attractiveness as a trip mode. Whether an additional 214 dwellings plus student accommodation; the latter being attractively located for students of Heriot Watt University but which it cannot be assumed will be necessarily occupied by their students; will in turn make an improved 45 service frequency or indeed diversion of the route into the "village" viable is debatable. Whilst within walking distance of the site, Hermiston Park & Ride would be again inconvenient for the residents of the "village." Similarly for the rail-based alternatives.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 25 April 2018 Page 57 of 73 16/05217/PPP

It is noted that a recent DPEA Reporter's decision on the matter of distance to public transport modes (PPA-400-2071) concluded that a small exceedance of the recommended walking distances in PAN75 was not likely by itself (in the context of the appeal site) to cause a significant change in mode of transport towards private car use but rather much would depend on the attractiveness and convenience of alternatives. It is considered that the walking distances to the regular public transport alternatives to this site are not within an acceptable small exceedance of walking distance of the site. Guidance distances from PAN 75 are 400m and 800m for bus and rail respectively.

The site lies within the catchments for Currie Primary and Community High schools, located 0.8 miles (1.3km) and 1.2 miles (2km) away respectively. Access to these schools is via the existing footway network contiguous to the roads.

The applicant's masterplan concept indicates a number of potential secondary links (pedestrian/cycle) to Riccarton Campus to the west of the site which would help improve site accessibility. The delivery of these by the applicant cannot be relied upon.

2. Whilst it is accepted that the applicant's transport consultant has carried out analysis of the external road junctions which considers the cumulative and cross- boundary effects as required by LDP Policy Tra 8 at the request of Officers, the use of traditional isolated junction modelling software does not take into account the interaction between major junctions. The case in point being that the A720 Calder Junction is routinely congested during both morning and evening peaks but specifically the morning peak, where vehicle queuing can extend through the A71 Calder Road/ Riccarton Mains Road/ P&R/ Gogar Station Road roundabout, impacting on the operation junction creating delays and significant queuing on approaches to the junction. This is not reflected in the results of the modelling which suggest a maximum queue of 8-9 PCUs (approximately 50m in length) on the A71(W) approach. This is backed up by the applicant's traffic survey queuing data for the latter junction. It is acknowledged that this can be argued as being an existing issue on the road network outwith the control of the applicant, it can be equally argued as being symptomatic of existing cumulative and cross-boundary effects to which this development would add.

Should the committee be minded to grant the application, the following conditions or informatives should apply:

1. The applicant will be required to: a) Contribute the sum of £214,000 towards the Hermiston Park & Ride Transport Contribution Zone. The sum to be indexed as appropriate and the use period to be 10 years from date of payment; b) Contribute towards the Calder and Hermiston Transport Contribution Zone. Details of the Action and cost are still be established. The sum to be indexed as appropriate and the use period to be 10 years from date of payment; c) Contribute towards the Gillespie Cross Roads Transport Contribution Zone to provide signal improvements at this location. The sum to be indexed as appropriate and the use period to be 10 years from date of payment; Items a) to c) above as per the LDP Second Action Programme. Contributions based on the proposed 214 No. residential units.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 25 April 2018 Page 58 of 73 16/05217/PPP

2. A contribution of £2,000 is required to progress a suitable order to redetermine sections of footway and carriageway as necessary for the development;

3. A contribution of £2,000 is required to progress a suitable order to introduce waiting and loading restrictions as necessary;

4. A contribution of £2,000 is required to promote a suitable order to introduce a 20pmh speed limit within the development and a 30-mph on Riccarton Mains Road in the vicinity of the development, and subsequently install all necessary signs and markings at no cost to the Council. The applicant should be advised that the successful progression of this Order is subject to statutory consultation and advertisement and cannot be guaranteed;

5. In support of the Council's LTS Cars1 policy, the applicant should contribute the sum of £18,000 (£1500 per order plus £5,500 per car) towards the provision of 3 car club vehicles in the area with capacity to provide further spaces if required as demand dictates, given the location in terms of accessibility and the nature of the development;

6. Pedestrian crossing facilities to be provided on Riccarton Mains Road, with the format and location(s) to be agreed. To be provided at no cost to the Council;

7. The internal site layout to be developed in accordance with the place making principles of the Scottish Government's Policy Document, "Designing Streets," and agreed in writing with the Council's Officers;

8. All Cycle and pedestrian infrastructure to be designed to the standard outlined in the Edinburgh Street Design Guidance factsheets. Links to the existing local infrastructure to be provided. A new combined footway/cycleway to be provided along the site frontage with Riccarton Mains Road;

9. New north and southbound bus stops to be provided on Riccarton Mains Road in the vicinity of the site, with the format and locations to be agreed. To be provided at no cost to the Council;

10. Parking provision to be in accordance with the Council's current standards and agreed in writing with the Council's Officers. Notes in regard to the applicant's proposed parking is provided below;

11. The location and form of access points into the development to be agreed in writing with Council's Officers;

12. All accesses must be open for use by the public in terms of the statutory definition of 'road' and require to be the subject of applications for road construction consent. The extent of adoptable roads, including footways, footpaths, accesses, cycle tracks, verges and service strips to be agreed. The applicant should note that this will include details of lighting, drainage, Sustainable Urban Drainage, materials, structures, layout, car and cycle parking numbers including location, design and specification. Particular attention must be paid to ensuring that refuse collection vehicles are able to service the site. The applicant is recommended to contact the Council's waste management team to agree details;

Development Management Sub-Committee – 25 April 2018 Page 59 of 73 16/05217/PPP

13. A Quality Audit, as set out in Designing Streets, to be submitted prior to the grant of Road Construction Consent;

14. In accordance with the Council's LTS Travplan3 policy, the applicant should consider developing a Travel Plan including provision of pedal cycles (inc. electric cycles), secure cycle parking, public transport travel passes, a Welcome Pack, a high quality map of the neighbourhood (showing cycling, walking and public transport routes to key local facilities), timetables for local public transport;

15. The applicant should note that new road names will be required for the development and this should be discussed with the Council's Street Naming and Numbering Team at an early opportunity;

16. The applicant must be informed that any proposed on-street car parking spaces cannot be allocated to individual properties, nor can they be the subject of sale or rent. The spaces will form part of the road and as such will be available to all road users. Private enforcement is illegal and only the Council as roads authority has the legal right to control on-street spaces, whether the road has been adopted or not. The developer is expected to make this clear to prospective residents;

17. The applicant should ensure that the access road and associated accesses are large enough, and of a shape, to accommodate any vehicles which are likely to use it, in particular refuse collection and emergency service vehicles. The applicant should provide a swept-path diagram to demonstrate that a vehicle can enter and exit the development in a forward gear, in the interests of road safety;

18. All disabled persons parking places should comply with Disabled Persons Parking Places (Scotland) Act 2009. The Act places a duty on the local authority to promote proper use of parking places for disabled persons' vehicles. The applicant should therefore advise the Council if he wishes the bays to be enforced under this legislation. A contribution of £2,000 will be required to progress the necessary traffic order. All disabled persons parking places must comply with Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 regulations or British Standard 8300:2009 as approved;

19. Under new RAUC(S) standards the existing footway should not be narrowed to less than 1.8m;

20. Electric vehicle charging outlets should be considered for this development including dedicated parking spaces with charging facilities and ducting and infrastructure to allow electric vehicles to be readily accommodated in the future;

21. The developer must submit a maintenance schedule for the SUDS infrastructure for approval.

Notes:

Development Management Sub-Committee – 25 April 2018 Page 60 of 73 16/05217/PPP

1. The application has been assessed against the Council's parking standards in the, "Edinburgh Design Guidance (October 2017)". These permit, for Zone 3 in which the site lies, up to a maximum of 2 parking spaces per residential dwelling depending on the quantity of habitable rooms provided in each. A minimum of 8% of the total parking provision must be suitable for use by disabled users. Where parking is provided in a car park with ten or more parking spaces proposed, one in every six spaces should feature an electric vehicle charge point. Where parking is provided on a driveway/garage, passive provision should be made such that an electric vehicle charge point can be added in the future.

2. In regard to the component of the proposals dedicated to student accommodation (halls and flats), the current standards permit up to 1 parking space for every 5 beds with 6% of the total parking provision suitable for use by disabled users. The applicant argues that given the location of the site in relation to the Heriot Watt Riccarton Campus and the established bus routes within a short walk the provision should be reduced to 50% of the permitted maximum. It is considered that this could be reduced further to a nominal provision for staff, disabled, visitor and maintenance vehicles given the location of the residences to Heriot Watt and the bus services which provide access to other campuses. Whilst not all campus locations are served directly by the public transport services available nearby to the site, they do however provide for interchange opportunities at city centre stops thus making them accessible.

3. Cycle parking/storage should be provided in accordance with the current Council standards. This requires a minimum of cycle storage for between one and three cycles per residential dwelling depending on the quantity of habitable rooms in each. In terms of the student accommodation component of the proposals a minimum of 1 cycle per bed provided.

SEPA comment

We ask that the planning condition(s) in Section 2 be attached to the consent. If any of these will not be applied, then please consider this representation as an objection. Please also note the advice provided below.

This advice is given without prejudice to any decision made on elements of the proposal regulated by us, which may take account of factors not considered at the planning application stage.

Advice for the planning authority

1. Flood Risk

We have no objection to the proposed development on flood risk grounds. Notwithstanding this we would expect Edinburgh Council to undertake their responsibilities as the Flood Prevention Authority.

Technical Report

1.1 Review of the SEPA flood map shows a small area at risk of fluvial flooding and surface water flooding.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 25 April 2018 Page 61 of 73 16/05217/PPP

1.2 To assess the risk of fluvial flooding, the consultant has carried out hydrological and hydraulic modelling. To estimate the 0.5% annual probability (1 in 200 year) flood event the consultant has used three methods, the FEH Rainfall Runoff Method, ReFH2 and IH124. Table 2 presents the results of the hydrological modelling and the consultant has taken the precautionary approach and used the results of the FEH rainfall runoff method which generates the most conservative flows. We have carried out our own hydrological modelling and are in agreement with Kaya Consultants flow estimates.

