Committee Minutes
The City of Edinburgh Council Year 2008/2009
Meeting 14 – Thursday 30 April 2009
Edinburgh, 30 April 2009 - At a meeting of The City of Edinburgh Council.
Present:-
LORD PROVOST
The Right Honourable George Grubb
COUNCILLORS
Elaine Aitken Alison Johnstone Ewan Aitken Colin Keir Robert C Aldridge Louise Lang Jeremy R Balfour Jim Lowrie Eric Barry Gordon Mackenzie David Beckett Kate MacKenzie Angela Blacklock Marilyne A MacLaren Mike Bridgman Mark McInnes Deidre Brock Stuart Roy McIvor Gordon Buchan Tim McKay Tom Buchanan Eric Milligan Steve Burgess Elaine Morris Andrew Burns Joanna Mowat Ronald Cairns Rob Munn Steve Cardownie Gordon J Munro Maggie Chapman Ian Murray Maureen M Child Alastair Paisley Joanna Coleman Gary Peacock Jennifer A Dawe Ian Perry Charles Dundas Cameron Rose Cammy Day Jason G Rust Paul G Edie Conor Snowden Nick Elliott-Cannon Marjorie Thomas Paul Godzik Stefan Tymkewycz Norma Hart Phil Wheeler Stephen Hawkins Iain Whyte Ricky Henderson Donald Wilson Lesley Hinds Norrie Work Allan G Jackson 2
The City of Edinburgh Council 30 April 2009
1 The Quality Standard Award
The Lord Provost and members of the Council congratulated five schools in achieving the Quality Standard Award in the most recent round of applications. The Lord Provost presented the award to the following schools in recognition of their achievements:
• Clovenstone Primary School • East Craigs Primary School • Fox Covert Primary School • Gracemount High School • James Gillespie’s High School
(Reference – report no CEC/171/08-09 by the Director of Children and Families, submitted.)
2 Youngedinburgh: Presentation by Local Youth Forums
Youngedinburgh, the Council’s Youth Services Strategy, aimed to improve the quality of life of the city’s young people aged 11-21 years. The strategy was developed and delivered by all Council departments and partner agencies and formed a key strand of the Council’s community planning process.
Lucy McMath and Frazer Neil introduced a presentation in which young people from local youth forums provided brief examples of involvement in their local areas. The forums gave young people the opportunity to have their say on issues that affected their lives and they worked closely with Neighbourhood Partnerships. Following the presentation, invitations to the “Young People and Neighbourhood Partnerships” event in June were presented to the Lord Provost for him to pass to Neighbourhood Partnerships.
A question and answer session was then held with elected members. Topics covered included Pentlands Youth Forum activity, involvement in community councils and participation in decision making, lowering of the voting age in community council elections, barriers to achieving youth forum goals, funding for youth forum activities, negative portrayal of young people in the press, publicity and communications.
Councillor MacLaren thanked the young people for their presentation and gave a brief outline of the “Young People and Neighbourhood Partnership” event.
3
The City of Edinburgh Council 30 April 2009
3 Deputations
(a) “Who Gets to Choose?” Conference – Motion by Councillor Ewan Aitken
The Lord Provost remitted the following requests for deputations to the Health, Social Care and Housing Committee, together with the motion by Councillor Ewan Aitken (see item 17 below), in terms of Standing Order 28(3):
• Learning Disability Alliance (Scotland) • ARC (Association for Real Change) Scotland and In Control Scotland • Powerful Partnerships • Consultation and Advocacy Promotion Service
(b) Edinburgh Tram Network – Edinburgh Railway Action Group
The organisation had withdrawn its deputation request.
(c) Community Facilities in the Gracemount Area – Gracemount Youth and Community Centre
The deputation outlined the services they currently provided at the Gracemount Youth and Community Centre. They expressed concern at the level of funding which they received as they were now unable to provide the amount of youth services they would like to. They indicated that the new housing development in the area would have a major impact on the youth services required and expressed an interest in working in partnership with the Council to identify and provide the necessary services.
4 Community Facilities in the Gracemount Area – Motion by Councillor Hart
The following motion by Councillor Hart was submitted in terms of Standing Order 28:
“Council:
• acknowledges the major 21st century housing development planned in Gracemount following the demolition later this year of the Gracemount High Flats and the opportunity this presents for new community facilities;
• recognises the health and safety risks and anti-social behaviour that often accompany this type of development;
4
The City of Edinburgh Council 30 April 2009
• calls for a report about the current provision for young people in the Gracemount area, including a summary of services available at the K2 Base and the Mansion during 2007/8 and 2008/9 (including numbers of sessions, young people attending and levels of CEC investment).”
Decision
1) To acknowledge the expertise and experience demonstrated by Services for Communities in managing the demolition and subsequent regeneration of decanted housing areas, including managing health and safety considerations and localised anti-social behaviour. To instruct that the necessary level of resources and expertise etc be directed to this project in Gracemount.
2) To acknowledge the range and quality of community learning opportunities in the area, including 10 youth clubs and a wide range of voluntary sector provision.
3) To ask the Directors of Children and Families and Services for Communities to report to the Education, Children and Families Committee about the current provision for young people in the Gracemount area, including a summary of services available at the K2 Base and the Mansion during 2007/8 and 2008/9 (including numbers of sessions, young people attending and levels of Council investment).
5 Questions
Questions put by members to this meeting, written answers and supplementary questions and answers are contained in the Appendix to this minute.
6 Minute
Decision
To approve the minute of meeting of the Council of 12 March 2009, as submitted, as a correct record.
7 Appointments
The Council was invited to fill vacancies on Council Committees, the Forth Estuary Transport Authority (FETA) and Waterfront Edinburgh Limited.
5
The City of Edinburgh Council 30 April 2009
(a) Council Committees and FETA
Decision
To appoint:
1) Councillor Burgess to the Policy and Strategy Committee in place of Councillor Johnstone.
2) Councillor Johnstone to the Audit Committee in place of Councillor Burgess.
3) Councillor Kate MacKenzie to FETA in place of Councillor McInnes.
(b) Waterfront Edinburgh Ltd – Appointment of Director and Chair
To appoint Councillor Buchanan to Waterfront Edinburgh Ltd.
- moved by Councillor Brock, seconded by Councillor Dawe (on behalf of the Administration).
To appoint Councillor Day to Waterfront Edinburgh Ltd.
- moved by Councillor Burns, seconded by Councillor Murray (on behalf of the Labour Group).
Voting
The voting was as follows:
For Councillor Buchanan - 29 votes For Councillor Day - 15 votes
Decision
1) To appoint Councillor Buchanan to Waterfront Edinburgh Limited in place of Councillor Cardownie.
2) To appoint Councillor Buchanan as Chair of Waterfront Edinburgh Limited.
(References – Acts of Council No 3 of 24 May and No 5(c) of 28 June 2007; report no CEC/167/08-09/CS by the Director of Corporate Services, submitted.)
6
The City of Edinburgh Council 30 April 2009
8 Leader’s Report
The Leader presented her report to the Council. The Leader provided an update on:
• Swine flu – work of government agencies and the Council • Relocation of tram mock-up to Leith • Archery World Cup Final 2010 in Princes Street Gardens.
The following issues were raised on the report:
Councillor Burns – Edinburgh Tram – line 1(b)
– PPP2 school building programme – biomass technology
Councillor McIvor – Broughton High School – parking provision
Councillor Whyte – City Chambers refurbishment – regimental colours
– Edinburgh Tram – remit of Tram Sub-Committee – communications strategy
Councillor Wilson – Kerbside recycling – collection timetable
Councillor Balfour – Edinburgh Tram – cost guarantee of line 1(a)
Councillor Keir – Edinburgh Primary Schools Sports Association cross country event
Councillor Buchan – HMOs – concerns of Community Council forums – Disabled parking provision at schools
Councillor Munro – Affordable housing – Scottish government funding
- Hibernian Under 19 Team – Scottish League and Scottish Cup
Councillor Murray – Professor Sir Neil MacCormick - tribute – Economic downturn – Council tax freeze
7
The City of Edinburgh Council 30 April 2009
Councillor Hart – Global City Forum and conference visits – economic benefits
(Reference – report no CEC/168/08-09/L by the Leader, submitted.)
9 Sale of Property at Cathedral Lane Ringfencing of Capital Receipt
Decision
To credit the capital receipt of £75,000 from the sale of the property at Cathedral Lane to Tram Line 1 as part of the Council’s funding requirements for the project.
(References – Economic Development Committee 10 March 2009 (item 8); report no CEC/169/08-09/CSEC by the Council Secretary, submitted.)
Declaration of Interests
Councillor Buchan declared a financial interest in the above item as an employee of a firm providing tie with technical advice.
Non-financial interests
Councillors Balfour, Buchanan, Hart, Keir, Gordon Mackenzie, McKay and Wilson as Directors of EDI.
Councillors Jackson, Gordon Mackenzie, Perry and Wheeler as non-executive Directors of tie.
Councillors Buchanan, Chapman, Jackson, Gordon Mackenzie, Perry and Wheeler as non-executive Directors of TEL.
10 Annual Treasury Strategy 2009/10
The Finance and Resources Committee had referred to the Council for approval the Annual Treasury Strategy for 2009/10.
Decision
To approve the Council’s Treasury Management Strategy for 2009/10.