1.3 To predict flood levels, a HEC RAS mathematical model has been constructed which incorporates 22 channel cross sections, 17 derived from a topographic survey and 5 derived from LiDAR data. It isn't best practice to derive cross sections from LiDAR information as there is uncertainty regarding the accuracy of LiDAR information particularly where there is tree cover as is the case for this site. However on this instance we are willing to accept this as there is a reasonably degree of freeboard between the flood level and the development site. The model has been run in a steady state.

1.4 Two structures are present at this site, a weir and a bridge and both have been incorporated within the hydraulic model. The weir spill coefficient has been set to 1 which is acceptable. Roughness values of 0.045 for the channel and 0.065 for the floodplain have been sued. A large masonry wall runs along the right bank of the watercourse between the development site and the Murray Burn which will offer some degree of informal protection to the site. This has not been included within the hydraulic model to represent the worst case scenario.

1.5 The results of the hydraulic model show that the site is not at risk of flooding. Table 3 shows the predicated water level and adjoining site levels and there is a reasonable degree of freeboard between the site levels and predicted flood levels. Velocity information has been provided and although this shows very high velocities which could result is supercritical flow, the consultant explains that the channel is steep and this is reflected on the long profiles of the modelled reach on figure 6. We would highlight that it is best practice to provide the results tables within HEC RAS as well as cross section outputs for all sections as provided for a selection of cross sections on figures 7 to 9.

1.6 A sensitivity analysis has been carried out on roughness, flow, downstream boundary, blockage and weir coefficient. Although changes in some of these variables results in significant localised increases in flood levels, particularly when blockage is considered, the site is not deemed at risk of flooding.

1.7 To assess the risk of flooding from surface water, basic analysis using Global Mapp GIS software has been used to determine the flow paths within and outside the site. This shows that there is no risk of surface water flooding to the development site.

1.8 The FRA has shown that the development site is not at risk of flooding during the 0.5% flood event and as a result we offer no objection to the planning application at this site. We would highlight that finished floor levels should be set 600mm above the 0.5% annual probability flood level. Furthermore, SUDS proposals and runoff rates should be agreed with the flood prevention officer at Edinburgh City Council.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 25 April 2018 Page 62 of 73 16/05217/PPP

2. Drainage

2.1 Drainage is a material planning consideration as set out in PAN 79 Water and Drainage. Planning authorities have been designated responsible authorities under the Water Environment and Water Services (Designation of Responsible Authorities and Functions) Order 2006. As such authorities are required to carry out their statutory functions in a manner that secures compliance with the objectives of the Water Framework Directive (i) preventing deterioration and (ii) promoting improvements in the water environment in order that all water bodies achieve "good" ecological status by 2015 and there is no further deterioration in status This will require water quality, quantity and morphology (physical form) to be considered.

Waste water drainage

2.2 We note from the supporting information that the intention is to connect the development to the public foul sewer network.

2.3 It should be noted that should a connection to the public sewer not be achievable then SEPA would be required to be re-consulted as any private waste water discharge would require authorisation under Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 (CAR).

2.4 It will be for SW to ensure that sufficient capacity exists in the public sewerage network to accommodate the proposal. Should SW determine that capacity exists, they must ensure that the proposal does not have a detrimental effect on the water quality of the river.

2.5 We would encourage that the applicant investigate any opportunities for first time sewerage provision - for 'isolated' properties currently served by private foul drainage arrangements - are actively sought out and implemented where possible. Surface water drainage

2.6 In accordance with the requirements of The Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011, also known as The Controlled Activity Regulations (CAR) surface water runoff arising from the hardstanding areas, inclusive of roads and roofs will require to be collected, treated and disposed of using sustainable drainage techniques.

2.7 We have considered the relevant information within the application and based on the details provided we are satisfied that the proposed principles of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) for the application for planning permission in principle are appropriate, with 2 levels of SUDS to be incorporated into the detailed design and SUDS will be designed to CIRIA standards. The finalised design must accord with CIRIA 753 and will involve providing the output from the simple index CAR tool. We would encourage source control measures to be incorporated across the site where possible. While we are content with this approach it has not been confirmed in detail how this will be achieved. We therefore request that a condition is attached to any approved consent for all phases of development requiring full details of the finalised surface water management scheme. To assist, the following wording is suggested:

Development Management Sub-Committee – 25 April 2018 Page 63 of 73 16/05217/PPP

Prior to the commencement of any works, full details of the finalised SUDS scheme for all individual phases of development shall be submitted for the written approval of the planning authority, in consultation with SEPA, and all work shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme.

Reason: To ensure adequate protection of the water environment from surface water run-off.

2.8 We have not considered the water quantity aspect of this scheme. Comments from Scottish Water, where appropriate, the Local Authority Roads Department and the Local Authority Flood Prevention Unit should be sought on any water quantity issues including the acceptability of post-development runoff rates for flood control. Protection of the Murray Burn

2.9 The Murray Burn flows along the western edge of the site. There is no detail provided in the application regarding the potential finalised layout of the development and the protection of the water course. Therefore, we ask that a suitable worded condition is attached to any grant of permission which requires an appropriate buffer strip between the Murray Burn and any built development and details of this buffer strip to be provide at the approval of matters specified in conditions stage. We would recommend a buffer strip on either side of the water course of around 6 meters. This is required to ensure adequate protection of the water environment and comply with the requirements of the water framework directive as outlined in section 2.1 above.

Engineering in the Water Environment

2.10 We note from the design and access statement that it is outlined that there is potential for future connections to the campus across the Murray burn, no further information is provided. We do however note that these are outlined as potential future opportunities rather than concrete proposals at this stage. We would clearly outline that these potential crossings will require some form of authorisation under The Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 (as amended).

2.11 We would highlight that we prefer the water environment to be left in its natural state with engineering activities such as culverts, bridges, watercourse diversions, bank modifications or dams avoided wherever possible. Where watercourse crossings are required, bridging solutions or bottomless or arched culverts which do not affect the bed and banks of the watercourse should be used.

2.12 We cannot comment at the potential consentability of these at this stage but should the applicant wish to pursue these in the future then they should liaise with our local operations team (details below).

3. Air Quality

3.1 The local authority is the responsible authority for local air quality management under the Environment Act 1995. Therefore we recommend that you consult with your environmental health colleagues regarding this element of the proposal.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 25 April 2018 Page 64 of 73 16/05217/PPP

3.2 They can advise on the submitted Air Quality assessment contained within the ES. They can also advise on potential impacts such as exacerbation of local air pollution, noise and nuisance issues and cumulative impacts of all development in the local area. We do note that the submitted Air Quality assessment outlines that the proposed development is unlikely to have an impact on local air quality.

4. Contaminated Land

4.1 The Local Authority is the lead authority in relation to contaminated land and we therefore request that you consult your Environmental Services Department and those responsible for implementing the contaminated land regime regarding this proposal. These contaminated land specialists will take a lead on commenting on the planning application, with SEPA's contaminated land specialists providing input directly to them in relation to impacts upon the water environment.

Detailed advice for the applicant

5. Flood Risk Caveats & Additional information for the applicant

5.1 The SEPA Flood Maps have been produced following a consistent, nationally- applied methodology for catchment areas equal to or greater than 3km2 using a Digital Terrain Model (DTM) to define river corridors and low-lying coastal land. The maps are indicative and designed to be used as a strategic tool to assess, flood risk at the community level and to support planning policy and flood risk management in Scotland. For further information please visit http://www.sepa.org.uk/flooding/flood_maps.aspx.

5.2 Please note that we are reliant on the accuracy and completeness of any information supplied by the applicant in undertaking our review, and can take no responsibility for incorrect data or interpretation made by the authors.

5.3 The advice contained in this letter is supplied to you by SEPA in terms of Section 72 (1) of the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009 on the basis of information held by SEPA as at the date hereof. It is intended as advice solely to Edinburgh Council as Planning Authority in terms of the said Section 72 (1). Our briefing note entitled: "Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009: Flood risk advice to planning authorities" outlines the transitional changes to the basis of our advice inline with the phases of this legislation and can be downloaded from www.sepa.org.uk/planning/flood_risk.aspx.

6. Waste water drainage

6.1 The applicant should continue to liaise with Scottish Water to ensure a connection to the public sewer is available and whether restrictions at the local sewage treatment works will constrain the development.

SEPA further comment

Advice for the planning authority

We have no objection to this planning application on the grounds of impacts on air quality, but please note the advice provided below.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 25 April 2018 Page 65 of 73 16/05217/PPP

1. Air Quality

1.1 With regard to the assessment methodology, we note that the dispersion model has not been verified due to a lack of air quality monitoring in the development area. There is a level of uncertainty, therefore, in the model output which cannot be quantified or adjusted. Please note that we are reliant on the accuracy and completeness of the air quality assessment in undertaking our review.

1.2 We do not object to this application on air quality grounds given that the assessment has been carried out in accordance with guidelines stated in LAQM TG (S) 16 in all aspects except model verification, which we understand is due to insufficient monitoring data, and the model predicted that all pollutants assessed were predicted to be well below the relevant objectives with the development in place.

1.3 However, the local authority is the responsible authority for local air quality management under the Environment Act 1995. The Council's Environmental Health Department may be able to advise further on air quality model verification for developments in this area, using their local knowledge of the Council's air quality monitoring network.

1.4 We want to draw attention to EPUK and IAQM guidance; Land Use Planning and Development Control Planning for Air Quality which provides a section on 'Principles of Good Practice'. The section outlines examples of good practice for air quality mitigation in the design and operational phases of development.

1.5 The City of Edinburgh Council should take these principals in to consideration, in particular provision of electric vehicle charging points which may encourage the uptake of low emission vehicles in the area helping to reduce transport emissions which are the predominate contributor to poor air quality in Scotland.

Scottish Natural Heritage

Summary

We provide detailed advice on the proposal in the Annex. This includes advice on wider strategic matters, advice and recommendations on landscape and visual impacts, green infrastructure and placemaking, and ecological/species surveys.

Annex

Strategic context

Development Management Sub-Committee – 25 April 2018 Page 66 of 73 16/05217/PPP

We note that the Local Development Plan has now been adopted. We support the key issues and development principles that are set out in site development briefs and associated supplementary guidance. From a natural heritage point of view we consider the development plan preparation process has allowed appropriate consideration of the wider strategic and functional implications of changes to the green belt, including the role of remaining areas in providing a landscape setting for the city and its surrounding settlements. The process of LDP preparation also allowed consideration of the local and wider role of green infrastructure and open space provision, both within and around development sites. We therefore consider that the LDP has a critical role to play in setting the direction for integrated green infrastructure delivery and sustainable city growth into the future.

This site is not allocated in the LDP and has not been considered in these terms. We therefore highlight that it may, along with other non-conforming proposed developments in the West Edinburgh area, compromise long term green belt objectives. In particular we highlight the key issue of maintaining the landscape setting of the City of Edinburgh and settlements in the west of the local authority area. We also consider that it could compromise the assessment of, and need to plan strategically for, active travel and green infrastructure as an integral part of any longer term growth of the city. For example, as per "Long Term Growth Corridors" and associated "Placemaking Principles" as set out in the Proposed Plan of SESPlan 2.

Given other proposed developments in the wider West Edinburgh area, including the East Millburn Tower application and the Malcolmstone Cottages, Hatton Village and Craigiehall proposals, we highlight the potential for this site to have wider cumulative effects on the landscape setting of the city and surrounding settlements, as well as the landscape character and visual amenity of the existing rural environs of the city.

Appraisal of proposal

Landscape and Visual Impacts, green infrastructure and placemaking

This site itself is on a gently rising slope, within a reasonably prominent and partly open landscape context, characterised by a large arable field to the east of the Riccarton Mains Road. From the more elevated areas of the site and from the southern end of Riccarton Mains Road there are open views (with pylons) available eastwards towards the city of Edinburgh and its landmark features. These views are restricted from the northern sections of the road by embankments and narrow strips of roadside woodland planting.

The proposal seeks to remove the pylons, and create an urban "village" with a defined central open space. Flatted development, other housing and associated landscaping is to be accommodated along Riccarton Mains Road in order to change its character and create a more street like environment, with new access links and pedestrian crossings proposed to allow connectivity across the road and to the existing university campus. Along with tree lined linkages which connect to the central open space, structural landscaped edges to the development are proposed, with such areas also containing SUDS, amenity space and a strongly defined formal and informal path network.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 25 April 2018 Page 67 of 73 16/05217/PPP

The proposal will by its nature have some significant localised landscape and visual impacts. Such impacts will include the change to the landscape character of the area as experienced from areas around and within the site and along a short section of Riccarton Mains Road, where there will also be a loss of available views from the road towards the City of Edinburgh and its landmark features. There will also be some degree of change in the relatively limited range of views towards the site through the introduction of built form and street lighting. These effects will be partially mitigated over time by the establishment of the landscape framework planting.

We consider the proposed approach to site layout and green infrastructure design (as set out in dwg 13.1: The Masterplan and dwg 15.0: Landscape Strategy) has the potential to provide an appropriately considered response to the landscape and visual impact issues of the site's context, while also addressing the placemaking opportunities presented by the site. The structural landscaping, connecting tree-lined streets and the more formal village centre open space could, if detailed and implemented to high design standards, provide an appropriate hierarchy and connectivity of open spaces. The proposed layout of the framework planting has the potential, particularly over time, to reduce the impacts of the development on local landscape character and visual amenity. The proposed framework also has the potential to provide a defined landscape setting and multi-functional green network resource for the proposed development and immediately surrounding areas.

If the City of Edinburgh Council was minded to approve this application we would advise that the proposals for the structural landscape layout and the provision of open space are secured to the scale and locations as proposed. Further details of landscape design and open space functionality will be needed, including details of measures to promote all ability access along proposed path routes and make appropriate connections with surrounding routes. We would also advise that the details of long term arrangements for landscape maintenance and management should also be secured.

Ecology

Firth of Forth Special Protection Area (SPA) - Habitat Regulations Appraisal The site is within proximity to the Firth of Forth SPA, designated for its wintering wildfowl and waders, including pink-footed geese. Although the majority of these birds are unlikely to roost or feed more than a couple of kilometres from the coast, geese are known to travel up to 20km to forage. The site's status means that the requirements of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 as amended (the "Habitats Regulations") apply.

The City of Edinburgh Council is therefore required to consider the effect of the proposal on the SPA before the development can be consented, under a Habitats Regulations Appraisal (HRA). http://www.snh.gov.uk/protecting-scotlands- nature/protected-areas/international-designations/natura-sites/habitats-regulations-and- hra/. The SNH website has a summary of the legislative requirements: http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/A423286.pdf

Development Management Sub-Committee – 25 April 2018 Page 68 of 73 16/05217/PPP

The sites allocated within the adopted second Local Development Plan have undergone an HRA as part of the Plan process. Any sites coming forward outwith the LDP, that have potential supporting habitat on site, will require an HRA to be carried out to assess whether there are likely to be significant effects and therefore whether an appropriate assessment is required. This means that sufficient information, which is likely to be in the form of bird survey data, as well as other available contextual information, should be submitted as part of an application to allow the council to undertake an HRA. Currently there is insufficient information to determine whether the proposal is likely to have a significant effect on pink footed geese. No bird surveys have been undertaken for this proposal, and at present, there is little information on pink footed goose use in this part of West Edinburgh. Therefore, standard bird (in this case specifically goose) survey work will be required. Two years wintering bird surveys are the norm, or one year if there's appropriate contextual information available alongside this.

Protected Species

The Ecology chapter of the ES outlines potential effects on badger, otter and bats, with pre-construction surveys recommended to assess effects nearer the time. An extended Phase 1 survey was undertaken for the EIA but no specific protected species surveys were carried out. It should be noted that effects on protected species must be determined at the planning stage, as outlined in 4.8 and 4.10. This also allows confidence in assessing impacts on species within the EIA process. Our website has guidance on carrying out appropriate protected species surveys for development, and identifying associated mitigation or licensing requirements: http://www.snh.gov.uk/planning-and-development/advice-for-planners-and- developers/protected-animals/

However, through incidental observation as part of the Phase 1 survey, no evidence of protected species were noted on site. If there's confidence in these findings, then the standard mitigation listed in the ES will apply, including pre-construction surveys to check the status of species on site at the time of development. Further comments are provided below:

Bats - It is noted that no vegetation/trees are earmarked for removal at this stage, and therefore no impacts on bats are anticipated. Detailed roost surveys are therefore not required at this stage and will only be carried out if trees are to be removed.

Otter - no signs of otter were recorded although the Murray Burn has some potential as a foraging/commuting route. Our advice is that no licences are required but this should be checked again through pre-construction surveys, as otters are mobile animals.

Badgers - It's noted that no signs of badger were found on site and therefore our advice is that no licences will be required. It is assumed that this included checks for setts in close proximity to the site to ensure that there would be no disturbance and associated licence requirements.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 25 April 2018 Page 69 of 73 16/05217/PPP

It is acknowledged that there's an established badger population in the adjacent Riccarton estate and 4.71 mentions that the site could fall within the wider territory of these badgers. Best practice for badger surveys includes identifying their territories which would allow for an accurate assessment of impacts on badgers of development of this site, and what associated landscaping/mitigation may be required. Further detailed surveys will be required in due course to allow identification of necessary/adequate mitigation, particularly if nearby setts are identified.

Scottish Natural Heritage

Many thanks for the updated report Appropriate Assessment; Riccarton Mains Village (Neo Environmental, 03/05/2017). We are content that this revised report presents evidence to support the conclusion that the proposed development (ref: 16/05217/PPP) will not have an adverse affect on the integrity of the Firth of Forth Special protection Area.

Scottish Natural Heritage

SNH are content that the revised report presents evidence to support the conclusion that the proposed development (ref: 16/05217/PPP) will not have an adverse affect on the integrity of the Firth of Forth Special protection Area and so no further consideration of the SPA would be required in this case.

Scottish Natural Heritage

Thank you for consulting us on the addendum to the ES consultation (updated Transport Assessment). I can confirm that we have no further comments to make at this stage and our advice therefore remains unchanged from our original response, dated 22 December 2016.

Transport Scotland

The Director does not propose to advise against the granting of permission.

Transport Scotland further comment

Transport Scotland have reviewed the updated Transport Assessment and do not have any comments to make. Consequently, our previous response is unchanged

Waste Services

The Waste and Cleansing Service provides a household waste collection service only. We do not offer commercial waste collections -except to our own buildings- and for those elements it is the responsibility of building management or tenants to ensure they have services in place and comply with all pertinent legislation.

The elements of this proposal that I think we would provide a service to would be the following:

The residential development (approx 200); the flats integrated into other buildings; and the affordable housing.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 25 April 2018 Page 70 of 73 16/05217/PPP

Assuming the community hall is a Council premises we would provide the collection service and they would pay us; if it is not a Council property, we may still provide a domestic waste collection, and then they would contract a commercial provider to collect the rest.

The status of the student accommodation is less clear, and would depend on a number of factors including how it is rated and valued. If it is domestic then we would provide a domestic waste collection but may in future charge for collecting waste in out of term lets (which are profit making). If it is not rated domestically it will be commercial and for the operator to manage (see below).

In the documents provided I was not able find any mention of the waste management strategy for the site.

In order to comply with our strategies and policies, we would expect the domestic waste collection to consist of the following elements:

- each property to receive either a kerbside collection or a communal bin collection

- each collection to include the FULL range of waste and recycling services. We will not provide a partial service and provision must be made for all containers; -off street storage for all waste streams (which does not appear to be the case from the drawings provided?)

Consideration of how bulky waste will be managed;

- cognisance of our operational needs with regards to vehicle size, access, health and safety, access to bin stores, etc;

As I say, I could not see any evidence that this has been considered (please excuse me if I have overlooked it) and accordingly I would advise that he architects should contact Justine Taylor to discuss these matters as soon as possible.

With regard to the other (non domestic) policies, can I please draw your attention to the legislation with regard to commercial waste in Scotland which requires the producers of commercial waste to sort their waste for a recycling. I would further highlight that the collectors of the commercial waste are likely to have similar operational, access and safety requirements to the Council.

Scottish Water comment on ES addendum

Scottish Water has no objection to this planning application; however, the applicant should be aware that this does not confirm that the proposed development can currently be serviced and would advise the following: Water o There is currently sufficient capacity in the Marchbank Water Treatment Works. However, please note that further investigations may be required to be carried out once a formal application has been submitted to us.

Foul

Development Management Sub-Committee – 25 April 2018 Page 71 of 73 16/05217/PPP o There is currently sufficient capacity in the Edinburgh PFI Waste Water Treatment Works. However, please note that further investigations may be required to be carried out once a formal application has been submitted to us.