(References – Finance and Resources Committee 31 March 2009 (item 9); report no CEC/170/08-09/CSEC by the Council Secretary, submitted.) 8
The City of Edinburgh Council 30 April 2009
11 Edinburgh Tram Network – Update Report
Recent progress on the Edinburgh Tram Network was detailed. The funding position of Phase 1a of the network, the impact of Princes Street traffic diversions, issues surrounding the development of Phase 1b and the appointment of the new Chief Executive of tie ltd were also addressed.
Motion
1) To reaffirm the Council’s commitment to delivering Tramline 1A within the current funding envelope.
2) To note the updated position in relation to progress, programme and cost of Phase 1a.
3) To instruct the Directors of City Development and Finance to prepare a further report updating the Business Case for Tramline 1A in light of the current economic climate.
4) To approve the settlement negotiated by tie ltd under the MUDFA contract for Phase 1a.
5) To note the pedestrian footfall and car parking utilisation monitoring, including the major media and marketing campaign undertaken.
6) To note the position with the city events and that a final decision on the August roadworks embargo would be taken at the Policy and Strategy Committee on 12 May 2009.
7) To postpone the development of Phase 1b due to current economic and funding restraints.
8) To take forward discussions for the feasibility study in relation to the South East Tramline, formerly known as Tramline 3.
9) To note the appointment of the Chief Executive of tie Ltd.
- moved by Councillor Wheeler, seconded by Councillor Dawe (on behalf of the Scottish Liberal Democrat Group).
Amendment 1
1) To acknowledge that, although the tram project was ‘on time and on budget’ prior to the last election, the financial position of the project had deteriorated substantially.
9
The City of Edinburgh Council 30 April 2009
2) To note severe concerns over the fiscal and political management of the Edinburgh Tram Project and, given concerns that the project appeared to be running over budget, to request a report within one cycle containing:
• a full statement of the project’s financial position against current and future budgets, including the current state of contingency budgets; • an update on the business case for Line 1a in light of the current economic climate.
3) To acknowledge that the postponement of the construction of line 1b would jeopardise not only the £6.2 million already invested in its development but also the good will of the local communities that were to be served by the line.
4) The postponement would be particularly detrimental to the regeneration of North Edinburgh as well as adding to the difficulties experienced by Edinburgh’s economy. Major capital projects had the effect of stimulating demand which helped reduce the effects of the recession as well as shortening its duration.
5) Therefore, to ask the Director of Finance to report back within two cycles on alternative funding options that would allow the construction of line 1b to proceed on schedule.
6) To note that the Tram Sub-Committee had not fulfilled the functions outlined for it in previous Act of Council of 20 December 2007.
7) To approve the settlement negotiated by tie ltd under the MUDFA contract for Phase 1a.
8) To take forward discussions for the feasibility study in relation to the South East Tramline, formerly known as Tramline 3.
- moved by Councillor Perry, seconded by Councillor Day (on behalf of the Labour Group).
Amendment 2
1) To note that the only political group that had maintained outright opposition to the Edinburgh Tram Network was the SNP and that in the minutes of the City of Edinburgh Council of 25 October 2007 it was recorded that the SNP Group supported the following amendment in its name:
“1) To reject the Final Business Case (FBC) for trams, agreeing that the expenditure required could not be justified for a single tram line from Newhaven to Edinburgh Airport.
10
The City of Edinburgh Council 30 April 2009
2) To note:
(a) the absence of a detailed breakdown of costs.
(b) that the full risk report for the project would not be made available until after contract close, requiring Councillors to make decisions without access to essential information.
(c) the failure to prove the benefits of the scheme, with inadequate detail of what impact the trams would have on the flow of other traffic.
(d) that the public sector was to bear the risk (in whole or in part) for detailed design, the cost of utilities’ diversion over-runs and fare-box revenue.
(e) the failure to explain how the trams could achieve segregation from other traffic at key points on the proposed route and the consequent negative impact on the projected journey times.
(f) that the FBC made the ‘fundamental assumption’ that the trams would be included in the National Concessionary Ticketing scheme but had no evidence that this would be the case.”
2) The risks now associated with the Business Case had intensified. The significant component of the FBC predicated on Developers’ contributions and Capital Receipts (Paragraph 4.13) had proven to be overly optimistic and was not achievable. To note that Developers’ contributions currently were approximately £40.5m short of the projected income.
3) To note further that paragraphs 1.62 and 1.63 of Appendix 2 of the Final Business Case (FBC) stated:
1.62 – “Phase 1a of the tram will encourage and facilitate the new development planned in North and West Edinburgh and stimulate economic growth in the city. However, the forecast future TEL patronage and revenues, both for bus and tram, is in turn highly sensitive to the level and timing of new development and the underlying level of economic growth. Sensitivity tests indicate that with new development delayed by five years in other areas, overall TEL revenue would be reduced by 3% in 2011 (12% in 2031).”
1.63 – “…………. In 2011, approximately 30% of forecast demand between Leith and Haymarket and 50% of demand between Haymarket and the airport will be directly dependent on new development.”
11
The City of Edinburgh Council 30 April 2009
4) To agree that the current economic climate and forecasted development delays would clearly place the public tram and bus network at serious risk of a predatory bid by the private sector, due to the shortfall in predicted patronage and its consequences on the profitability of a benign ticket pricing policy. In short, Council would have to subsidise the integrated network to an intolerable extent or to increase fares to an intolerable level therefore defeating the rationale of the project.
5) To note that there would be a requirement for the bus element of the network to subsidise the tram element to the tune of £5m+ per year for at least the first two years. This would be in conjunction with the loss of bus patronage on the commencement of tram operations (estimated at 8.6m per year) and would mean a financial re-adjustment of reduced income to the bus operation of circa £10m per year. This would be an untenable position for the whole public transport service and could not be sustained.
6) To agree that the re-estimated costs referred to in paragraph 3.35 of the Update Report, coupled with the lack of provision in the budget at the very outset, had led to the recommendation to postpone Line 1B.
7) Given the above and the other associated risks, to agree that the Final Business Case approved by Council on 25 October 2007 (and opposed by the SNP Group) was based on a “best case scenario” which had proven to be riddled with budgetary optimism which could threaten the very existence of the retention of an “integrated transport system” within the public sector, and to now agree that:
(a) The Edinburgh Tram Network be “scrapped”; (b) An exit strategy be devised which safeguarded costs as much as possible; (c) Negotiations be entered into with the Scottish Government as to what steps should be taken to safeguard the City Council’s financial position regarding expenditure incurred; and (d) Compose a transport strategy with key stakeholders in Edinburgh and the Lothians which would meet the demands of the city.
- moved by Councillor Cardownie, seconded by Councillor Buchanan (on behalf of the SNP Group).
Voting
In a first vote, for or against amendment 2 by Councillor Cardownie, the voting was as follows:
For amendment 2 - 12 votes Against amendment 2 - 45 votes
12
The City of Edinburgh Council 30 April 2009
In a second vote, the voting between the motion and amendment 1 was as follows:
For the motion - 29 votes For amendment 1 - 28 votes
Decision
To approve the motion by Councillor Wheeler.
(References – Acts of Council No 3 of 25 October 2007, No 14 of 20 December 2007 and No 23 of 12 March 2009; joint report no CEC/172/08-09/CD&F by the Directors of City Development and Finance, submitted.)
Declaration of Interests
Councillor Buchan declared a financial interest in the above item as an employee of a firm providing tie with technical advice and left the Chamber during the debate on the matter.
Non-financial interests
Councillors Jackson, Gordon Mackenzie, Perry and Wheeler as non-executive Directors of tie.
Councillors Buchanan, Chapman, Jackson, Gordon Mackenzie, Perry and Wheeler as non-executive Directors of TEL.
12 hub Initiative – South East Scotland Pathfinder – Further Development
Progress was detailed on initiating the Scottish Government’s proposals for improving the delivery of joint agency procurement projects, known as the hub Initiative. Approval was sought to sign a ‘Memorandum of Understanding’ for the South East of Scotland hub Pathfinder.
Details were also given of the Programme Initiation Document, which set out the project’s resource plan, and of the next steps in the process.
Decision
1) To note the good progress that had been made to secure a hub Pathfinder for the South East Scotland Territory.
2) To note the progress on the implementation of the hub and that development of local hub projects would be reported in due course. 13
The City of Edinburgh Council 30 April 2009
3) Additionally, to note paragraph 3.23 of the report by the Director of Corporate Services, which stated “it is proposed that progress will be reported regularly to the Edinburgh Partnership Board”.
4) To note further paragraph 4.1 of the ‘Draft Memorandum of Understanding’ attached as Appendix 3 to the Director’s report, which stated that “Territory Participants are committed to ensuring the development of the Territory Programme … is as transparent as possible to all, each other and to the public”.
5) Thus, to agree to the Chief Executive signing the South East Scotland hub Territory ‘Memorandum of Understanding’ only on the condition that the Edinburgh Partnership Board received a full and detailed update when there was progress with all hub projects, in order that proper political scrutiny could be undertaken of any proposals before they were formally agreed
(References – Policy and Strategy Committee 4 November 2008 (item 7); report no CEC/173/08-09/CS by the Director of Corporate Services, submitted.)
13 European Parliamentary Election 4 June 2009 – Polling Places
A list of premises designated as polling places for the European Parliamentary Election on 4 June 2009 was provided.
Decision
1) To note the scheme of parliamentary polling districts and polling places as amended, contained in Appendix 2 to the report by the Chief Executive and Local Returning Officer, for the forthcoming European Parliament Election on Thursday 4 June 2009.