The applicant should be aware that we are unable to reserve capacity at our water and/or waste water treatment works for their proposed development. Once a formal connection application is submitted to Scottish Water after full planning permission has been granted, we will review the availability of capacity at that time and advise the applicant accordingly.

Infrastructure within boundary

According to our records, the development proposals impact on existing Scottish Water assets. o 6" Cast Iron Water Pipe & Combined Sewer pipework runs through the site boundary

We can confirm that we have made our Asset Impact Team aware of this proposed development however the applicant will be required to contact them directly at [email protected].

The applicant should be aware that any conflict with assets identified may be subject to restrictions on proximity of construction.

Flood Prevention comment

The consultant has confirmed that they have used due skill and care as part of the design process. The development will result in surface water being better managed with flows from the site directed away from cottage towards the North. As a result flood prevention do not have any concerns about any detriment to the flood risk of this property.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 25 April 2018 Page 72 of 73 16/05217/PPP

Location Plan

Development Management Sub-Committee – 25 April 2018 Page 73 of 73 16/05217/PPP

City of Edinburgh Council

10am, Thursday 31 May 2018

Outcome of the Statutory Consultation Process on the Proposal to build a new Non-Denominational Secondary School to replace Castlebrae High School and Implement Minor Catchment Change to Formalise and Align Catchment Boundaries

Item number Report number Executive/routine Wards Portobello/Craigmillar Council Commitments 28

Executive Summary

On 10 October 2017 the Education, Children and Families Committee approved that a statutory consultation be undertaken on the proposal to provide a new secondary school to replace Castlebrae High School on the site identified in Craigmillar Town Centre. The Committee also approved the consultation of minor catchment review to formalise and align catchment boundaries as a result of new build housing within this area. A statutory consultation was undertaken between 13 November 2017 and 22 December 2017. The purpose of this report is to advise on the outcome of the consultation. It is recommended that the proposal to relocate Castlebrae High School to a new building in Craigmillar town centre be progressed and that the school catchment changes outlined in the statutory consultation paper are implemented.

Report

1. Recommendations

1.1 Approve that the proposal to relocate Castlebrae High School to a new building in Craigmillar town centre is progressed. 1.2 Approve that the minor changes to formalise and align catchment boundaries outlined in the statutory consultation paper are implemented in the November prior to the new building opening.

2. Background

2.1 The vision of a replacement Castlebrae High School in the town centre of Craigmillar has been a key part of the masterplan taking forward the regeneration of Craigmillar town centre. The original masterplan for the regeneration of the Craigmillar area showed the site for a new secondary school and community library in a town centre location. The rationale for relocating the school is: a) to give it a more prominent location in Craigmillar; b) to endeavour to make it a more popular choice for its catchment population and; c) to be a significant contributor to the regeneration of the town centre. 2.2 A statutory consultation exercise under the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 was conducted in 2002 which supported the decision to relocate the school to a town centre site for educational reasons. Although the original masterplan has been superseded since 2002 and the community library has now been provided as part of the new East Neighbourhood Centre, a revised town centre masterplan, which was consulted-on and presented in 2014, continues to allocate a town centre site for the new secondary school. 2.3 On 10 October 2017 the Education, Children and Families Committee approved that a statutory consultation should be undertaken on the proposal to provide a new secondary school to replace Castlebrae High School on the site identified in Craigmillar Town Centre.

City of Edinburgh Council – 31 May 2018 Page 2

2.4 The triangular piece of land at the front of the school will be considered as part of the new school project and developed by the Project team. However, once the school is delivered the intention is the land will be handed back to be maintained as public realm by appropriate Council services. 2.5 In summary, the statutory consultation paper proposed the following:  Building of a new non-denominational secondary school to replace Castlebrae High School;  Implement a minor catchment change to formalise and align catchment boundaries for residents at the Wisp and Cloverfoot Cottages.

3. Main report

3.1 The statutory consultation period ran from 13 November 2017 to 22 December 2017. The full statutory consultation paper is available online and a summary paper provided during the consultation period is attached in Appendix 1. A copy of the full statutory consultation paper is also available in the Elected Members lounge for reference. 3.2 One public meeting was held during the consultation period on 28 November 2017 at Castlebrae High School. The public meeting was independently chaired. Council officials answered questions following a short presentation. A record of the meeting is included in Appendix 2. 3.3 Representations on the proposal were invited by letter, email or through a specifically designed online response questionnaire. There were 25 representations received. The number of completed online questionnaires was 24 with 1 comment received by email. The tables in Appendix 3 and Appendix 4 list all the representations received and a summary of the issues that were raised. The full submissions are available in the Elected Members lounge for reference. 3.4 The majority of representations made were from parents or local residents. Those who responded using the online questionnaire were asked whether they supported the proposal as detailed in the statutory consultation paper. There were 16 (66.67%) responded that they did and 6 (25%) responded that they did not. A further 2 (8.33%) did not respond to this question. The comment received by email expressed support for the proposal. 3.5 Some respondents have suggested that the name of the new building is changed and engagement with the school and local community will take this forward in due course. 3.6 A consultation exercise with a selection of pupils was also carried out at Newcraighall, Castleview and Niddrie Mill Primary Schools. The exercise was focused on what the pupils thought a new high school building should be like. A summary of the main points raised by pupils are available at Appendix 5 and have also been placed in the Elected Members lounge for reference.

City of Edinburgh Council – 31 May 2018 Page 3

3.7 There are some housing development sites identified by the Council’s Local Development Plan that will be affected by the proposal (as shown in Appendix 7). The catchment boundary of the replacement Castlebrae High School is being realigned so that it includes the housing development sites known as ‘New Greendykes’ and ‘The Wisp’. These sites are not currently within any secondary school catchment area and therefore pupils living in these areas would have been assigned to the nearest appropriate school. The nearest appropriate school would be Castlebrae High School and therefore the proposal will formalise the current arrangement and provide families with more certainty. 3.8 The housing development site known as ‘Edmonstone’ will not be aligned to a particular secondary school at this time. Development of this site has not yet commenced and therefore the appropriate primary and secondary catchment areas will be identified at a later date, taking account of the particular circumstances at that time. Key Themes and Issues and Council Responses 3.9 This section draws out the main themes and issues that were raised during the consultation period and sets out the Council’s response. 3.10 A number of issues and points were raised and these have been drawn out and aggregated into a number of themes which are identified in the table below which shows the percentage of responses received (where a comment was made) which contained a point or issue relating to that theme. Appendix 5 provides details of the various issues and points raised under each theme together with the Council’s response.

Theme % of Responses

Traffic, Cycling, Safety 24%

Timescales 8%

School Issues 24%

Catchment 12%

Proposed location 66.7%

Change of name 4%

Swimming pool 4%

City of Edinburgh Council – 31 May 2018 Page 4

3.11 In summary, the three issues most commonly raised by respondents to the consultation were: The Proposed location There was a mix of respondents both supporting the build of the new school on the identified site and those that felt it was not the right location. Traffic, Cycling and Safety Concerns were principally focussed on the volume of traffic currently on Niddrie Mains road and the perceived increase in traffic the new school would create, along with safety of pupils walking to the new school. School Issues Responses included suggestion of catchment review, changing the name and inclusion of a swimming pool. Detailed responses can be found in Appendix 4 but a summary response is noted below: Summary Response Niddrie Mains working group has already been established outwith this project with members from Transport, Lothian buses, Environment and Planning who are, amongst other things looking at how the slow traffic flow on Niddrie Mains Road can be improved. e.g. sequencing of traffic lights. A green travel plan for the school is in the process of being developed which involves engagement with pupils, staff and parents / carers. The suggestion of changing the name of the establishment will be taken forward as part of the project. There appears to be a desire for this from the school community. Education Scotland 3.12 As required by the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010 as amended by the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014, all of the responses received during the public consultation were made available to Education Scotland for consideration. Education Scotland visited Castlebrae High School, Castleview Primary School and Newcraighall Primary School, including discussion with relevant consultees , and Head Teachers of Niddrie Mill Primary School and Prestonfield Primary School before producing their final report. Education Scotland’s report on the educational aspects of the proposals was received by the Council in January 2018. This report is attached in Appendix 6. 3.13 The conclusion of Education Scotland is that the proposal has clear educational benefits. The report states that ‘The Council’s proposal paper provides a positive case for a new secondary school and outlines the clear educational benefits which will result.’

City of Edinburgh Council – 31 May 2018 Page 5

3.14 The report outlines that stakeholders will be integral to decisions made on the type of building to be delivered. Education Scotland noted that almost all stakeholders they met fully supported the proposal to build a new secondary school. However, they did note that a group of parents at Newcraighall Primary School felt the Council had not fully considered the needs of families living in the Newcraighall catchment, particularly safe walking routes to school from the Gilberstoun estate. 3.15 Accordingly, Education Scotland did comment that in taking the proposal forward, the Council will need to address safer routes to school. 3.16 Furthermore Education Scotland requested fuller information in this report on the proposed minor catchment realignment in terms of timescales and impact particularly for future inhabitants of addresses affected be provided in the report. Response to Education Scotland 3.17 The Act requires that the Council’s consultation report include ‘a statement of the authority’s response to Education Scotland’s report’. The Council’s response to the four key issues is provided in the following table.

Issue The Council needs to address concerns raised by stakeholders Raised about road safety around the proposed location for the new school and safe walking routes to school, particularly from the Gilberstoun estate

Council A strategy to ensure the provision of safe routes to the new school Response will be developed at the same time as the design of the new school building. Following completion of the new school building, parents and pupils will continue to be involved in monitoring these routes and identifying where improvements may be made through the agreement of the School Green Travel plan.

Issue A few stakeholders raised concerns regarding possible traffic Raised congestion and the safety around the proposed site. The Council will need to address these as the project progresses.

Council The Council are aware of the congestion of traffic on Niddrie Response Mains Road and the Niddrie Mains Working Group are committed to try to find ways to alleviate pressure points.

Issue The Council should engage with all stakeholders across the whole Raised catchment area further. This includes sharing details of its plans and timeline for transition for the new schools. The views of stakeholders should be taken into account as the project progresses.