2) To note that a full review of the scheme of polling districts would take place once the findings of the Boundary Commission’s review of the Scottish Parliamentary constituency boundaries had been published.
3) To agree that the scheme should be used for any election that might take place prior to the review being completed.
(Reference – report no CEC/174/08-09/CE&LRO by the Chief Executive and Local Returning Officer, submitted.)
14
The City of Edinburgh Council 30 April 2009
14 Councillors’ Expenses – Motion by Councillor Rose
The following motion by Councillor Rose was submitted in terms of Standing Order 28:
“Council agrees to make available on the Council website full details of expenses charged to the Council for each Councillor within three months of the end of the financial year beginning with the year ending March 2009.”
The Lord Provost ruled the motion incompetent because the Council was already required by Regulations to publish on its website information on Councillors' remuneration, allowances and expenses in respect of the previous financial year. There was a prescribed format for this and the deadline was 1 June 2009.
15 Twinning Link with Gaza – Motion by Councillor Blacklock
The following motion by Councillor Blacklock was submitted in terms of Standing Order 28:
“Council acknowledges Edinburgh’s proud history of international solidarity. Just as Edinburgh Direct Aid in the 1990s led a humanitarian campaign to support the victims of the Balkan Bosnian war, Edinburgh’s citizens have again taken immediate action in protesting against Israel’s war and in supporting the efforts of charities to help rebuild hospitals, water supplies, schools and public services in Gaza. For example, ‘Artists for Gaza’ was formed in Edinburgh just a few months ago and has to date held two benefit concerts to raise funds for electricity generators in Gaza; Oxfam and Medical Aid for Palestine are other charities through which Edinburgh people support the people of Gaza.
Council recognises that the peaceful resolution of the Middle East conflict will take many more years of negotiations but during this time Edinburgh Council could take a lead to build links between our communities in Edinburgh and those in Gaza. Council also recognises that twinning arrangements can do much to educate, help dispel prejudice, build cultural understanding and bring humanitarian aid.
In addition, Council is encouraged by the Scottish Government’s recent allocation of £420,000 for Gaza relief via several Scottish charities.
As the Council is reviewing its existing twinning, partnership and international links with other countries, Council also agrees to consider twinning with Gaza and include this consideration within this forthcoming report in order to develop our links with the people of Gaza.”
15
The City of Edinburgh Council 30 April 2009
Motion
To approve the motion.
- moved by Councillor Blacklock, seconded by Councillor Munro (on behalf of the Labour Group).
Amendment 1
1) To acknowledge the educational, cultural and humanitarian aid links that currently existed between Edinburgh and Gaza, including the successful collaboration with Windows for Peace, an organisation that worked closely with young Israeli and Palestinian people.
2) To note that a full report, within two cycles, on existing twinning, partnership and other international links with Edinburgh, was commissioned by the Policy and Strategy Committee on 24 March 2009.
3) To await that report before considering any additional links.
- moved by Councillor Dawe, seconded by Councillor Cardownie (on behalf of the Administration).
Amendment 2
To take no action on the matter.
- moved by Councillor Whyte, seconded by Councillor Balfour (on behalf of the Conservative Group).
Voting
In a first vote, for or against amendment 2 by Councillor Whyte, the voting was as follows:
For amendment 2 - 11 votes Against amendment 2 - 47 votes
In a second vote, the voting between the motion and amendment 1 was as follows:
For the motion - 18 votes For amendment 1 - 29 votes
16
The City of Edinburgh Council 30 April 2009
Decision
To approve amendment 1 by Councillor Dawe.
(Reference – Policy and Strategy Committee 24 March 2009 (item 6).
16 Garden Aid – Motion by Councillor Ewan Aitken
The following motion by Councillor Ewan Aitken was submitted in terms of Standing Order 28:
“Council
Notes the introduction of Garden Aid to all those aged over 80.
Calls for a report on the financial and logistical consequences of introducing a similar service for over 75s, over 70s and over 65s, including a distinction between a universal service and a service with infirmity as the defining criterion.”
Decision
1) To note that a report was currently being prepared on the Garden Aid scheme which would encompass the terms of Councillor Ewan Aitken’s motion and would address encouraging and stimulating Third Sector provision.
2) Otherwise, to take no further action on the terms of the motion.
17 “Who gets to Choose?” Conference – Motion by Councillor Ewan Aitken
The following motion by Councillor Ewan Aitken was submitted in terms of Standing Order 28:
“Council notes the conference "Who gets to Choose?" held on 15 April in the City Chambers and agrees to receive the report from the day.
Council further notes the concerns raised by many participants about how services for people with complex needs are to be delivered in the future.
Council agrees for a cross party group, led by the Convener of the Health, Social Care and Housing Committee, to meet with conference participants to discuss their concerns.”
17
The City of Edinburgh Council 30 April 2009
The Lord Provost remitted the motion and the related deputation requests from Learning Disability Scotland, ARC (Association for Real Change) Scotland and In Control Scotland, Powerful Partnerships and the Consultation and Advocacy Promotion Service to the Health, Social Care and Housing Committee in terms of Standing Order 28(3), subject to competency.
18 “Keep Stockbridge Local” Campaign – Motion by Councillor Hinds
The following motion by Councillor Hinds was submitted in terms of Standing Order 28:
“This Council supports Stockbridge Community Council in their campaign to support independent retail shops in the Stockbridge area. Council asks for a report to be submitted to the Economic Development Committee outlining how the Council, along with the retailers and local community, can support the “Keep Stockbridge Local” campaign.”
The Lord Provost remitted the motion to the Economic Development Committee in terms of Standing Order 28(3), subject to competency.
Declaration of Interests
Councillor Buchan declared a financial interest in the above item as an employee of a firm providing technical advice to a potential retailer in Stockbridge.
19 Forth Children’s Theatre 30th Anniversary – Motion by Councillor Hinds
The following motion by Councillor Hinds was submitted in terms of Standing Order 28:
“This Council commends Forth Children’s Theatre (FCT) on their 30th anniversary. The Council congratulates the young people and individuals who have made this organisation so successful. FCT shows a positive image of young people and encourages them to become involved in the arts. The Council asks the Lord Provost and the Leader of the Council to facilitate an appropriate way of marking the 30 years’ work of FCT.”
The Lord Provost remitted the motion to the Culture and Leisure Committee in terms of Standing Order 28(3), subject to competency.
18
The City of Edinburgh Council 30 April 2009
20 Apprenticeships – Motion by Councillor Hart
The following motion by Councillor Hart was submitted in terms of Standing Order 28:
“Council
• Notes that the current economic difficulties have affected the completion of apprenticeships, with Skills Development Scotland figures showing that nearly 900 apprentices have recently failed to complete their training.
• Recognises the great need for continued skills training to ensure that Edinburgh has a sufficient skills base to prepare for the post- recession period.
• Calls for a report looking at:
a) ways in which the Council can work with other public-sector organisations and private companies to maximise the number of apprenticeships offered in Edinburgh; and
b) how to further assist small and medium sized businesses take on apprentices as piloted by other local authorities in Scotland.”
Motion
To approve the motion.
- moved by Councillor Hart, seconded by Councillor Perry (on behalf of the Labour Group).
Amendment
1) As the request for a report on the issues identified was already being undertaken by this Council and had been the subject of a number of reports to the Economic Development Committee, to take no further action on the terms of the motion.
2) Further, to encourage members of Committees to use the Committee system in the first instance to influence and seek clarification on Council policy within a given remit.
- moved by Councillor Buchanan, seconded by Councillor McKay (on behalf of the Administration).
19
The City of Edinburgh Council 30 April 2009
Voting
The voting was as follows:
For the motion - 18 votes For the amendment - 40 votes
Decision
To approve the amendment by Councillor Buchanan.
21 Out of School Care Provision – Motion by Councillor Henderson
The following motion by Councillor Henderson was submitted in terms of Standing Order 28:
“Council notes that out of school care providers have been advised that cleaning costs for holiday provision are now to be borne by them.
Council agrees that a report be submitted to the Education, Children and Families Committee detailing the consultation process with providers prior to this policy being communicated and the potential impact for holiday provision as a consequence. The report is also to examine ways of providing cleaning to adequate standards without necessarily using Council/contract resources.”
The Lord Provost remitted the motion and the related deputation request from the Royal High Primary School and Liberton After School Clubs to the Education, Children and Families Committee in terms of Standing Order 28(3), subject to competency.
22 Planning System – Motion by Councillor Rose
The following motion by Councillor Rose was submitted in terms of Standing Order 28:
“Council:
1) notes that the Development Management Sub-Committee approved application no 08/00197/LBC in respect of the Odeon premises in Clerk Street on 28 October 2008 and that over six months later the matter has still not been determined;
20
The City of Edinburgh Council 30 April 2009
2) notes that the Development Management Sub-Committee approved application no 07/03848/FUL in respect of the application for the Morrison Street Goods Yard development in Haymarket on 25 June 2008 and that the subsequent public local inquiry is not due to commence before 25 May 2009;
3) notes that the process for the establishment of the Edinburgh City Local Plan began in 2005 and that almost five years later the plan has still not been adopted;
4) resolves to write to the Scottish Government on behalf of the whole Council expressing concern at the delays inherent in the planning process and underlining the lost opportunities in terms of reputation, construction work, jobs and costs in a period when the Edinburgh economy needs investment and noting that such delays in the planning system act as a disincentive to much needed investors;
5) requests that the Scottish Government undertakes an urgent review of planning legislation and guidance with a view to:
a) bringing forward short term measures to address the systematic inefficiencies exemplified above;
b) bringing forward primary and secondary legislation with two guiding principles namely:
i) streamlining and shortening the planning process;
ii) simplifying and clarifying decision making responsibility and accountability.”