City of Edinburgh Council – 31 May 2018 Page 6

Council The Council will engage further with the school community at Response appropriate stages during the project including at the end of key decision phases. There are plans for a display and Q and A session in the local library in May and attendance at Portobello and Craigmillar Community Partnership meeting at end April. The school itself is actively involved in meetings. There will be further ongoing engagement as the project goes forward once funding is approved. Pupils, parents / carers and staff will be fully supported by the Schools and Lifelong Learning team to plan and implement transition to the new school.

Issue The Council need to provide fuller information in relation to the Raised catchment realignment, including catchment realignment, including timescales and impact on future inhabitants of addresses affected.

Council There are some housing development sites identified by the Response Council’s Local Development Plan that will be affected by the proposal (as shown in Appendix 7). The catchment boundary of the replacement Castlebrae High School is being realigned so that it includes the housing development sites known as ‘New Greendykes’ and ‘The Wisp’. These sites are not currently within any secondary school catchment area and therefore pupils living in these areas would have been assigned to the nearest appropriate school. The nearest appropriate school would be Castlebrae High School and therefore the proposal will formalise the current arrangement and provide families with more certainty. The housing development site known as ‘Edmonstone’ will not be aligned to a particular secondary school at this time. Development of this site has not yet commenced and therefore the appropriate primary and secondary catchment areas will be identified at a later date, taking account of the particular circumstances at that time.

Conclusions 3.18 It is concluded that there is significant support for the proposal. It is also clear that the proposal addresses the poor accommodation at the current school and, as set out in Education Scotland’s response to the proposals, offers significant educational benefits for pupils. 3.19 The concerns raised principally relate to increased traffic around the new school, safer routes to the new school and the school being in the right location.

City of Edinburgh Council – 31 May 2018 Page 7

3.20 The minor catchment changes do not affect any children current at school and identify a catchment school for new residents on completion of the proposed new housing. 3.21 The Council believes that the site is appropriate having been identified in the Local Development plan. The Council is committed to developing a travel plan which will address safer routes to school. Accordingly, it is recommended that the proposal be approved.

4. Measures of success

4.1 The provision of a new secondary school that will meet the needs of future pupils and the wider community.

5. Financial impact

5.1 The latest financial update for the project to build a replacement Castlebrae High School was included in the Capital Investment Programme report to the Finance and Resources Committee on 8 February 2018.

6. Risk, policy, compliance and governance impact

6.1 The most significant risk is that this project will not be delivered at an appropriate time and the measure of success not be achieved due to funding not being secured.

7. Equalities impact

7.1 There are no negative equality or human rights impacts arising from this report. 7.2 The Council will continue to ensure that the needs of pupils who have a disability are met by the accommodation available at the new school building. The provision of facilities offered to school users with learning and behavioural support needs will be unaffected. 7.3 Accordingly, these proposals have no significant impact on any equalities groups and provide greater opportunities for catchment pupils to attend their catchment school. For these reasons, the overall equalities relevance score is 1 (out of a possible 9) and a full Equalities Impact Assessment is not required.

8. Sustainability impact

8.1 Whilst progressing the proposal would see the creation of a new, larger building, the purpose is to create fit for purpose accommodation to meet demand. The new

City of Edinburgh Council – 31 May 2018 Page 8

building would be designed to minimise the impact on carbon emissions and energy consumption.

9. Consultation and engagement

9.1 The statutory consultation process ran from 13 November 2017 to 22 December 2017 and has been undertaken according to the procedures set out in the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010 as amended by the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014.

10. Background reading/external references

10.1 Statutory Consultation – A Replacement for Castlebrae High School: Education, Children and Families Committee, 10 October 2017. 10.2 Statutory Consultation Paper. Proposal to build a new Non-Denominational Secondary School to replace Castlebrae High School and Implement Minor Catchment Change to Formalise and Align Catchment Boundaries.

Alistair Gaw Executive Director for Communities and Families Contact: Crawford McGhie, Acting Head of Operational Support E-mail: [email protected] | Tel: 0131 469 3149

11. Appendices

Appendix 1 Summary of statutory consultation paper Appendix 2 Record of statutory consultation meeting Appendix 3 Summary of representations Appendix 4 Key themes and issues and Council responses Appendix 5 Views of primary school pupils Appendix 6 Education Scotland Report

Appendix 7 Catchment/Boundary Plan

City of Edinburgh Council – 31 May 2018 Page 9

APPENDIX 1 Summary of the Consultation Paper Proposal to build a new Non-Denominational Secondary School to replace Castlebrae High School and Implement Minor Catchment Change to Formalise and Align Catchment Boundaries. Main points of the Statutory Consultation 1. The Education, Children and Families Committee agreed on 10 October 2017 that a statutory consultation should proceed on the proposal to provide a new secondary school to replace Castlebrae High School on the site identified in Craigmillar Town Centre. 2. The original masterplan for the regeneration of the Craigmillar area showed the site for a new secondary school and community library in a town centre location. The rationale for relocating the school is to a) give it a more prominent location in Craigmillar b) endeavour to make it a more popular choice for its catchment population and c) to be a significant contributor to the regeneration of the town centre. 3. The purpose of this statutory consultation exercise is to seek approval as required by the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010, as amended by the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 that a replacement school for Castlebrae High School can be provided on the proposed town centre site. 4. There is a plan of the proposed site below:

5. With city wide rising school rolls, the school site will be able to accommodate future expansion. It is therefore intended that although the school will be built for 700 pupils initially, it will be necessary

City of Edinburgh Council – 31 May 2018 Page 10

to plan in outline terms how and where the accommodation could be extended with minimum disruption to the operation of the school, to accommodate 1200 pupils. 6. As part of this statutory consultation It is proposed to formalise and align catchment boundaries in the Castlebrae catchment area with minor changes been made to both the non-denominational primary and secondary catchment areas. There will be no affect on pupils currently attending schools in the area. 7. One public meeting will be held in respect of the proposals at the venue listed below which will give interested parties a more formal opportunity to express their views. Representatives of the Council will be present at the meetings to outline the proposals, assist discussions and answer questions. Free childcare and/or translation services can be provided at each public meeting if requests for these services are made to (0131) 469 3969 no later than 21 November 2017.

1.1 Venue Date Time

2.1 Castlebrae High Tuesday 28 November 18:30 –20:30 School 2017

8. During the consultation period, which runs from Monday 13 November until Friday 22 December, any views on this proposal should be sent to in writing to the following address: Alistair Gaw, Executive Director of Communities and Families City of Edinburgh Council Council Headquarters Waverley Court Level 1:2 4 East Market Street Edinburgh EH8 8BG

9. Respondents are encouraged to use the response questionnaire. The response questionnaire can be completed online at www.edinburgh.gov.uk/replacementcastlebrae. Responses can also be made by e-mail to the following address [email protected] All responses, whether by letter, e-mail or using the online questionnaire should be received by no later than close of business on 22 December 2017.

City of Edinburgh Council – 31 May 2018 Page 11

APPENDIX 2 Record of Meeting

Proposal to build a new Non-Denominational Secondary School to replace Castlebrae High School and Implement Minor Catchment Change to Formalise and Align Catchment Boundaries Public Consultation Meeting held at 6.30 pm, Tuesday 28 November 2017, Castlebrae Community High School, Edinburgh

Present: Approximately 17 members of the public In Attendance: Tom Wood (Independent Chair), Councillor Alison Dickie (Vice-Convener of the Education, Children and Families Committee), Gillian Kennedy (Projects Manager, School Estates Planning), Crawford McGhie (Acting Head of Operational Resources), Vincent Spicer (Depute Head Teacher, Castlebrae Community High School), Keith Thomson (School Estates Advisor) and Veronica MacMillan (Committee Services).

1. Introduction

Tom Wood introduced himself and advised that he had been invited by the City of Edinburgh Council as an independent person to chair the public consultation meeting. Mr Wood thanked everyone for coming along and explained his role as well as introducing the key officers in attendance. It was explained that the consultation would continue until the 22 December 2017 and parents / community / interested parties had the opportunity to feed in comments until then. The Schools (Consultation Scotland) Act 2010 required the Council to conduct a public consultation ahead of a report on the proposals going to the City of Edinburgh Council for consideration in May 2018. The public consultation would provide people with the opportunity to express their views and feed directly into the consultation process.

Officers that represented the Council gave a presentation, as described below.

2. Presentation/Proposal

Gillian Kennedy (Projects Manager, School Estates Planning) delivered a presentation that provided some background information on the reasons behind the requirement for a new Castlebrae High School.

City of Edinburgh Council – 31 May 2018 Page 12

Requirement for Change

The existing school buildings were constructed in 1976 and 1984. There were significant issues with their suitability which constrained effective learning and teaching. In particular, poor circulation led to problems with management and security. Poor acoustic and environmental conditions in many parts of the building led to communication and comfort issues which were also a barrier to effective learning. The current Condition Survey report identified the existing school building as being in “poor” condition and had achieved a rating of C under current Core Facts Guidelines. Expenditure of £3,337,212 was required to maintain the school over the next five years. The survey only identified costs of repairs on a like for like basis. This did not consider improvements such as insulation or material performance upgrades, nor was account taken of suitability, accessibility or security. Proposal

Gillian Kennedy, Projects Manager, gave a presentation on the proposals for the new Caslebrae Community High School. The site for the new school was displayed and it was explained that the site was chosen due to its position in the town centre which would hopefully attract more pupils from the surrounding area and contribute to the regeneration of the town centre. The Council was working in partnership with the Hub South East Scotland to scope the project and to bid for Scottish Government funding to contribute to the replacement of Castlebrae High School. A strong case was required to be put forward as other Councils were also bidding for funding. Space Strategies had been appointed to consult and work with staff, pupils and other stakeholders to develop a strategic design and space brief. JM Architects had also been appointed to design the building using information from Space Strategies and the public would be able to comment on the design during the process. Catchment alignment work was currently being carried out and it was highlighted that people living in the Wisp area currently had no catchment area. It was proposed that these pupils living in this area would go to Castleview Primary School and would then go onto Castlebrae High School. Question – There was new housing being built in the Wisp area and there were planning applications in the pipeline to build houses in the Edmonstone area. Which school would these pupils attend? Answer – (Crawford McGhie) – Currently these areas did not have any catchment area but part of the consultation would look at children in these areas attending Castleview Primary School and Castlebrae High School. Question – So would the catchment area include all of the Wisp?