The Lord Provost remitted the motion to the Planning Committee in terms of Standing Order 28(3), subject to competency.
Declaration of Interests
Councillor Buchan declared a financial interest in the above item as an employee of a firm providing technical advice to developers in Haymarket.
21
The City of Edinburgh Council 30 April 2009
23 Temporary Greening of Sites for Development – Motion by Councillor Burgess
The following motion by Councillor Burgess was submitted in terms of Standing Order 28:
“That the Council:
Recognises that under current economic conditions, sites for development, such as Caltongate, may now be left undeveloped for some considerable time.
Recognises that whilst efforts should be made to get appropriate development off the ground, that these sites left undeveloped are not contributing to the city and often detract from the city’s appearance and feel especially for visitors.
Believes that some developers may welcome an opportunity to open up development sites particularly to benefit community relations and reduce security costs and therefore the cost to the Council could be minimal.
Notes a proposal to approach developers regarding temporarily greening development sites was recently agreed by City of Glasgow Council.
Therefore, believes the idea of temporarily greening development sites is an idea worth investigating and calls for a report on how this could be taken forward.”
Decision
1) To recognise the difficulties that potential development sites faced given the current state of the UK economy.
2) To acknowledge the problems individual developers might have in securing finance during this recession and to ask officers to report back within two cycles on the ways Council could support developers to maintain sites in as safe and attractive condition as possible until market conditions improved, including the possibility of landscaping these sites.
3) To ask that the report also identify any impediments which might restrict the Council with this objective.
22
The City of Edinburgh Council 30 April 2009
Appendix (As referred to in Act of Council No 5 of 30 April 2009
QUESTION NO 1 By Councillor Rust answered by the Convener of the Education, Children and Families Committee
Question What steps is the Convener of Children and Families taking to ensure that officials within the City Development Department are advised with immediate effect of Children and Families' Neighbourhood Managers, their respective catchments and contact details to prevent any repeat of the recent complete breakdown in communication in relation to the Braidburn Flood Prevention works at St Mark's RC Primary School, Firrhill?
Answer City Development officials are aware of neighbourhood management arrangements and have regular contact with Neighbourhood Managers in relation to various property matters.
23
The City of Edinburgh Council 30 April 2009
Supplementary Given the blasé answer, I have this terrible image of the Question Convener as an ostrich with her head in the sand. We are not looking for an apology, we are not looking for some sort of witch hunt, it is not a political issue and if we weren’t in an Administration-free ward, I am sure one of your colleagues would be asking exactly the same question. We really need recognition that a serious problem arose here. There was no consultation with any of the staff at the school. There was a meeting with City Development officials clearly blaming Children and Families officials who did not even turn up to the meeting, some of them apparently did not even know about it. We have seen streams of e-mails between officials in the two departments mainly in the vein of “I did not know, I did not notice, I was not sure, not certain who is responsible, is St Mark’s a Primary School?” And we had Children and Families issuing school lets for playing fields at the same time as City Development instructed contractors to erect barriers around the playing fields, barriers which were in fact erected when the children were playing during play time. All we are looking for is a reassurance that this will be looked at and that you can come back to the school community and reassure them that it won’t happen again.
Supplementary You certainly have my reassurance that we will look into it. Answer I do not want to involve myself at this stage and I am sure you don’t want this to turn into some kind of turf war between City Development and Children and Families. However, for the good of the community and the school it does need looking into and I will then get back to you to tell you the progress we have made.
24
The City of Edinburgh Council 30 April 2009
QUESTION NO 2 By Councillor Rose answered by the Convener of the Finance and Resources Committee
Question For each member of staff who earned over £100,000 per annum in the years 2006/7 and 2007/8, please supply their name, post and total individual remuneration including base salary, any bonus, benefits in kind, car allowances, expenses, payments for returning officer duties and redundancy payments.
Answer The details of those staff who earned over £100,000 per annum in 2006/07 and 2007/08 are set out in the attached appendix.
Supplementary The information was the subject of a Taxpayers’ Alliance Question Freedom of Information request which was put to the Council at the end of last year and then again earlier this year and was refused. I thank the Convener that the information has now been given to me and could he Convener please restate his commitment to openness in terms of Council information?
Supplementary I am happy to give the commitment that Councillor Rose Answer has asked for. I am somewhat disappointed to find out that the information had been previously given to another organisation or similar information had been given to another organisation. So there is something that we need to look into but I’m happy to make that commitment.
25
The City of Edinburgh Council 30 April 2009
Appendix
2006/07 Name Post Remuneration Tom Aitchison Chief Executive £147,231 £121,223 Roy Jobson Director of Children and Families (plus other payments of £9,092*) Andrew Holmes Director of City Development £111,906 Jim Inch Director of Corporate Services £111,906 Donald McGougan Director of Finance £111,906 Mark Turley Director of Services for Communities £111,906 Peter Gabbitas Director of Health and Social Care £104,552**
2007/08 Name Post Remuneration Tom Aitchison Chief Executive £150,912 Gillian Tee Director of Children and Families £130,629 Andrew Holmes Director of City Development £114,705 Jim Inch Director of Corporate Services £114,705 Donald McGougan Director of Finance £114,705 Mark Turley Director of Services for Communities £114,705 Peter Gabbitas Director of Health and Social Care £109,781**
* payments to cover additional responsibility during transition to Departments of Health & Social Care and Children & Families ** the Director of Health and Social Care post is part-funded by the Council but paid through NHS payroll. The post is also subject to an additional management allowance in the region of £4,000 – 5,000 per annum, paid by the NHS
There were no bonuses (other than that relating to the Health and Social Care Director), benefits in kind, car allowances or redundancy payments paid to these individuals in 2006/07 and 2007/08. Other personal payments, such as reimbursement of expenses, do not constitute a component of remuneration. Additionally, payments made for returning officer duties are set and paid by the Scottish Government and are not considered to be part of Council remuneration.
26
The City of Edinburgh Council 30 April 2009
QUESTION NO 3 By Councillor Rust answered by the Leader of the Council
Question (1) Please provide a detailed breakdown of the £191,125 administrative and management charges/costs incurred by the Council in year 2008/2009 in distributing the Fairer Scotland Fund.
Answer (1) The Council claimed an administrative fee of £173,000 for discharging its Fairer Scotland Fund responsibilities in 2008/09. This is broken down as follows:-
Item Fairer Scotland Fund Administrative fee 2008/09 SfC Local Community £55,723 Planning SfC Neighbourhood Staff £37,917 Finance £66,231 Corporate Services £13,129 Total 2.26% of Overall FSF Grant Allocation
Question (2) Are any economies of scale or other approaches being sought to reduce the amount being spent on administering the distribution of the fund to ensure maximum support for voluntary/charitable bodies?
Answer (2) Administrative costs account for 2.26% of the Fund allocation. This is less than the 2.5% the Scottish Government’s Offer of Grant letter dated 5 March 2008 allows Local Authorities to claim. We do, of course, take every opportunity to deliver the most cost-effective and efficient services.
27
The City of Edinburgh Council 30 April 2009
QUESTION NO 4 By Councillor Blacklock answered by the Convener of the Finance and Resources Committee
Question What plans are in place for the launch of the Edinburgh Equalities Network and can a timescale be given to those forums who are awaiting a meeting?
Answer Arrangements are being made for the first meeting of Edinburgh Equalities Network (EEN), which is likely to take place in June. Rather than a launch event, the first meeting will give members an opportunity to discuss how the EEN will operate and how equalities communities can get involved. Details of this meeting will be posted to Network members at the beginning of May.
Supplementary Could I ask what the reason for the delay is and also how Question the Convener has been consulting with the Equality Groups in the meantime. Does he share my concern that even this meeting, which is not until June, involves no consultation with any of these groups?
Supplementary I will get back to Councillor Blacklock in writing. Answer
28
The City of Edinburgh Council 30 April 2009
QUESTION NO 5 By Councillor Day answered by the Convener of the Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee
Question Forth Ward repeatedly fails the acceptable standards for street cleanliness. What steps are being taken to address this and redirect resources to maintain, at the very least, an 'acceptable standard' in Forth Ward and allow constituents a clean green and safe environment?
Answer Keep Scotland Beautiful recommends a CIMS (Cleanliness Index Monitoring Survey) score of 67 as the “acceptable standard”. In March 2009 the Forth Ward achieved a CIMS score of 70 and therefore significantly exceeded the standard.
The improvement within Forth Ward was achieved as a result of realigning resources within Services for Communities, in response to the level of performance in the North Neighbourhood area. Additional staff have been allocated. The impact and effectiveness of the additional staffing will be closely monitored and reassessed as necessary to maintain the improvement in CIMS score in the Forth Ward.
Supplementary I am pleased after two years of repeated failings the CIMS Question score has now increased to an acceptable level. Can the Convener confirm that the realignment of services in the Forth Ward will be a permanent one and not just a quick fix?
Supplementary I can confirm that the realignment of services was Answer by intended to be a long term realignment. I am delighted Councillor that Councillor Day has congratulated the hard work of the Aldridge staff in achieving an acceptable level of street cleanliness after many years and I’m sure he’ll be delighted to know it is intended to maintain that level of cleanliness.
29
The City of Edinburgh Council 30 April 2009
QUESTION NO 6 By Councillor Ewan Aitken answered by the Convener of the Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee
Question (1) Now that the Seafield roundabout project is nearing completion more than seven months late, can you confirm the additional cost to the Council of the delay?
Question (2) Can you confirm when you were first given estimates of the additional cost?
Question (3) Can you confirm which projects will be delayed or not started as a consequence of the overspend on this project?
Answer This project has been completed and the new junction became fully operational on 17 April. Discussions are currently taking place between the Contractor and the City of Edinburgh Council to agree a final settlement. The additional cost has not yet been agreed and cannot therefore be confirmed at this point in time. Progress on other projects has not been affected.
Supplementary Given that the Convener hasn’t answered question 2, but Question when he was given estimates of the potential cost, I am surmising from that that he was never given estimates. Can the Convener tell me, therefore, if he and his Group believe that it is good financial practice to agree project work when the final cost is not known?
Supplementary I think that there are precedents in previous regimes also Answer for things being embarked on without final cost. I mention the subject of the Usher Hall for one thing. Anyway, when the contract was entered into obviously there were costs agreed at that stage but because of complications and problems, there is still work to be done to establish the final cost.
30
The City of Edinburgh Council 30 April 2009
QUESTION NO 7 By Councillor Ewan Aitken answered by the Leader of the Council
Question On two occasions I have asked when the outcomes for the Fairer Scotland Fund (FSF) would be published and you intimated that they were already decided. In February of this year, the Craigentinny/Duddingston Neighbourhood Partnership funding panel received copies of outcomes for the fund. On questioning the officers, the panel was told that these outcomes had been agreed at a meeting of an officer group on 10 February 2009. Can you explain who agreed these outcomes and why you told the Council that they were already agreed some months previously?
Answer Outcomes for the FSF were developed through the Edinburgh Partnership, submitted to the Scottish Government on 30 June 2008 and subsequently approved by them. In line with Scottish Government advice, these outcomes were drawn from the Single Outcome Agreement and applied to the three priorities approved by the Edinburgh Partnership.
These outcomes have not changed since June 2008. But you are perhaps confusing the outcomes with guidance that has been developed subsequently. The FSF Implementation Group (representing all stakeholders on the Edinburgh Partnership) developed guidance to help neighbourhoods consider how best to align existing projects to the new priorities. This guidance has been refined over time, for example as the Strategic Partnerships refined their preferred activities, and was concluded at the meeting on 10 February 2009 to which you refer. This guidance was subsequently approved by the FSF Implementation Group on 12 February 2009.
31
The City of Edinburgh Council 30 April 2009
Supplementary Given that all the decisions that we have had to take about Question Fairer Scotland Funding in Neighbourhood Partnerships required us to meet the guidelines as well as the high level outcomes, is it not the case that what you gave us in June and later when I asked the questions in September, was the job really only half done?
Supplementary No not at all. The questions that I answered at the time, Answer and bear in mind that this has been to at least three or four Council meetings, were absolutely accurate. There has been a rigorous process of consultation. We obviously had to adhere to guidelines but the outcomes that were decided were done in a consultative way and I answered quite correctly. The implication in your question that in fact I had misled you in my answers is entirely wrong.
32
The City of Edinburgh Council 30 April 2009
QUESTION NO 8 By Councillor Ewan Aitken answered by the Convener of the Education, Children and Families Committee
Question (1) What proposals have been discussed to increase your cuts to youth work sessional hours in the city?
Question (2) Who have you consulted about these cuts?
Question (3) What impact assessments have you carried out on the possible effects of your proposed cuts?
Answer Senior officers are currently preparing a range of options (including impact assessments) to reduce projected expenditure in Community Learning and Development to bring it into line with the approved budget for 2009-10. Sustained and proper examination will be given to any recommendations brought forward.
Supplementary Is the Convener admitting she is now taking a budget Question decision with no idea how to implement it?
Supplementary No. Answer
33
The City of Edinburgh Council 30 April 2009
QUESTION NO 9 By Councillor Ewan Aitken answered by the Convener of the Education, Children and Families Committee
Question On 17 October 2008 I received a letter from the Head of Corporate Property and Contingency Planning telling me that the damage caused by vandals at the Craigentinny Community Centre in September 2008 had been repaired. To date that is not the case. Can you explain why that claim of completion was made and why the work has not been completed as promised?
Answer I can confirm that the statement in the letter of 17 October 2008 was correct and that all broken windows were repaired at the time.
34
The City of Edinburgh Council 30 April 2009
QUESTION NO 10 By Councillor Ewan Aitken answered by the Convener of the Health, Social Care and Housing Committee
Question (1) On 6 November 2007 the Policy and Strategy Committee agreed that a short life reference group with representation from providers and service users would be created whilst the Council implemented the procurement process. Was this group ever set up, when did it meet and who represented service users?
Answer (1) The reference group was set up to take forward the recommendations of the report “The Review of Contract Management Arrangements for Social Care and Housing Support Services” and continues to meet as required. Those invited to attend were named in the report to the Policy and Strategy Committee on 6 November 2007.
Question (2) On 6 November 2007 the Policy and Strategy Committee agreed to provide further details on the range of indicators used in the assessment of the quality of service provided by third party organisations. Why have these details not been provided to any Council committee for scrutiny?
Answer (2) The Procurement Risk and Quality Assessment (PRQA) stated the indicators which are used in this process.
Joint indicators have been developed for the service specification for the current Care and Support tender for implementation when new contracts are place. These indicators will be advised to Finance and Resources Committee when the tender is recommended.
Question (3) On 6 November 2007 the Policy and Strategy Committee noted that a further report on self directed support and the implications for providers would be considered by the Council at a later date. Why has that not happened?
35
The City of Edinburgh Council 30 April 2009
Answer (3) A working group is progressing this, with a report planned for Committee in the autumn.
Question (4) Did you arrange for every one of the 772 people with complex needs whose care package is now being tendered to be consulted as to whether or not they wanted the choice of who entered their home to be decided by market tender? If not, why not?
Answer (4) Given the scale of the tender it was not appropriate to conduct a separate discussion with every service user. Views of service users have been sought regarding their satisfaction with the service they receive. This was done through a service user satisfaction survey, a series of focus groups during 2008 and two meetings to progress the Equalities Impact Assessment in December 2008/January 2009.
Question (5) On 6 November 2007 the Policy and Strategy Committee agreed that a Procurement Risk and Quality Assessment would be made in the final year of a social care contract. Was such an assessment made individually for each of the 772 home care contracts now out to tender?
Answer (5) There are not 772 care and support contracts out to tender. The tender is for services currently provided by 52 organisations.
Supplementary Why did the Convener think it was too much trouble to ask Question the folk with complex needs whose support was going to be changed if they wanted themselves to be able to choose who gets into their home?
36
The City of Edinburgh Council 30 April 2009
Supplementary I think I have answered that adequately in the answers to Answer the question. Can I remind Council that this isn’t the first time that there has been tendering for services on this scale? Prior to the election, under Councillor Ewan Aitken’s leadership, the Council Executive agreed to tender Domiciliary Care Services. We didn’t have a Committee system at that time; that was agreed by the Council Executive and the Chair of that Council Executive was Councillor Ewan Aitken. There is a little element of hypocrisy in this. Actually your question drips with hypocrisy. You say one thing in opposition; you do a completely different thing when you are in power. Thank God you are not going to get your hands on that again.
37
The City of Edinburgh Council 30 April 2009
QUESTION NO 11 By Councillor Ewan Aitken answered by the Convener of the Health, Social Care and Housing Committee
Question (1) In the leaflet provided for participants at the "Who gets to choose?" conference held on 15 April 2009 in the City Chambers it states that one of the objectives of tendering services is to "improve the overall quality of the service”:
(a) What work was done to assess the quality of service provided at present, in particular in ways that included the views of those using the service?
(b) What benchmarks of quality were used?
(c) How was that information then used in assessing whether tendering was the best way of improving the quality?
Answer (1) In addition to ongoing monitoring of housing support services, a survey of care at home customers was carried out in 2008. Further consultation with customers was carried out in early 2009 to inform the equality impact assessment.
Findings of this consultation and ongoing monitoring informed the quality criteria and benchmarks set out in the tender documentation. Particular emphasis has been given to customer involvement, meeting key customer outcomes like progress towards independence, improved quality of life and avoidance of homelessness and inappropriate admission to hospital. Tenders are also required to demonstrate how they will ensure effective communication with customers, good performance and punctuality. There is also a strong emphasis on equalities.
Services will, for the first time, be benchmarked in an open and transparent manner against consistent evaluation criteria set out in the tender documentation.
38
The City of Edinburgh Council 30 April 2009
Question (2) The leaflet provided for participants at the "Who gets to choose?" conference held on 15 April 2009 in the City Chambers states that Councils are “not obliged to tender social services".
(a) Who decided that the City of Edinburgh Council would use tendering for care and support services?
(b) Who was present at that meeting?
(c) When those involved made that decision, did they have an equalities impact assessment before them?
(d) In what ways were you involved in that decision?
Answer (2) The Health, Social Care and Housing Committee meeting of 4 February 2008, the Council meeting of 21 February 2008 and the Council Management Team considered the implementation programme on 14 August 2008. You are aware of the members of these groups.