City of Edinburgh Council – 31 May 2018 Page 13

Answer – (Crawford McGhie/Gillian Kennedy) – For this consultation we would only be looking at the Cloverfoot and adjacent houses on the Wisp Cottages. Currently pupils living there attend local schools. Those pupils living in the Edmonstone area would be part of a separate consultation to look at catchment areas. Question – Will the new primary school that’s in the Local Development Plan (LDP) be built? Answer – (Crawford McGhie) - It had been proposed that the primary school that was proposed to be built and was part of the Local Development Plan was no longer needed and that an extension of Castleview Primary School would be able to accommodate extra pupils. Question – So there would not be a new primary school built to accommodate the extra pupils moving into the area? Answer - (Crawford McGhie) – The current projections of the numbers of pupils moving into the area would require 3 additional classrooms which would not be enough to warrant building a new primary school. Tom Wood – Could I request that we let the presentation be completed and then we will take questions afterwards. Next Steps

Gillian Kennedy confirmed that the statutory consultation would continue until the 22 December 2017 and a report would be prepared for Education Scotland. In January and February 2018 Education Scotland would do their own consultation to check that the Council had carried out their consultation properly and the Council would produce a feedback report that would go to Full Council for consideration in May 2018 and at the same time there should be confirmation of the funding from Scottish Government to allow the business case to be put forward. Addresses were provided for parents to access further information and the online questionnaire. Parents were encouraged to fill in the questionnaire and feedback any comments they had. Mr Wood advised that Councillor Alison Dickie would like to say a few words before taking questions. Councillor Dickie introduced herself as the Vice-Convener of the Education, Children and Families Committee. Councillor Dickie explained that she had been a teacher and had a background in education and had visited Castlebrae High School with the Convener of the Education Children and Families Committee. Councillor Dickie had received positive presentations from the pupils, from Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) which were very impressive. There was a real sense of community in the school and the Council wanted to ensure that they get everything right in terms of the new school. The consultation was all about hearing the voices of the community and Councillor Dickie encouraged everyone to speak up.

City of Edinburgh Council – 31 May 2018 Page 14

3. Questions/Comments

Question 1 – I have concerns that the housing developments that are proposed at Edmonstone will have affluent people and less affluent people living in them, and that the line drawn on the map will mean that pupils from less affluent families will attend Castlebrae High School and those pupils from more affluent families will attend other High Schools. This will mean that the Edmonstone development will be turning its back on Craigmillar if that’s what happens. Answer – (Crawford McGhie) – The line drawn on the map is the line for the new catchment area for Castleview Primary School. At the moment we are not sure where these new houses will be built but they should feed into the existing school. The projections indicate that the additional pupils coming into the area will require 3 extra classrooms to be built onto Castleview Primary School. We would rather that these pupils fed into the existing school rather than build a new primary school. Follow-up Question – I suppose it’s about the infrastructure and the roads, and where they lead to. If we are not careful, Craigmillar may not benefit from the new development. There is also a bit of confusion about the catchment area for Edmonstone. It was envisaged that these developments would feed into Craigmillar and not Gilmerton. Follow-up Answer - (Crawford McGhie) – I’m happy to provide more details with a map and details of current planning applications in the area and share some of that with the community. Part of the consultation will help to identify sites that are not part of the Castlebrae catchment area and that possibly should be and can be changed through the statutory consultation process. Question 2/Comment - (Councillor Maureen Child) – It is important to have a school that everyone wants to attend. There are some pupils that are attending Newcraighall Primary School that perhaps should be attending Castleview Primary School instead. All schools are excellent and it is important that they are promoted in a positive way. Follow-up Comment - It’s good to have a choice of where pupils go but you can’t always get your child into the school of your choice. There are also safety issues in some areas because of traffic. Question 3 – I love Castleview Primary School and totally support it being the feeder school for Castlebrae High School, but how is it going to accommodate the extra pupils. You mentioned an extension to the primary school, but how is that going to be done because it’s a PPI school isn’t it? Answer - (Crawford McGhie) – The proposals show that all sites apart from one will feed into Castleview Primary School. Three extra classrooms will be needed and an extension will be built. Follow-up Question – But where will the extension come from? Follow-up Answer – (Crawford McGhie) - We would look at the school and build 3 extra classrooms but would also look at extending the dining hall.

City of Edinburgh Council – 31 May 2018 Page 15

Follow-up Comments/Questions – But the gym hall is already small, it wouldn’t take much for the school to become full. Will the extension cause disruption to the school and would pupils would have to be moved elsewhere? There wouldn’t be time to build the school extension over the summer. Follow-up Answer - (Crawford McGhie) – We have built extensions to lots of schools and have carried out the works when the pupils have been there and have done so in a very safe manner. It is absolutely possible. Follow-up Comment - (Councillor Dickie) – I can confirm that there have been schools that have been extended when the pupils are present with minimal disruption. Question 4 – Castleview Primary School is a PPI school. How will the Council pay for the extension to Castleview Primary School? Or will the Council be charged rent on these classrooms and will be paying rent for evermore? Answer - (Crawford McGhie) – The way it’s been done before with PPI schools is that a red line is cut out of the agreement in order to allow the site to build the infrastructure and the Council pay for the Facilities Management (FM) responsibilities on the building. Question 5 – What is the timeframe for this because when this is all done the new school should be built by 2020, but if the report is not going to Council until May 2018 then that puts everything way behind schedule? Answer - (Crawford McGhie) – The statutory consultation paper states that if the full budget can be established by Full Council in February 2018 following the Council’s budget process then the new school should be ready by August 2021. Follow-up Question/Comment – Just one year behind – but you have to keep us informed. This consultation should have taken place months and months ago. No disrespect to any of the officers intended. Follow-up Answer - (Crawford McGhie) – There have been a few false starts but the budget setting happens in February every year. The new high school was put forward as a priority last year but didn’t get funding because it was competing with other priorities across the Council. Through the statutory consultation and Scottish Government funding we are trying to make it even more of a priority. We will know on the 22 May 2018 whether we have established the budget for the school and whether we will be meet the August 2021 target for building the school. Question 6 – The land for the size of the school, will it be big enough for the school? Answer - (Keith Thomson) – The land for the school is the same size as the site for Portobello High School but is a different shape. It is not constrained in any way in terms of the building that can be provided. The new High school is likely to be 3 or 4 storeys high, whereas Portobello High School is only 2 /3 storeys high. Question 7 – Will the all-weather pitches be available for community use and will this be facilitated through Edinburgh Leisure?

City of Edinburgh Council – 31 May 2018 Page 16

Answer - (Keith Thomson) – Yes, they will be available for community use and this is likely to be facilitated through Edinburgh Leisure after 6pm weekdays and at weekends which is the currently Council Policy. No decision has been made as yet. Follow-up Question – This wouldn’t give us community space that is big enough because Edinburgh Leisure wouldn’t accommodate it. Follow-up Answer - (Keith Thomson) – Community Access is something that can be discussed in the consultation process. Question 8 – Who will be on the Steering Group that you referred to and how do you choose them? Answer - (Gillian Kennedy/Keith Thomson) -The Investment Steering Group (ISG) is the strategic decision making group eg. Approval of funding, comprises senior Council colleagues and partners from agencies helping to build the school. There is another “steering group” formed of representatives from the school, corporate property and one or two other colleagues. A series of workshops, including community engagement are planned and the outcomes of these will be fed back to the steering group. We will be gathering the views of local groups and parents on the design of the school which will be fed in to the process. Follow-up Question – This is what I’m concerned about. People have been consulted to death about this. But the people in Craigmillar know how to do these things but get nervous about why you don’t have anybody from the community on these groups. We don’t want Council officers telling us what we need and want to raise this before the workshops are carried out. Follow-up Answer - (Crawford McGhie/Keith Thomson) – It is important the voice of the community is heard. The process that Keith described is necessary and there will be times when we need to engage with the wider community and there will be times where the design team are working independently. We need to let this process run, the high level elements can be boring and the lower level elements more interesting. There is perhaps a need for a group that is a constant throughout the process that is more about communication and has representatives from community groups on it that can feed back to the community. There could be representatives from the community council on this group. Question 9 – Newcraighall Primary School has not been very engaged in pupils from the school going to the new Castlebrae High School. The reality is there will not be a choice of where children go to High School. There needs to be more engagement with parents and the school to make Castlebrae High School a school of choice because it is not a school of choice at the moment. There are lots of questions from us about what happens if the new school isn’t built. Answer - (Deputy Headteacher) – There has been some ground breaking and innovative work going on in Castlebrae High School, aspirations are high, there has been a brilliant take up in sciences and good projects and partnerships taking place. We have reached out to the community.

City of Edinburgh Council – 31 May 2018 Page 17

Follow up Comment - We have a sense of not feeling this confidence and it is probably to do with being physically further away. Follow-up Answer - (Deputy Headteacher) – I think that has a lot to do with it but I think it is also historic and is because of the reputation that the school had. We now have stability and the school now feels that it has a future ahead of it. We have tried very hard to engage Newcraighall Primary School and we have had visits from Newcraighall. Follow-up Comment – As part of the new planned development it is important to make sure there are ways to make the school more attractive and change the perceptions of it. Follow-up Answer - (Deputy Headteacher) - What goes on within the school is equally as important, and what goes on within the school currently is top class teaching that is innovative and creative. We have seen a rise in attainment and attendance and we finally have some stability. It is not about what the school will become but it is what the building can do to reflect what we are now. Follow-up Answer - (Crawford McGhie) - We could do more engage cluster primaries about the new building process and get the pupils involved as they will be some of the first that will be using the building. We will take this away and progress this. Follow-up Comment - (Councillor Dickie) - There is some fantastic learning going on and I’m determined to get that out there and communicate the positive work that’s going on in the school and agree that the new building will just be a reflection of that. Question 10 – One of the highlights of the Portobello High School consultation was a virtual walk through of the project. Is that available for the Castlebrae High School? Answer – Yes, this technology is available. Headsets can be used to see everything that would potentially be in a room, carpets, furniture etc. Question 11 – Could you get the children involved in the virtual reality that’s been discussed? Answer – We could have groups of children to come to the site huts to view the virtual reality and then could be shown around the site to see the reality of the development. Question 12 – Are there any plans to change the name of the school? Answer (Crawford McGhie) – This is something that has not really been discussed. Follow-up Comment – Maybe we should ask the pupils what they think. It could be called Castleview High School in line with the name of the primary school. The school used to be known as ‘The Brae’. The leader of ‘Save the Brae’ was in attendance and was thanked for all the work he had done for helping to save Castlebrae High School. Question 13 - (Councillor Mary Campbell) – What are the plans for the site that will be left? What will happen to it? Answer – (Crawford McGhie) – There are no specific plans but I think the Council will try to generate funding out of it to pay for the new school. Follow-up Question - (Councillor Mary Campbell) – Are there any plans for the pitches?