The Equalities Impact Assessment (EIA) could only be undertaken subsequently once it was clear what impact required to be assessed. The EIA was then posted on the Council’s website in February 2009.
Supplementary That is a very interesting answer to the previous question. Question For this question, well first of all you haven’t answered the question I asked because I didn’t ask about monitoring and implementation. I asked about who was there when they took the decision. When we took the decisions, we took the decisions. I asked which Committee decided that the Council should tender contracts such as the one advertised on 12 February. Can you answer that and can you answer whether or not you were actually present at the Committee?
Supplementary Can I draw your attention to Answer (2) and suggest that Answer you see an optometrist and get better glasses so that you can see it properly?
39
The City of Edinburgh Council 30 April 2009
QUESTION NO 12 By Councillor Perry answered by the Convener of the Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee
Question What discussions have been had with a) Lothian Buses, and b) the Scottish Government with regard to the introduction of hybrid buses to Edinburgh?
Answer Lothian Buses consider hybrid drive technology unproven for buses and not commercially viable at this time. Experimental use of hybrid buses elsewhere will, however, be monitored. No discussions have been held with The Scottish Government in this connection.
40
The City of Edinburgh Council 30 April 2009
QUESTION NO 13 By Councillor Perry answered by the Convener of the Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee
Question Please would you list all the maintenance for road, pavement refurbishment and renewal work that is scheduled for the next six months?
Answer Maintenance work is of a responsive nature and it is therefore not possible to predict such work for the next 6 months. It is assumed that the question relates to planned investment in roads and footpaths under the Council’s Capital Programme. Such work is subject to a report to the Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee on 5 May 2009 and is therefore already in the public domain. Subject to the decision of that Committee, and associated consultation, the programme currently being recommended is as detailed in the attached appendix.
41
The City of Edinburgh Council 30 April 2009
Appendix
Scheme Name Scheme Description
Carriageways
Adelphi Place Carriageway from Portobello High Street to end of street. Barnton Park Carriageway whole road Barntongate Avenue Carriageway from number 17 to 1 Barntongate Drive Carriageway whole road Barntongate Terrace Carriageway from Barntongate Avenue to number 10 Bowmont Place St Leonards Street to access to Carnegie Court Braehead Road Footway both sides from Braehead Grove to Whitehead Road Braid Hills Approach Carriageway Braid Hills Rd to No16 Braid Mount - including Braid Mount View, Carriageway Whole Road Braid Mount Crescent and Braid Mount Rise Broomhall Crescent Carriageway from Broomhall Road to Broomhall Place Broomhall Park - Whole Road Carriageway - Whole road Broomhall Terrace Carriageway - Whole road Broomhouse Grove Carriageway - Whole road Broomhouse Row Carriageway - Whole road Buckstone Circle including Buckstone Carriageway - Whole road on each Close and Buckstone Howe street Buckstone Gardens Carriageway Whole Road Buckstone Grove Carriageway Whole Road Buckstone Wood Carriageway Whole Road Buteland Road Carriageway from Haughhead Road to Cockburnhill Road Caiystane Terrace and Caiystane Drive Carriageway - Whole road both streets Cammo Grove Carriageway from road end to Cammo Parkway Camus Road East Carriageway Whole Road Camus Road West Carriageway Whole Road Carrington Road Carriageway Whole road Chancelot Grove Carriageway from Ferry Road to number 4 Charterhall Grove Carriageway From Nos 1&103 to end of cul-de-sac Claremont Gardens (carriageway) Carriageway - Whole Clermiston Crescent Carriageway from Clermiston View to number 111 Comely Bank Avenue 42
The City of Edinburgh Council 30 April 2009
Scheme Name Scheme Description
Comiston Springs Avenue Comiston View including Comiston Grove Carriageway - Whole road both streets Corstorphine Hill Crescent Carriageway - Whole road Corstorphine Hill Road Carriageway - Whole Road Craighall Terrace Carriageway - Whole road Crewe Terrace Carriageway - Whole Road East Camus Place Carriageway - Whole road East Rigg Farm Road Cockburnhill Road to Mansfield Road, selected lengths Essex Road Carriageway - No 1 to No 15 Fernielaw Avenue Carriageway Woodhall Rd to Munro Dr Fords Road Carriageway No45 north-east to rear of No 55 Forth View Road Carriageway - Pentland Place to No 26 Forth View Crescent Carriageway - Curriehill Rd to Forth View Ave Fox Spring Crescent Carriageway - Whole road Glenallan Drive - inc. Cul-de-sac and Carriageway - East side Marmion Cres Glanallan Loan. to No 20 c-d-c both sides & west side No 38 to 94 Gracemount Avenue Carriageway - Gracemount Dr to Lasswade Rd Haughhead Road Carriageway - Whole Road except area at bridge Hutchison Crossway Carriageway - Hutchison Rd to Slateford Rd Kirkliston Road Carriageway - From 11 Ferryburn Green past School Lane to No 18 Lanark Road West (Bryce Rd - Provost Bryce Road to No 59 Lanark Road Haugh) West Leadervale Road Carriageway from No 21/26 to Alnwickhill Rd Main Street Dalmeny Standingstane Road to Muirhouse Avenue Carriageway - Muirhouse Avenue North to Pennywell Road Newmains Road Carriageway - Whole road North Gyle Loan Carriageway from North Gyle Rd to 75m from North Gyle Grove Old Kirk Road Carriageway - Whole Road Orchardhead Road and Orchardhead Carriageway - whole road and inc. Loan Orchardhead Loan - Whole road Paties Road Whole Road Pilton Place Carriageway - Whole road Queens Crescent Carriageway Dalkeith Rd into Burgess Ter Royston Mains Crescent Carriageway - Royston Mains St to 56 43
The City of Edinburgh Council 30 April 2009
Scheme Name Scheme Description
Saughton Mains Gardens Carriageway - Whole road Sighthill Gardens Carriageway - Whole road Sighthill Loan Carriageway - Sighthill Gardens to 105 Sighthill Road 220 Wester Hailes Road to Sighthill Terrace Silverknowes Court Carriageway - Whole road Silverknowes Terrace Carriageway - Whole road Southhouse Terrace Carriageway - Whole road Stewart Terrace - South Queensferry Whole Road Swanston Drive - cul-de-sac Carriageway - Whole of Cul-de-sac Swanston Gardens Carriageway - Whole road Swanston Terrace Carriageway - Whole road The Loan Carriageway - Whole road Traquair Park East Carriageway – No 20 East to junction Walter Scott Avenue Carriageway - From No 11 to square at No 42 to 58 to No 24 and inc Fairford Gardens, whole road West End Place Whole road Whitehouse Road Whole road except south end
Footways
Annfield Footway - south side from No9 to No 38 Baird Road Entrance to Norton House Hotel to Hillend C+F surfacing. - footway Barnton Avenue West Footway - Whole street both sides Brand Gardens Brand Gdns Nos 11 to 13 north side and Brand Dr to Christian Cres south side. Brand Drive No 5 and No 21 Broomhall Bank Footway both sides, whole road Broomhall Park Footway both sides, whole road Broomhall Place Footway north side from Broomhall Crescent to Broomhall Road Bryce Avenue East footway from Wakefield Ave to no 7 and west footway from Bryce Grove to no 44 Caiystane Hill Both sides Caiystane Avenue to Terrace Cammo Grove Phase 1 Footway both sides from Cammo Gardens to south end of Cammo Hill (excluding o/s No 16, 14, 9 and 7) Claremont Gardens (footway) Carriageway - both sides of street Corstorphine Hill Crescent Footway - Whole street both sides Craigmount Avenue North No 31 to no 57 44
The City of Edinburgh Council 30 April 2009
Scheme Name Scheme Description
Crewe Terrace Footway west of Crewe Grove both sides, whole road Davidson Road Footway - Grigor Avenue to Crewe Road South, north side Drum Brae Drive Clermiston Gardens to Crescent Eyre Place Lane Footway west side Eyre Pl to No 2 Eyre Pl Lane Featherhall Terrace and Featherhall Place Footway - south side of street from No 6 going west to Featherhall Avenue end on north side from the Avenue into Featherhall Place on west side No 11. Gracemount Avenue No 19 to 55 and South Burnhead Grove to Little Road Hamilton Grove, Gardens Hamilton Gardens East side, round Hamilton Grove to No 5 Hawkhill Avenue Albion Place No 43 to 49, 19 to sub station, and Hawkhill Ave No.26 north side. Albion Place No 26 to 34, Lockhart Church, access to football ground, and Hawkhill Ave at Adult Education Centre, south side John's Lane Whole lane west side Kingston Avenue Both sides from No 2 to 30 Lampacre Road East side from No 1 to 31 and West side from Meadowhouse Road to Carrick Knowe Drive Learmonth Crescent (footway) Nos 14 to 22 west side, and 5 to 39 east side Lindsay Road / North Fort Street Both sides Lockharton Crescent Footway Sth East side from Lockharton Gdns to Lockharton Ave Lower Granton Road Nos 114 to 12, south side Meadowfield Drive Footway - West side, Duddingston Rd West to No.13 and East side, Duddingston Rd West to No 55 Lady Nairn Crescent Newton Street Footway - Whole of East side Oxgangs Loan North footway to no 45 and south footway to no 44. 45
The City of Edinburgh Council 30 April 2009
Scheme Name Scheme Description
Oxgangs Park / Rise Oxgangs Park, both sides from Oxgangs Row to Oxgangs Rise. Oxgangs Park, south footway from no 2 to no 8 and Oxgangs Street from Oxgangs Row to no 2 Oxgangs Park. Oxgangs Rise, east side from no 9 to Oxgangs Park and west side from Oxgangs Park to Oxgangs Portland Street Footway Section on East Side at Commercial St and West side at 30-42 and 56 Prince Regent Street Madeira Street to North Junction Street, both sides Regent Road Phase 1, 2 & 3 Footway - Whole street Saughtonhall Avenue West Footway both sides whole road Silverknowes Court Phase 1 Footway outside radius whole length, both sides from Silverknowes Rd to Eastway Silverknowes Court Phase 2 Footway - South end of street on both sides South Fort Street Ferry Road to Pitt Street, west side South Laverockbank Avenue East footway, Craighall Road to no 64 - West footway Craighall Road to Mayville Gardens East St. Clair Street No.18 to 20 southwest side, depot northeast side at No 26 Hawkhill Avenue St. Mary's Place Whole road both sides Stewart Terrace - Loch Road - South Whole street both sides Queensferry Succoth Park Footway - South side from No 1 to 37 and North side at Succoth Court. Sunbury Street Whole street west side Wardieburn Road East footway from Wardieburn Place West to Wardieburn Terrace West Bowling Green Street Anderson Place to The Quilts, both sides.