City of Edinburgh Council – 31 May 2018 Page 18

Answer - (Crawford McGhie) – The intention is if there was a desire to keep the pitches and have a community organisation running them this would be taken forward. 5. Conclusion

Mr Wood brought questions to a close and asked for a final comments. Mr McGhie emphasised that there was a clear need for communication around the project with the community and with the cluster schools which the Council would improve upon. Councillor Dickie echoed what Mr McGhie said and emphasised to parents and the community that it was their school and they should be able to shape the new school. The meeting was concluded by Mr Wood by thanking everyone for coming and reminding everyone to feed into the consultation which concludes on the 22 December 2017. Mr Wood also thanked the school for their hospitality.

City of Edinburgh Council – 31 May 2018 Page 19

APPENDIX 3

SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS

transport(traffic, cycling, safety) timescales school issues catchment propsed location change name swimming pool

Reference ANON-NH95-NZGB-N ANON-NH95-NZGR-5 X ANON-NH95-NZGG-T X X ANON-NH95-NZGS-6 X X ANON-NH95-NZG9-C X ANON-NH95-NZG3-6 X X X X ANON-NH95-NZGZ-D X ANON-NH95-NZGP-3 X ANON-NH95-NZG6-9 X ANON-NH95-NZGJ-W X ANON-NH95-NZG5-8 X X ANON-NH95-NZGA- M X X X ANON-NH95-NZGX-B ANON-NH95-NZG8-B ANON-NH95-NZGC-P ANON-NH95-NZGU-8 X ANON-NH95-NZGM- Z X ANON-NH95-NZGH- U ANON-NH95-NZGY-C X ANON-NH95-NZDN-X ANON-NH95-NZDB-J ANON-NH95-NZDK-U ANON-NH95-NZDE-N X ANON-NH95-NZDR-2 X X 01 ANON X X

City of Edinburgh Council – 31 May 2018 Page 20

APPENDIX 4 Key themes and Issues and Council Responses

Timescales

Issue Ensure that the development once approved gets under way as soon as Raised possible staying within budget and will meet its deadline for completion.

Issue The school should be built as possible. Without it, the new town centre lacks Raised any kind of focus.

Council These comments have been noted. Response Funding still needs to be identified to progress to the building stage. Work is being done on the design of the building and once funding is identified the Council should be in a position to commence the project, subject to planning permission.

Transport (traffic, cycling, safety)

Issue The development of the school should be coupled with new segregated cycle Raised lanes Niddrie Mains Road.

Issue You cannot safely walk to the school from Gilberstoun even in its new Raised proposed position and it is still 2 buses. The only way to safely get to Craigmillar is to take 2 buses or drive.

Issue To walk to the new school will take over an hour and 15 minutes, not to Raised mention having to cross several extremely busy roads.

Issue You claim that the school's new location supports the council's transport Raised policy with good cycle and pedestrian links. This is emphatically untrue. It is near the innocent railway and the new paths towards the Royal Infirmary however it sits in a black spot between them both. Pavement cycling is rife down Niddrie Mains Road because the road is narrow and full of conflict unless you can cycle at the speed limit (and even still encounter aggressive driving from those who wish to speed). The location of the school makes this problem worse by cutting out a quiet cycle link between Peffer Place and Niddrie Mains Road. You need to put in a proper segregated cycle network which connects the Innocent Railway (both at Duddingston Road West and Hay Drive), Craigmillar Castle paths and the school. The pavement is currently more than wide enough down Niddrie Mains road to put in some high quality cycle infrastructure without meaningfully altering the ease of being a pedestrian, this would help alleviate the ridiculous traffic which builds up on Niddrie Mains Road, which will likely only get worse with the school relocation. How you can genuinely expect significant numbers of pupils to cycle to the new location legally with the current infrastructure is

City of Edinburgh Council – 31 May 2018 Page 21

beyond me. Also the pedestrian light timings at the junction of Craigmillar castle road and Peffermill road are a disgrace and a significant barrier to walking.

Council A green travel plan will be developed for the new school. Meetings have Response been requested with colleagues in safer routes to schools to start work on this. The Council would be happy to involve the Community if there is a desire for this.

Issue Traffic during rush hour is bad in the area with school being placed traffic will Raised increase. What will be done to alleviate this?

Issue It is on a very busy road which is only to get worse. The road at the moment Raised is hopeless and you still have hundreds of houses to come, and traffic running through the town centre.

Issue Traffic Raised

Council A detailed transport assessment will be included with the planning Response application. Niddrie Mains working group has already been established out with this project with members from Transport, Lothian buses, Environment and Planning who are, amongst other things looking at how the slow traffic flow on Niddrie Mains Road can be improved - e.g. sequencing of traffic lights. The school will not include a purpose designed drop off zone as this would encourage the use of cars and would therefore be counter to Council policy which encourages the use of alternative and sustainable means of transport

School issues

Issue I hope the school manages to keep the extra classes that they offer just now, Raised like the hairdressing which kids from other schools come along to use.

Issue Ensure school and community is involved throughout this process to gain a Raised school which would be fully supported by the local community.

Issue New school is needed, because the old one is no longer fit for modern Raised teaching.

Council Castlebrae HS has worked hard to engage with the community and cluster Responses schools to improve communication and relationships within the community. Numbers of pupils enrolling are increasing and the school has a good reputation within the school community. A new building will further enhance its standing both in terms of the location of the new building and the array of

City of Edinburgh Council – 31 May 2018 Page 22

partnerships that the school want to continue to develop within the Community and beyond.

Catchment

Issue I feel you want to force parents to send their children to Castlebrae by Raised widening the catchment area and with lack of spaces in other schools.

Issue We are Portobello and bought our homes thinking that. Many of us were Raised brought up in the Portobello area and went to Portobello school ourselves. Castlebrae as our catchment secondary is ludicrous and always has been. We shop in Portobello walk in Portobello. Live in Portobello. Are safe in Portobello. Residents here who want their children to attend a non- denominational school want it to be Portobello Secondary high school. It makes sense.

Issue Ultimately the catchment boundaries of Portobello High School will have to Raised shrink and Castlebrae will have to increase. The rebuilding of Castlebrae High School is a good time to change boundaries

Council There are currently no plans for a catchment review. Responses

Proposed location

Issue Change location Raised

Issue It is too far away from Gilberstoun. Raised

Issue If you want to encourage more parents to want to send their child to the new Raised Castlebrae secondary school not building it in the heart of Craigmillar is even more important.

Issue I feel to serve the whole of the widened community that has no affiliation to Raised Craigmillar town but are classed as Craigmillar because of the councils boundaries, that you want to serve, you need to choose a more neutral area. Possibly around Jack Kane.

Issue The new Castlebrae school is 2.6 miles away from where I currently live Raised

City of Edinburgh Council – 31 May 2018 Page 23

Issue The more central site is a good location and gives the school a higher profile Raised - also to be able to extend the building to accommodate extra pupils is forward planning.

Issue The location is wrong. Raised

Issue In comparison to Portobello High School which is 0.9 miles and would Raised require zero main roads to be crossed (due to the underpass at Milton link) with walk time of under 20 minutes or cycle in 10 minutes.

Issue If you live outside Craigmillar itself there is a great deal of fear about Raised personal safety within Craigmillar which is heightened when it comes to the safety of your children.

Issue Another silent reason parents are reluctant to send their children to Raised Castlebrae school in Craigmillar which is harder to change is its reputation of being in disreputable area.

Council The site for the new school was identified as part of the regeneration and Response redevelopment plans for the town centre. The school will remain central within its catchment area.

Change name

Issue Change the name of the school to give it a fresh start. Raised

Issue Unfortunately now the name of Castlebrae school also has its own poor Raised reputation to overcome so as not to pass this on to the pupils change the name.

Council If the location for the school and a budget to deliver it are approved there will Response be engagement with the school and community about what the name of the new school should be.

Swimming pool

Issue Having spoken to young people across the area, and staff, there is appetite Raised for the new school. But also to have a swimming pool with the pool, like at Craigroyston Young people feel they want a swimming pool for access to sport and recreation, as the nearest one to there is in Portobello. The only area in Edinburgh that doesn't have a swimming pool is this area, and with the rising family numbers of the area it'd be a great community resource

City of Edinburgh Council – 31 May 2018 Page 24

Council There is no funding or plans for a swimming pool to be included in the new Response school.

Other

Issue I requested all 3 of my children to attend Portobello Secondary school as it Raised was closer to our home, safer and easier to get to. It is now even closer and can be walked to in approximately 15 minutes. In fact the children would now have to pass Portobello School to get to Castlebrae School in Craigmillar. So I cannot support building Castlebrae secondary school, that for some reason we were given as our catchment school for Gilberstoun, to be built in the heart of Craigmillar.

Council No current plan for catchment review. response

Issue I would be interested where you intend on finding the other 600 children to Raised attend the new school.

Issue Close Castlebrae too much of my money has been spent on it for the Raised number of pupils.

Issue This is a complete waste of my money as full Council Tax payer. There is no Raised need for a new secondary school in Craigmillar -pupils should attend the schools which have a proven attainment record at Liberton, Portobello and Holyrood.

Issue Given that Portobello High School is soon going to struggle to accommodate Raised the number of in-catchment children, then the council had better build an extra-large Castlebrae High School. The new Castlebrae will have to accommodate all of its in-catchment children who will no longer be able to choose Portobello High school plus more children moving in due to population increase/house building.

Issue Why are you investing £12 Million in a new school for 700 pupils when the Raised current intake is only 130 at most (and has been for many years)? For a council who is currently very desperate to see cuts to save money, does this make sense?