46
The City of Edinburgh Council 30 April 2009
QUESTION NO 14 By Councillor Hinds answered by the Convener of the Education, Children and Families Committee
Question (1) Following lobbing by the local community and users of Warriston Playing Fields a feasibility study was carried out for the Fields. This study was to report on the feasibility of combining the three existing buildings on the Warriston Playing Fields. What was the cost of this study and when was it published?
Answer (2) City Development commissioned the feasibility study, at a cost of £8k, which was published in June 2007.
Question (2) Following the publication of this study what action was taken by officials or elected members to carry out the recommendations?
Answer (2) The then Director of City Development (Andrew Holmes) wrote to the Chief Executive on 17 August 2007 to confirm that the 2007-10 Capital Programme was fully committed and it was unlikely that any work would be undertaken in the near future.
City Development investigated the possibility of selling a piece of land at the north of the site at Howard Place and ring-fencing the receipt from the sale to invest in the new facilities. This was not acceptable in planning terms.
Question (3) What consultation was undertaken with the local community and service users?
Answer (3) Consultation was carried out with Warriston Tennis Club, Warriston Crescent Residents Association and Northern Bowling Club as part of the feasibility study. In addition, a meeting with the four ward Councillors and representatives from Warriston Community Tennis Club took place on 20 November 2007.
47
The City of Edinburgh Council 30 April 2009
Question (4) An initial £30,000 was earmarked for Warriston Playing Fields. Was this money spent or was it removed from the budget? What resources are included in this year’s budget and future years’ budgets?
Answer (4) Council approved a review of the Children and Families Capital Investment Programme in 2007 which excluded the £30k allocation.
There is currently no budget allocation for the refurbishment or replacement of the pavilions at Warriston.
Question (5) The condition of the existing pavilion is poor and it is covered in graffiti, when will it be repainted and upgraded?
Answer (5) The pavilion painting, including a specialist anti-graffiti coating, was completed on 23 April 2009, which followed on from the day-to-day repairs carried out in the previous financial year (2008/09).
Supplementary I am grateful to the Convener for the answer, on the Question Warriston area, and not just the pavilions but the playing fields and the disused tennis courts. The pavilions are in very poor condition and as I understand it were to be considered as one of the pavilions to be upgraded. As you will remember there was a great deal of lobbying of this Council to invest in pavilions. We spent money on an investment to find out what improvements could be carried out at Warriston Playing Fields. An £8,000 study was carried out with recommendations and was published. This has now sat on the shelf and I think the local community are concerned about this. In Answer (4) you say there is currently no budget allocation for the refurbishment or replacement of pavilions at Warriston. Does that mean that in the foreseeable future there is no investment for the pavilions or are there no proposals for investment and improvements in Warriston Playing Fields altogether in the foreseeable future?
Supplementary We did in fact put money into the budget specifically for Answer pavilions and playing fields but obviously there has to be a prioritisation within that and that is exactly what is happening now and Warriston will be part of that prioritisation exercise.
48
The City of Edinburgh Council 30 April 2009
QUESTION NO 15 By Councillor Godzik answered by the Convener of the Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee
Question (1) What percentage of Interchange bus stops now have real time information?
Question (2) Please identify where and for what reason ‘bustracker’ systems have not been installed at all Interchange stops?
Question (3) What action is being taken to ensure that all Interchange bus stops have a bustracker, and when will this be completed?
Answer This Administration is committed to providing Bustracker real time information at interchange bus stops to help increase bus travel by giving passengers confidence in the reliability of Edinburgh’s award-winning bus service. 80% (39 of 49) of ‘interchange’ stops currently have Bustracker.
Of the remaining ten stops:
five (two at Princes Mall and three on Lothian Road) do not have Bustracker installed due to the shallow depth of footway and difficulties obtaining a suitable power supply. Alternative solutions are under investigation;
three (Queensferry Street) will be considered once the tram works are complete;
one (Tollcross – outside the Cameo cinema) awaits a decision on whether the bus stop is to be moved to facilitate a new bus shelter; and
one (Meadow Place Road) is predominantly set down rather than pick up.
49
The City of Edinburgh Council 30 April 2009
Supplementary Can I ask the Convener, given the concern from the Question Tollcross community specifically on the very busy bus stop outside the Cameo Cinema, if he can keep me updated on the progress of that site?
Supplementary Yes. Answer 50
The City of Edinburgh Council 30 April 2009
QUESTION NO 16 By Councillor Godzik answered by the Convener of the Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee
Question (1) What action is being taken to reduce littering in Edinburgh’s streets?
Answer (1) There has been a clear trend of improvement in street cleansing performance under the current Administration with the city achieving its best ever average yearly CIMS (Cleanliness Index Monitoring Survey) score (70) in 2008/2009 compared with an average score of 67 in 2006/07.
A full analysis and benchmarking exercise for the Task Force (Street Cleansing) service was completed in 2008 to lay the foundations for a full service review.
Following this review, resources have been re-allocated within Services for Communities to support service improvements in the areas with the lowest CIMS scores. A full description of the action taken is provided in a report to be considered by the Council’s Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee on 5 May 2009 which details, on an area basis, the allocation of additional resources to meet local requirements.
Question (2) What approach has been taken to the issuing of fixed penalty notices for littering?
Answer (2) The issuing of a Fixed Penalty Notice is the first consideration to each and every littering offence witnessed by two persons. On some occasions, such as foreign visitors to the city, offenders may benefit from an advisory warning or caution and discretion will be used by the Environmental Wardens where necessary.
Question (3) What specific action is being taken to reduce littering around schools?
51
The City of Edinburgh Council 30 April 2009
Answer (3) Each team of Environmental Wardens carries out regular lunchtime patrols around high schools. These patrols are often supported by the local Neighbourhood Action Units and Community Support Officers aiding the identification of individuals responsible for littering.
It is currently the practice to issue a warning to a school child aged under 16 followed up by an advisory letter to the parent or guardian of that child.
Environmental Wardens have also attended schools to work with the pupils to encourage positive behaviour. Roadshows highlighting the problems of littering in the area have also been set up at parents’ evenings to encourage support from the parents/guardians and generate more positive behaviour.
Other examples of proactive working include the West Neighbourhood approaching all food premises in proximity to local high schools to give appropriate advice in respect of the provision of litter bins by the businesses; on staff carrying out street litter control; and, on advertising posters highlighting the problem of littering in the area.
Supplementary The Convener will be aware of the great concern about Question litter in the Meadows and Bruntsfield Links especially with regards to schoolchildren and over the weekend. There is also great concern over the lack of enforcement action in Edinburgh especially when compared to the enforcement action taken in Glasgow. There is a great contrast where in Glasgow over 11,000 fines – Fixed Penalty Notices – have been issued. Can I ask the Convener why there is such a discrepancy between the enforcement regimes in the two major cities in this country?
Supplementary Unlike the Labour Party we measure the success of our Answer by policies not on the number of fines we impose on the Councillor citizens of Edinburgh but on the actual outcomes of the Aldridge actions that we take. The outcome of the actions we have taken is that our streets are as clean as they have ever been, that the average independently assessed scores for the cleanliness of our streets and littering show that under the last two years of the Labour Administration they were 66-67 and under us 69 and 70, so a clear improvement. What we are doing is working.
52
The City of Edinburgh Council 30 April 2009
On the imposition of Fixed Penalty Notices, I think perhaps you should look at the number of notices last year which Glasgow imposed which is substantially less than the year before and from that the number of those fines which were actually paid. If, for example, you look at dog fouling in Glasgow, you will note that in the year 2008-2009 Glasgow imposed across the whole city a total of three Fixed Penalty Notices of which one was paid.
53
The City of Edinburgh Council 30 April 2009
QUESTION NO 17 By Councillor Godzik answered by the Convener of the Culture and Leisure Committee
Question What progress has been made in providing children in Edinburgh with “free year-round access to council swimming pools” and what discussions has the Council had with the Scottish Government on this matter?
Answer Edinburgh has had “free year–round access” to swimming pools for children of primary school age since 2003.