Issue You say you are going to build the school for 700 pupils This seem a Raised ludicrously small number as on top of all the new houses being built already there are new houses proposed to be built in New Brunstane, master plan by Edinburgh council for at least 1400 new homes and a new Primary school.

City of Edinburgh Council – 31 May 2018 Page 25

These children need a proper secondary school that’s big enough and in the right place not bits and pieces added on to a woefully inadequate small school that already has a bad reputation

Council School rolls are rising and coupled with major house building in the area the Response school is being built to accommodate this rise in population. There is also an expansion strategy planned if required which would allow 1200 pupils to attend. The current condition of Castlebrae is poor and the school will need substantial investment to keep it running. There is a lack of space in neighbouring schools.

City of Edinburgh Council – 31 May 2018 Page 26

APPENDIX 5 Primary school workshops to explore further what pupils at feeder primary would like to see in a new Craigmillar HS Wednesday 23 January

Newcraighall (10 pupils) Thoughts about Current Castlebrae HS Negative:- Rundown (4), looks abandoned(8), doesn’t look safe, dusty / dirty (all), small (4) Don’t like the building, don’t feel safe Positive:- It is welcoming – like the paintings in reception area and the quotes – nice and warm How do I like to learn :- Mix of learning but most pupils preferred to work in groups and be able to walk around Compared to primary Should have a swimming pool Most preferred to learn collaboratively and would like breakout spaces Wanted it to be very different to primary New building Should have a pool / big games hall, astroturf Inspirational spaces / setting to help learning Cafe as well as dining area Comfortable environment. 50/50 split for beanbags, big stools All wanted booths Mixed furniture in dining space, both tables and chairs and sofas Would like covered outside seating Good signage to help find way around the building

Niddrie Mill (15 pupils) Thoughts about Current Castlebrae HS Negative:- Don’t like current Castlebrae – run down, signage not good, confusing inside, dining hall too small

City of Edinburgh Council – 31 May 2018 Page 27

Not anything positive How do I like to learn:- Pupils split about how they learn with a mix of alone, teacher led and group working. Most preferred to work when they are able to move around What do I want in my new high school:- All wanted booths, beanbags, high level bench seating and stepped seating that you can sit and walk up Access to computers important for self directed learning / improved technology generally All wanted a swimming pool Light and bright and welcoming Astroturf (at last one) Good size dining hall with a mix of furniture but not overcrowded Covered outside space - all like being outside if its dry and would go outside if they could stay dry. Picnic tables would be good Fitenss suite, gym, swimming, football – things to improve fitness levels

Castleview Primary school Thoughts about Current Castlebrae HS Negative : Don’t like the location Old Can find your way because its small Should have a swimming pool Dining hall too small Don’t like the school – don’t feel safe Get lost – poor signage Positive :- Office area welcoming but it feels like you’re in a box How we learn:- Real mix of alone, in groups, with teacher, sitting down or moving around – depends on task Liked space settings – booths, beanbags ( 2 pupils only), stepped seating in PE perhaps to allow for viewing What they want in a new school Swimming pool Stage Big PE hall Astroturf

City of Edinburgh Council – 31 May 2018 Page 28

Relaxation area Greenhouse Outdoor learning spaces and covered outdoor seating Grass areas, flowers Big dining room Good technology Spaces to learn together Booths and spaces to study after school Good flexible furniture and space

City of Edinburgh Council – 31 May 2018 Page 29

APPENDIX 6 Report by Education Scotland addressing educational aspects of the proposal by The City of Edinburgh Council to build a new non-denominational secondary school to replace Castlebrae High School and implement minor catchment change to formalise and align catchment boundaries.

1. Introduction

1.1 This report from Education Scotland has been prepared by Her Majesty’s Inspectors of Education (HM Inspectors) in accordance with the terms of the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010 and the amendments contained in the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014. The purpose of the report is to provide an independent and impartial consideration of The City of Edinburgh Council’s proposal to build a new non-denominational secondary school to replace Castlebrae High School and implement minor catchment change to formalise and align catchment boundaries. Section 2 of the report sets out brief details of the consultation process. Section 3 of the report sets out HM Inspectors’ consideration of the educational aspects of the proposal, including significant views expressed by consultees. Section 4 summarises HM Inspectors’ overall view of the proposal. Upon receipt of this report, the Act requires the council to consider it and then prepare its final consultation report. The council’s final consultation report should include a copy of this report and must contain an explanation of how, in finalising the proposal, it has reviewed the initial proposal, including a summary of points raised during the consultation process and the council’s response to them. The council has to publish its final consultation report three weeks before it takes its final decision. Where a council is proposing to close a school, it needs to follow all legislative obligations set out in the 2010 Act, including notifying Ministers within six working days of making its final decision and explaining to consultees the opportunity they have to make representations to Ministers.

1.2 HM Inspectors considered:  the likely effects of the proposal for children and young people of the schools; any other users; children likely to become pupils within two years of the date of publication of the proposal paper; and other children and young people in the council area;  any other likely effects of the proposal;  how the council intends to minimise or avoid any adverse effects that may arise from the proposal; and  the educational benefits the council believes will result from implementation of the proposal, and the council’s reasons for coming to these beliefs.

1.3 In preparing this report, HM Inspectors undertook the following activities:  consideration of all relevant documentation provided by the council in relation to the proposal, specifically the educational benefits statement and related consultation documents, written and oral submissions from parents and others; and  visits to the site of Castlebrae High School, Castleview Primary School, Newcraighall Primary School, including discussion with relevant consultees, along with headteachers of Niddrie Mill Primary School and Prestonfield Primary School. City of Edinburgh Council – 31 May 2018 Page 30

2. Consultation Process

2.1 The City of Edinburgh Council undertook the consultation on its proposals with reference to the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010 and the amendments in the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014.

2.2 The main proposal within the consultation is to build a new non-denominational secondary school to replace Castlebrae High School, in Craigmillar. Along with this, there is an additional proposal to implement minor catchment changes to formalise and align particular catchment boundaries.

2.3 The council undertook the consultation between 13 November 2017 and 22 December 2017. Copies of the proposal document were intimated to stakeholders and placed in local schools and in Craigmillar Library. Notices were placed on the council’s website. Young people of Castlebrae High School were given the opportunity to provide their views in meetings led by school staff. A public meeting held on 28 November 2017 was attended by 17 members of the public. The council received 24 responses to its consultation questionnaire and one additional written response. Overall, the majority of respondents support the proposal to build a new secondary school.

2.4 HM Inspectors were made aware during their school visits that the council is planning to undertake consultation with primary school children in forthcoming weeks. In taking forward the proposal, the council should engage with all stakeholders and share information in its final report regarding the views of stakeholders.

3. Educational Aspects of Proposal

3.1 The council has stated that the current Castlebrae High School building is in poor condition and has significant issues with suitability which constrain effective learning and teaching. HM Inspectors endorse this view. The council have indicated the financial challenges of maintaining the current building over the next five years. Children and young people attending the new secondary school would benefit from a modern, purpose designed learning environment with appropriate facilities. The council indicates its intention to develop a STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths) Centre of Excellence at the new school, in partnership with further education establishments such as the University of Edinburgh. The paper also outlines that the council has obtained funding from the Scottish Attainment Challenge and this would entail the development of science facilities tailored to meet the needs of its science development project in this area. The council’s proposal paper provides a positive case for a new secondary school and outlines the clear potential educational benefits which will result.

3.2 The council estimates a timescale for opening the proposed new school in August 2021. It outlines that stakeholders will be integral to decisions made on the type of City of Edinburgh Council – 31 May 2018 Page 31

building they want. It will be important that the council engages with stakeholders across the whole catchment area on the details of its plans and timeline for transition from existing arrangements to establishing a fully operational school.

3.3 The proposed location of the new school is more central in Craigmillar than the current Castlebrae High School, is next to the library and includes easier public transport access for most of the catchment area. However, a few stakeholders raised concerns regarding possible traffic congestion and safety around the proposed site. The council will need to address these in its final proposal paper.

3.4 The impact of the council’s proposal on other neighbouring schools is minimal. Castlebrae High School is operating under capacity, with the majority of young people living in the catchment area currently attending schools other than Castlebrae High School. The neighbouring secondary schools of Portobello High School and Holyrood RC Secondary School are nearing capacity. The council indicates that the new school would be built for a roll of 700 pupils initially, with the option for expansion in due course, given the major housing developments across the catchment area.

3.5 Almost all parents, staff, children and young people from Castleview Primary School and Castlebrae High School and staff and children from Newcraighall Primary School who spoke with HM Inspectors fully supported the proposal to build a new secondary school. Stakeholders raised concerns about the condition of the current Castlebrae High School building not being conducive to meeting the needs of learners in a 21st century school.

3.6 A group of parents who met with HM Inspectors at Newcraighall Primary School were not positive about the proposal. They were of the view that the council had not fully considered the needs of families living in the Newcraighall catchment, particularly safe walking routes to school from the Gilberstoun estate. The council paper indicates that the distance to the proposed new school is slightly less than the current Castlebrae High School. In taking forward the proposal, the council will need to address the aspect of safe routes to school.

3.7 The proposal also includes a minor aspect of catchment realignment, which currently affects a handful of children in a part of The Wisp. The council has stated that these children can be accommodated in their current schools for the duration of their primary or secondary education. There is limited information in relation to this aspect of the proposal, including the timescales or impacts of this, particularly for future inhabitants of addresses affected. In taking forward the proposal, the council will need to provide fuller information in relation to this aspect.

4. Summary 4.1 The council’s proposal provides a positive case for a new secondary school and outlines the clear potential educational benefits which will result. Young people attending

City of Edinburgh Council – 31 May 2018 Page 32

the new secondary school would benefit from a modern, purpose designed learning environment with appropriate facilities.

4.2 The council will need to address concerns raised by stakeholders about road safety around the proposed location for the new school and safe walking routes to school, particularly from the Gilberstoun estate.

4.3 In taking forward the proposal, the council should engage with all stakeholders across the whole catchment area further. This includes sharing details of its plans and timeline for transition for the new school. The views of stakeholders should be shared in the council’s final report.

4.4 The council will need to provide fuller information in relation to the aspect of the proposal regarding catchment realignment, including timescales and impact on future inhabitants of addresses affected.

HM Inspectors Education Scotland January 2018

City of Edinburgh Council – 31 May 2018 Page 33