Supplementary Does the Convener recognise that the common definition Question of children extends beyond that of pupils attending primary school? She will, of course, be aware of the SNP’s Manifesto commitment to provide free swimming to all children and in that regard can she outline what action has been taken to extend free swimming to all children and will she outline what discussions she has had with the Scottish Government on this matter?
Supplementary Approximately 60,000 children across Edinburgh already Answer benefit from free access to swimming pools. It is a shame your colleague Frank McAveety, MSP, chose to ignore this fact along with the efforts of other Scottish Local Authorities in his rush to grab himself some extra headlines with a press release recycled, as I understand it, for the fourth time. Given that we are already quite far ahead of the game in Edinburgh, it has not featured in discussions with the government yet. Edinburgh Leisure, the Trust I would remind Councillor Godzik that is responsible for running our leisure services, is always considering ways and is considering ways that it might increase provision for children in Edinburgh. I am sure that as a Board Member of Edinburgh Leisure, Councillor Godzik looks forward to hearing more of this in the future.
54
The City of Edinburgh Council 30 April 2009
QUESTION NO 18 By Councillor Godzik answered by the Convener of the Culture and Leisure Committee
Question What consultation took place with you or the Head of Sport and Physical Activity prior to the announcement that Primary Schools would be closed for lets on Thursday evenings?
Answer The proposal to close primary schools on Thursday evenings was one of a range of measures discussed with the Budget Review Group and was subsequently approved by Council.
Supplementary I have an e-mail that I received from a very senior Council Question official from the Sports Department that stated that she had not been informed of the change in letting agreements. Given that physical activity in the city is a key concern and indeed we have a very ambitious target, is this a case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing in this Administration?
Supplementary I am sure that the principal reason for Councillor Godzik’s Answer question is a genuine concern for the user groups affected. Therefore, I would draw your attention please to the minute of the Education, Children and Families Committee of 17 March 2009 where Councillors MacLaren and Beckett called for a report on all school lets and for an interim report looking at the immediate pressing issues regarding the provision of sporting activities. I understand that Children and Families has been in close and continuous contact with user groups in order to minimise disruption as far as possible.
55
The City of Edinburgh Council 30 April 2009
QUESTION NO 19 By Councillor Henderson answered by the Convener of the Education, Children and Families Committee
Question (1) How many members of staff within Community Learning and Development are currently on temporary contracts of employment?
Question (2) What steps are being taken to maximise the opportunities, where possible, to offer staff permanent contracts?
Answer There are 1,410 staff currently employed in Community Learning and Development on temporary contracts. 1,357 of these are on short term sessional contracts because of the nature of the work. The remaining 53 staff are on temporary contracts for a variety of reasons, but primarily because of short term funding. These temporary posts are kept under review and where funding becomes sustainable, we seek to make such posts permanent.
56
The City of Edinburgh Council 30 April 2009
QUESTION NO 20 By Councillor Henderson answered by the Convener of the Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee
Question How many "on the spot" fines have been issued for dog fouling in Edinburgh in the last 12 months?
Please provide figures broken down by ward.
Answer Ward Fixed Penalty Notices 1 Almond 9 2 Pentland Hills 0 3 Drum Brae/Gyle 7 4 Forth 22 5 Inverleith 2 6 Corstorphine/Murrayfield 12 7 Sighthill/Gorgie 20 8 Colinton/Fairmilehead 2 9 Fountainbridge/Craiglockhart 0 10 Meadows/Morningside 1 11 City Centre 4 12 Leith Walk 9 13 Leith 6 14 Craigentinny/Duddingston 6 15 Southside/Newington 3 16 Liberton/Gilmerton 17 17 Portobello/Craigmillar 18 Total 138
57
The City of Edinburgh Council 30 April 2009
Supplementary Councillor Aldridge has now told us twice in this Chamber Question that our streets are as clean as they have ever been. This will come as news to the residents of Currie and Balerno many of whom have been lobbying me for some time now, including schoolchildren from Dean Park Primary about dog fouling in that area, and I will ensure that his quote makes it into the pages of the next Currie and Balerno News and I will invite residents to give me their opinions on whether or not the streets are as clean as they have ever been.
Given that these issues have been reported and we now know that no Fixed Penalty Fines have been issued at all in the Pentland Hills Ward in the last 12 months, can the Vice-Convener tell us when the residents of Pentland Hills can enjoy a service that appears to be delivered elsewhere in the city?
Supplementary It is not my opinion that the streets are as clean as they Answer by have ever been; it is the independent assessment through Councillor CIMS which is showing that our streets are as clean as Aldridge they have ever been. I am not one to over-claim; I am depending on others’ assessment of our streets and I am sure everyone will be able to identify hot spots which are not as clean as they should be and there are always areas for improvement.
The issue with Fixed Penalty Notices, particularly for dog fouling, is that the wardens have to be there at the time of the offence and it has to be witnessed. I was as interested as you were in seeing the variation in the number of fines across the different wards and I am currently looking into why that should be. So, I thank you for asking the question because I think it shows up some interesting details and we will get behind those figures but certainly every ward in the city is getting a fair share of resources to enable the streets to remain as clean as they can be.
58
The City of Edinburgh Council 30 April 2009
QUESTION NO 21 By Councillor Munro answered by the Convener of the Finance and Resources Committee
Question (1) How much revenue does the Council receive in business rates from landlords operating short-term lets?
Question (2) How much revenue does the Council receive in Council Tax from landlords operating short-term lets?
Answer The Council does not maintain a separate register of landlords operating short-term lets and the duration of current lets is not known or held on Council systems. It has therefore not been possible to provide the information requested by Councillor Munro.
Supplementary I know that when speaking to Danny Gallacher from Question Revenues and Benefits this week this was a new area for the department to look at. Would the Convener ask the Head of Revenues and Benefits to convene a Cross- Departmental Working Group to look at how we can actually compile a register of these groups because it is an issue, not just for myself in the Leith Ward and Western Harbour, but I know it is an issue of particular concern within the City Centre with regards to short-term lets and whether these people are actually contributing to either Council Tax for the rates for the premises or business rates for the premises that are being used for short-term lets. Would he undertake to ask for that group to meet?
Supplementary I thank Councillor Munro for the question and for the Answer information that he has provided to the department on the number of lets which appear to be causing concern for residents and indeed in some cases not paying non- domestic rates. There will be further work done on that. I think, as far as his suggestion goes, it is certainly worthy of consideration and I will take it up with the officers to see whether that is the best way forward.
59
The City of Edinburgh Council 30 April 2009
QUESTION NO 22 By Councillor Munro answered by the Convener of the Health, Social Care and Housing Committee
Question (1) How many users currently use Bonnington Resource Centre?
Answer (1) 22.
Question (2) When is Bonnington Resource Centre scheduled to close?
Answer (2) We anticipate that the centre will close at the end of 2009 when all the service users have an agreed new service.
Supplementary Bonnington Resource Centre is a purpose-built facility. Question What is the Administration’s intent with this building post closure?
Supplementary To date we don’t have any settled plans for that building Answer but once we do have them I can assure you that you will be kept in the loop on that and consulted, ideally before anything else happens.
60
The City of Edinburgh Council 30 April 2009
QUESTION NO 23 By Councillor Burgess answered by the Leader of the Council
Question (1) What is the Administration doing to achieve the goal of reducing the city’s carbon footprint to a zero carbon economy by 2050?
Answer (1) This Administration is committed to achieving exacting targets set to ensure that good environmental practice is at the core of all of our policies to preserve resources for future generations. The Council is also participating in the Local Authority Carbon Management Programme with the Carbon Trust to help gain carbon savings emissions. Further details can be found under sustainable development on the Council’s website.
The Council is actively pursuing a number of initiatives to gain carbon emissions savings with developers and the Edinburgh Standards for Sustainable Buildings. An increasing number of community groups have also received funding from the Climate Challenge Fund to undertake a range of projects to reduce carbon in their communities. Other policies, such as the Tram Project, will also be carbon neutral.
Question (2) Will the Administration bring forward a strategy aimed at delivering this goal?
Answer (2) A draft Energy Strategy for the city is being developed, with an outline framework due to be presented to the Climate Change Cross Party Working Group in the autumn.
Supplementary My concern is the answer reveals that the Administration’s Question approach to tackling the city’s climate change emissions is fairly piecemeal and only addresses the Council’s emissions rather than emissions city-wide. Does the Leader recognise that if the Administration is serious about the goal of reducing the city’s carbon footprint that her Administration needs to have a city-wide strategy towards achieving this and the energy strategy referred to in the 61
The City of Edinburgh Council 30 April 2009
answer is not that strategy? Would the Leader also agree that if the Council had such a strategy in place it would mean that current climate wrecking policies, such as actively supporting airport expansion and new budget airline routes, would be properly scrutinised against the carbon reduction goal and I ask again will the administration bring forward such a strategy?
Supplementary I don’t think anybody can doubt how seriously this Answer Administration takes both the global and local implications of climate change and the social, environmental and economic costs that there are both to the city and globally as well. What is in my answer is what the Council is doing, as you quite rightly point out. However, I fully appreciate that we need to have everybody else out there in the city buying into that agenda as well and certainly through the Edinburgh Business Assembly, where Brendan Dick takes a very strong line on moving towards a zero carbon economy. We are in discussions with people. We have been in discussions with the Chamber of Commerce and certainly over the years we will be working closely with every other individual and organisation in this city to ensure that we do reach what I am sure you will agree is a very ambitious target but one that we realise we do have to meet.
W2/CC/CEC300409/CE